NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had read the actual verses... then perhaps you would have understood where I was coming from. However, since you did not:

Luke 20:20-26
Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesor or not?"
He saw through their duplicity and said to them, "Those me a denarious. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Hesaid to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Also, if you would like to read the same story... but do not Luke's Gospel... Mark 12:13-17 is the same story.

I hope that answers whether or not I agree with paying taxes or not...


It supports both the paying of taxes and the secular pledge of allegiance, apparently. Your temporal loyalty is to your country, your spiritual loyalty is to god.

A nonreligious pledge is not to be recited in church, but rather in government schools.

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

This is the original Pledge of Allegiance. It should be changed back to its original wording.




Edit: In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

The Pledge of Allegiance A Short History (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm)

First off, I find that offensive. You're calling me a liar about my religion. Secondly, I offered Romans 13... which was written by Paul. You're prideful and self-righteous about your religion. I believe you should wipe the plank from your own eye before telling me to get the speck from mine.

Secondly, you want more? Luke 20:25b "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." To me, that speaks true enough. If I were to say, "Whose am I?" I would answer, "I am God's." And to pledge allegiance to something that doesn't recognize at least His sovereignty, then I would betray my religion.

The original pledge was written by a minister -- and he didn't feel the "under God" was necessary.

But you are the one being unreasonable here. If a Christian truly cannot say the Pledge without saying "under God," then why was there no "under God" in the Pledge until it was added in 1954? No one then argued it was necessary because otherwise Christians couldn't say the Pledge.

Regardless, put yourself in the shoes of someone not of Judeo-Christian faith. To paraphrase you, to pledge allegiance to something that requires I recognize the sovereignty of God betrays my religion.

If you claims are true, we cannot have an official Pledge without "under God" because it violates some religions. It also clear is contrary to some religions to include "under God." Accordingly, we cannot have an official Pledge.

Originally posted by New Grandpa

It supports both the paying of taxes and the secular pledge of allegiance, apparently. Your temporal loyalty is to your country, your spiritual loyalty is to god.

A nonreligious pledge is not to be recited in church, but rather in government schools.

Okay, no it doesn't. Not there. It supports giving taxes because taxes deal with money, money is a secular ideal, not a Christian ideal. Because of that, and because it is a government foundation we have to pay it. That passage doesn't say I have to pledge my allegiance. My allegiance is to whom I choose. The government doesn't own my allegiance. My loyalty to my country is not secular. Not in my mindset. I don't think in the terms, "My secular mind, my Godly mind." Not in moral issues. Morality, to me, is Godly. And thus, my loyalty can only stem from God. It says in the Bible "do not swear, let your yes mean yes and your no mean no." Thus, my Pledge is Godly in foundation because it takes that principle of, "I will honour my word because it is as God's word."

A nonreligious pledge is not to be recited at all, unless you are an athiest or antitheist or whomever you are that does not believe/care for/worship anything religiously. To everyone else, their religion is important because it is pretty much their foundation on principle. I believe that the Pledge shouldn't be mandatory, and shouldn't be modified. No one should have their allegiance chosen for them, and no one should be forced to lie if their allegiance lies elsewhere. The point I care to make, more than about God or not, is that it shouldn't be mandatory so that people could chose to say it or not. Furthermore, it's a guideline to swearing allegiance, and saying it specifically is like saying the Lord's Prayer repeatedly. Sure, it's a good idea, but Jesus said, "This is how you should pray." Not, "This is the only prayer you shall ever utter." So, what's the big deal with saying it exactly as it's stated? None. Just some hard-up old Christian fools won't drop it. My stand is, say it how you want to, it's not a big deal... there's no need to change it because people modify it mentally anyway.

The Cat-Tribe... just read my last post, the last paragraph. Just cross-counterpoint it to you, too. I just saw your post.

I don't, and never did, say that the Pledge is mandatory. I just said it shouldn't be changed. If someone wants to say it differently, let them. But I was offering, for those people who have it hard, a way to think of the word "God" without applied a Judeo-Christian God to it (i.e. To Muslims, Allah; to Hindus, a house god or major pantheonic god).

New Grandpa.(snip)


Why did you change my name in the quote to "New Grandpa" ??

-laughs- Oh wow... -_- I feel dumb. Just... it looked like Grandpa to me for some odd reason. Uhm... I'll just mentally edit that.

The Cat-Tribe... just read my last post, the last paragraph. Just cross-counterpoint it to you, too. I just saw your post.

I don't, and never did, say that the Pledge is mandatory. I just said it shouldn't be changed. If someone wants to say it differently, let them. But I was offering, for those people who have it hard, a way to think of the word "God" without applied a Judeo-Christian God to it (i.e. To Muslims, Allah; to Hindus, a house god or major pantheonic god).


If, as you say, people will "modify" it, then why include the "under god" addition?

And the pledge is not mandatory as it is, but school is an inherantly coercive environment for children.

It is conceivable, as I have mentioned, that the court could rule that the pledge is fine in itself, but that it is unconstitutional to recite it in schools.

Which I would not protest to. Because it's a compromise on the matter. As I'd stated earlier... if you're not Judeo-Christian, the "God" sworn to will not be Yahweh because your mindset will not be such. You will pledge to what you know.

However, I believe that, even if it's declared unconstitutional to recite in schools... it should still be there somewhere. Otherwise it'll just disappear. I think the Pledge is just something good to know, to understand that we live in a Republic nation, that we make it optional to pledge allegiance... and just 'cause it's kind of a good thing in general.

Which I would not protest to. Because it's a compromise on the matter. As I'd stated earlier... if you're not Judeo-Christian, the "God" sworn to will not be Yahweh because your mindset will not be such. You will pledge to what you know.

However, I believe that, even if it's declared unconstitutional to recite in schools... it should still be there somewhere. Otherwise it'll just disappear. I think the Pledge is just something good to know, to understand that we live in a Republic nation, that we make it optional to pledge allegiance... and just 'cause it's kind of a good thing in general.


Out of curiosity, is the National Anthem objectionable? It makes no mention whatsoever of god.

No. It's a song of pride and praise. Not of pledging allegiance. I'm very prideful about my country. So I feel justified in singing it. -shrugs- It's just pledging myself to a country and not involving my God that I cannot do.

The Cat-Tribe... just read my last post, the last paragraph. Just cross-counterpoint it to you, too. I just saw your post.

I don't, and never did, say that the Pledge is mandatory. I just said it shouldn't be changed. If someone wants to say it differently, let them. But I was offering, for those people who have it hard, a way to think of the word "God" without applied a Judeo-Christian God to it (i.e. To Muslims, Allah; to Hindus, a house god or major pantheonic god).

But it has been changed and there are those who are trying to change it again. As I stated in a previous post, the pledge should be changed back to its original wording.

Out of curiosity, is the National Anthem objectionable? It makes no mention whatsoever of god.

No, the National Anthem is not objectionable. The same should go for The Pledge of Allegiance. In other words: remove under god from pledge.

But it has been changed and there are those who are trying to change it again. As I stated in a previous post, the pledge should be changed back to its original wording.

Okay, we've been through that argument before you were here. As I said, in today's child's mind (and many adults) we have always had "under God" in there. Sure, we know it wasn't there before... but that's still just a change. We shouldn't really bother with changing it. Just not say it in schools if you want anything. It's a compromise. Keep it as it is, but don't say it in schools.

Which I would not protest to. Because it's a compromise on the matter. As I'd stated earlier... if you're not Judeo-Christian, the "God" sworn to will not be Yahweh because your mindset will not be such. You will pledge to what you know.

What about religions without a god? I've mentioned several already. Buddhism (atheistic), Taoism (atheistic), Confucianism (atheistic), LaVeyan Satanism (atheistic), Shintoism (has spirits, not gods), and Wicca (has a Goddess).

Okay, we've been through that argument before you were here. As I said, in today's child's mind (and many adults) we have always had "under God" in there. Sure, we know it wasn't there before... but that's still just a change. We shouldn't really bother with changing it. Just not say it in schools if you want anything. It's a compromise. Keep it as it is, but don't say it in schools.
Eh, why not in schools? Aren't schools supposed to prepare our children for the society that we face everyday? I think shielding them from religious fundamentalism that is so very present in, for instance, the Pledge won't improve their ability to function in a society that is permeated with christianity. Besides, when they're home and watch tv they'll still hear the president say it, so as long as it's in there, they'll hear it. So, if you're so concerned about the children, remove it all together.

Out of curiosity, is the National Anthem objectionable? It makes no mention whatsoever of god.

Yes it does...

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


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


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


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

I didn't read the whole thread, so sorry if I'm repeating, but:

That phrase of the Declaration was intended to keep Athiest Russians from coming to the US and contaminating us.

Yes it does...

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


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


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


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

I have never heard that last stanza sung, in my entire life.

What about religions without a god? I've mentioned several already. Buddhism (atheistic), Taoism (atheistic), Confucianism (atheistic), LaVeyan Satanism (atheistic), Shintoism (has spirits, not gods), and Wicca (has a Goddess).


I have already offered the alternative thought for the word "God" and provided a definition of the very word. God means, simply, your highest state of belief.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

The second and third definitions. Apply to all parties mentioned. Atheistical religions subscribe to a supreme value or idea (as does Shinto), and Wicca has a "goddess" which is merely a feminine form of the word "god" which is a neuter word anyway. Therefore, saying "god" shouldn't be offensive to them because it does not depict any gender of their supreme being, and thus they can decidedly give it their feminine characteristics without having to modify a word.

Eh, why not in schools? Aren't schools supposed to prepare our children for the society that we face everyday? I think shielding them from religious fundamentalism that is so very present in, for instance, the Pledge won't improve their ability to function in a society that is permeated with christianity. Besides, when they're home and watch tv they'll still hear the president say it, so as long as it's in there, they'll hear it. So, if you're so concerned about the children, remove it all together.

I have given so many previous arguments about how it won't affect children of religious families in a dramatic sense because their family will explain to them how it works. As I've stated already, "A Muslim child will think of Allah when saying the word God." The other children will cope with it. If people want a compromise about the Pledge, I say remove it from schools because that's the controversy. Neither side wins, and yet both get what they want. And, I also said, it should still be present in schools, just not recited. That way they can understand what it is anyway. I believe that every child will still come into contact with Christianity during their lives anyway, so whether or not we remove this one item their lives will not be changed dramatically.

Yeah, most people haven't heard the last stanza sung...........


But i'm not completely sure, but someone made the point that a real christian wouldn't try and force our religion down other people throats(if that was directed towards me this is how i'm going to answer that)

1. Personally, if you don't want to be a christian, that's you, i'm not going to look down on you or beat you up just because your not a christian. Now, i will tell you the sad truth that there are some hypocrite christians that will, but there are ALOT like me too, that won't push christianity down your throat.

2. My stand on wanting "Under God" to stay in the pledge isn't just out of me being a christian, but also just me as a U.S. citizen(if you question it, look at the 14th amendment!) I believe just like someone else mentioned, if you don't believe in God then why should it offend you. It should be just another word, like Under, One, I, To, Our, or Stands. By showing how much it bothers you, shows there's something about that name. Your giving power to it, and if i'm correct, to you that's opposite to what you believe.

Yeah, most people haven't heard the last stanza sung...........


But i'm not completely sure, but someone made the point that a real christian wouldn't try and force our religion down other people throats(if that was directed towards me this is how i'm going to answer that)

1. Personally, if you don't want to be a christian, that's you, i'm not going to look down on you or beat you up just because your not a christian. Now, i will tell you the sad truth that there are some hypocrite christians that will, but there are ALOT like me too, that won't push christianity down your throat.
Thanx! I wish there were more people like you.

2. My stand on wanting "Under God" to stay in the pledge isn't just out of me being a christian, but also just me as a U.S. citizen(if you question it, look at the 14th amendment!) I believe just like someone else mentioned, if you don't believe in God then why should it offend you. It should be just another word, like Under, One, I, To, Our, or Stands. By showing how much it bothers you, shows there's something about that name. Your giving power to it, and if i'm correct, to you that's opposite to what you believe.
Well, the word 'God' in itself doesn't offend me, it's the meaning given to it by the group of fundamentalist Chistians you're not a part of. Plus, it excludes people who don't recognise any god whatsoever. It's like having your nose pressed down in the fact that all the 'normal' people do believe in God. And while I am mature enough to not let that bother me, I can imagine it does bother some, if not a lot of people, which is pretty wrong when we realise it is the national pledge of allegiance we're talking about here.

Well, the word 'God' in itself doesn't offend me, it's the meaning given to it by the group of fundamentalist Chistians you're not a part of. Plus, it excludes people who don't recognise any god whatsoever. It's like having your nose pressed down in the fact that all the 'normal' people do believe in God. And while I am mature enough to not let that bother me, I can imagine it does bother some, if not a lot of people, which is pretty wrong when we realise it is the national pledge of allegiance we're talking about here.


This is precisely the reasoning that informed prayer-in-school cases.

School, the court decided, is an 'inherantly coercive environment' and it deprives people of their right to free exercize and violates the prohibition of establishment to advocate religion in a school setting.

I have already offered the alternative thought for the word "God" and provided a definition of the very word. God means, simply, your highest state of belief.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

The second and third definitions. Apply to all parties mentioned. Atheistical religions subscribe to a supreme value or idea (as does Shinto), and Wicca has a "goddess" which is merely a feminine form of the word "god" which is a neuter word anyway. Therefore, saying "god" shouldn't be offensive to them because it does not depict any gender of their supreme being, and thus they can decidedly give it their feminine characteristics without having to modify a word.
It's not just about personal meanings of the word god, it's about intended meanings as well. Do you really believe that when Bush recites it people understand automatically that that statement could be applied to any god(dess)((e)s)? We all know, since he so blatantly informes us every single time he speaks publicly, that he means the christian god, who/which is male in his and I believe most christians eyes. If someone who believes that states "under god", it really means "under my one and only male, christian god".
I have given so many previous arguments about how it won't affect children of religious families in a dramatic sense because their family will explain to them how it works. As I've stated already, "A Muslim child will think of Allah when saying the word God." The other children will cope with it. If people want a compromise about the Pledge, I say remove it from schools because that's the controversy. Neither side wins, and yet both get what they want. And, I also said, it should still be present in schools, just not recited. That way they can understand what it is anyway. I believe that every child will still come into contact with Christianity during their lives anyway, so whether or not we remove this one item their lives will not be changed dramatically.
Not if you don't remove it from the pledge, no. But if you do, it might change things for some people. I say we either remove it, or have our kids say it in school. And if it's mandatory to say the pledge in school, then saying under god should be mandatory as well. Let them know as soon as possible that most people in this country believe in a god and think you're insane if you don't.

This is precisely the reasoning that informed prayer-in-school cases.

School, the court decided, is an 'inherantly coercive environment' and it deprives people of their right to free exercize and violates the prohibition of establishment to advocate religion in a school setting.
So if that is the reason why there aren't any prayers in school anymore, then why doesn't anyone extend that policy to the Pledge? Seems pretty logical to me...

So if that is the reason why there aren't any prayers in school anymore, then why doesn't anyone extend that policy to the Pledge? Seems pretty logical to me...

A year from now it well may.

It's not just about personal meanings of the word god, it's about intended meanings as well. Do you really believe that when Bush recites it people understand automatically that that statement could be applied to any god(dess)((e)s)? We all know, since he so blatantly informes us every single time he speaks publicly, that he means the christian god, who/which is male in his and I believe most christians eyes. If someone who believes that states "under god", it really means "under my one and only male, christian god".

Not if you don't remove it from the pledge, no. But if you do, it might change things for some people. I say we either remove it, or have our kids say it in school. And if it's mandatory to say the pledge in school, then saying under god should be mandatory as well. Let them know as soon as possible that most people in this country believe in a god and think you're insane if you don't.

Yes, when he says it he speaks of the Christian God. But if my Muslim friend says "God" I know he means Allah. Each of us who speaks the word "god" generally refers to our own patron deity. That is why it is so important to understand that it is your viewpoint on the matter. When I speak it, I mean Yahweh. When someone else speaks it, they could mean Shiva, Allah, or Ra for all I know and/or care.

It won't change, I meant, the fact that people will always confront those who shove one's religion down everyone elses' throats. If we remove it, we're just removing two words that do no harm to anyone. If we keep it there, we make the majority of America happy. Furthermore, most people do not care if a person believe in a god or not. Most Christians don't push God down anyone's throat. I hope you don't percieve me that way, as I'm not trying to force it on anyone. My belief on the situation is that it's just going to really piss off people if we take it out, but my personal belief on the matter is it should be kept in there because of reasons aforementioned. I just think it's a good idea to pledge allegiance. The word "God" is a personal understanding anyway, just it's been capitalized because Christians are the majority of America. Each person's pledge is personal because of arguments I've stated in a previous argument.

Look at it, if not... I'm really damned lazy.

Okay, we've been through that argument before you were here. As I said, in today's child's mind (and many adults) we have always had "under God" in there. Sure, we know it wasn't there before... but that's still just a change. We shouldn't really bother with changing it. Just not say it in schools if you want anything. It's a compromise. Keep it as it is, but don't say it in schools.

So your basically saying, fuck the atheists?

So your basically saying, fuck the atheists?

-sighs- No. That is why I wanted you to read my old arguments. Furthermore, the word "god" means "supreme value" as well, and because it does, most atheists subscribe to a supreme value--be it religious or moral--and can substitute that meaning of the word.

-sighs- No. That is why I wanted you to read my old arguments. Furthermore, the word "god" means "supreme value" as well, and because it does, most atheists subscribe to a supreme value--be it religious or moral--and can substitute that meaning of the word.
why not say "under supreme value" then? Why must the atheists have to find a way to define differently the word god to feel comfortable with their belief?

Some of you don't seem to realize that separation of Church and State is intended to benefit, not harm religion.

We have had separation of Church and State throughout our history -- with minor exceptions here and there, but we have always strived towards keeping the wall of separation high and wide. As a result, we are a very religious nation. Christianity, among other religions, has thrived under this regime.

For example, I came across these quotes from Justice Hugo Black in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) (dissenting):

Any use of such coercive power by the state to help or hinder some religious sects or to prefer all religious sects over nonbelievers or vice versa is just what I think the First Amendment forbids. In considering whether a state has entered this forbidden field the question is not whether it has entered too far but whether it has entered at all. ...

It was precisely because Eighteenth Century Americans were a religious people divided into many fighting sects that we were given the constitutional mandate to keep Church and State completely separate. Colonial history had already shown that, here as elsewhere zealous sectarians entrusted with governmental power to further their causes would sometimes torture, maim and kill those they branded "heretics," "atheists" or "agnostics." 5 The First Amendment was therefore to insure that no one powerful sect or combination of sects could use political or governmental power to punish dissenters whom they could not convert to their faith. Now as then, it is only by wholly isolating the state from the religious sphere and compelling it to be completely neutral, that the freedom of each and every denomination and of all nonbelievers can be maintained. ...

Under our system of religious freedom, people have gone to their religious sanctuaries not because they feared the law but because they loved their God. The choice of all has been as free as the choice of those who answered the call to worship moved only by the music of the old Sunday morning church bells. The spiritual mind of man has thus been free to believe, disbelieve, or doubt, without repression, great or small, by the heavy hand of government. Statutes authorizing such repression have been stricken. ... The First Amendment has lost must if the religious follower and the atheist are no longer to be judicially regarded as entitled to equal justice under law.

State help to religion injects political and party prejudices into a holy field. It too often substitutes force for prayer, hate for love, and persecution for persuasion. Government should not be allowed, under cover of the soft euphemism of "co-operation," to steal into the sacred area of religious choice.

And from Justice Jackson (Judge Robert's favorite Justice) in the same case:

The day that this country ceases to be free for irreligion it will cease to be free for religion - except for the sect that can win political power. The same epithetical jurisprudence used by the Court today to beat down those who oppose pressuring children into some religion can devise as good epithets tomorrow against those who object to pressuring them into a favored religion.

please refrain from calling us "wackos" unless you can back that up. so now i would like to hear: what exactly makes us wackos?

-sighs- No. That is why I wanted you to read my old arguments. Furthermore, the word "god" means "supreme value" as well, and because it does, most atheists subscribe to a supreme value--be it religious or moral--and can substitute that meaning of the word.


Forcing children to play those mind games and jump through those hoops every morning seriously abridges their right to free excercize.

why not say "under supreme value" then? Why must the atheists have to find a way to define differently the word god to feel comfortable with their belief?

Because it's not a vice versa sort of thing. To say "under God" is all-inclusive. to say "under supreme value" leaves out all theistic religions. Because I do not subscribe to a value, but to a deity. I believe in His values, yes, but because He preaches them.

Forcing children to play those mind games and jump through those hoops every morning seriously abridges their right to free excercize.

It's not forcing them. If they understood the full definition of the word then it would be no problem to asert a specific definition to their minds. I say the word "pants", you probably think of a specific pair of pants you own. Maybe the ones you're wearing. Regardless, it's not the same pants I'm thinking of, I'm sure. We each define every word a little differently because of our mentalities. If children understand a words in totality for our language, then they can apply their own meanings to the word. If they understand the word "god" has more than a singular Christian meaning, then it won't be a "hoop" for them to "jump through".

please refrain from calling us "wackos" unless you can back that up. so now i would like to hear: what exactly makes us wackos?

At least reference the post and you will get responces.....

Okay, we've been through that argument before you were here. As I said, in today's child's mind (and many adults) we have always had "under God" in there. Sure, we know it wasn't there before... but that's still just a change. We shouldn't really bother with changing it. Just not say it in schools if you want anything. It's a compromise. Keep it as it is, but don't say it in schools.

So what you are saying is that it is about Christianity. Why else keep it in the pledge?

So what you are saying is that it is about Christianity. Why else keep it in the pledge?

The Pledge doesn't signify Christianity. America, however, is a majority of Christians. Because of that, it's understood--generally--as the Christian God. The Pledge means whatever it should mean to whomever says it. I say it and declare my allegiance under my Christian God. Someone else can declare their allegiance under Allah, or under whomever or whatever. The point of that part of the Pledge was to give the person pledging their allegiance a guidance under which they pledge, not to say, "You pledge in a Christian nation." Hence the multiple definitions of the one word "God".

The Pledge doesn't signify Christianity. America, however, is a majority of Christians. Because of that, it's understood--generally--as the Christian God. The Pledge means whatever it should mean to whomever says it. I say it and declare my allegiance under my Christian God. Someone else can declare their allegiance under Allah, or under whomever or whatever. The point of that part of the Pledge was to give the person pledging their allegiance a guidance under which they pledge, not to say, "You pledge in a Christian nation." Hence the multiple definitions of the one word "God".

Reading "In God We Trust;" uttering "under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

Fact remains; it is a Cold War Relic that has served it's purpose. If Christianity had a place, Madison would have made a reference in the Constitution for it.

He didn't as this was supposed to be a land for everybody.

Reading "In God We Trust;" uttering "under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

Fact remains; it is a Cold War Relic that has served it's purpose. If Christianity had a place, Madison would have made a reference in the Constitution for it.

He didn't as this was supposed to be a land for everybody.

No, it doesn't make one a better Christian. But it provides a higher motive for making the pledge. As it does for anyone else. To a Muslim, pledging under Allah is just as sacred as it is to me. To a Jew, they consider it unbreakable, just as me and any Muslim would. Religion is a sacred means, and by giving people a religious base to making their pledge it makes it that much stronger. You seem to refuse that I'm arguing that it's a guidance for any and everyone. I am, and I will say it again, stating that the words "under God" provide a credance for all religions and anti-religions. Read my definition of the word "God" again. It is specific. Read my arguments about how the Pledge is a personal state of mind, regardless of it's official write. Read my example on the Lord's Prayer as an analogy. That all already argues against what you're stating. Please, bring new arguments to me... not repeated ones.

A point that has been made before is not that saying "under God" or having "In God we Trust" on a dollar bill makes us a better Christian, actually Christianity isn't the only religion that believes in a higher power called God. There are MANY other religions that believe in GOD. In the last American cenus, 82% of Americans claimed to believe in God.

Also, I agree with the person that said in minds of most ppl 2-day we remember the pledge with "under God" in it. I know alot of you feel it should be taken out because you feel it's shoving God down your throats, but removing it isn't the answer. Besides, you will still have to put up with people saying, because that's how everyone from the ages of 3 to 90 remember it said. And i don't think the gov. will enforce ppl NOT saying it, because that would be violating our freedom of speech.

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:
Fuuuuck man, can't you read? Nowhere in the Constitution do the words separation of church and state appear for one. Secondly, the pledge is far from ordained gospel, and thirdly militant athiests such as yourself are just as irrational as any annoying extremist fundamentalist christians. I love being an agnostic.

Fuuuuck man, can't you read? Nowhere in the Constitution do the words separation of church and state appear for one. Secondly, the pledge is far from ordained gospel, and thirdly militant athiests such as yourself are just as irrational as any annoying extremist fundamentalist christians. I love being an agnostic.

I agree with you about Zexland being over the top.

But at issue is the federal law that does define the Pledge and the 1954(?) amendment that added "under God." That pretty much makes it federally established gospel. If that doesn't, wtf would?

And, fuuuuck man, see where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Uhm... a quick question.

Currently, no child is required to say the US Pledge. Period. So, in this case, to "remove" the words "Under God", you would have to prohibt any child from saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Meaning, if they did, there would be a punishment. If you didn't, there would be no difference from the current system. Is this not correct? If it is, wouldn't you be violating the childrens' right to free speech?

Anyways... I'm not trying to make a "perfect" argument, and I'm undecided on the issue itself. I just had a quick thought, and decided to post it here.

Uhm... a quick question.

Currently, no child is required to say the US Pledge. Period. So, in this case, to "remove" the words "Under God", you would have to prohibt any child from saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Meaning, if they did, there would be a punishment. If you didn't, there would be no difference from the current system. Is this not correct? If it is, wouldn't you be violating the childrens' right to free speech?

Anyways... I'm not trying to make a "perfect" argument, and I'm undecided on the issue itself. I just had a quick thought, and decided to post it here.

Whether children are coerced by authorities into saying the Pledge is very much at issue.

Many states and school districts continue to try to require every student to say the Pledge -- despite that being unconstitutional, but that is a different isssue.

Many, many require that classes say the Pledge.

Regardless, your premise is mistaken. There is a federal statute that defines the Pledge. That statute was amended in 1954(?) to add the words "under God" to the official Pledge. That amendment is unconstitutional. THAT is the issue.

In other words, I don't give a fuck if someone else wants to say "under God" in the Pledge. But don't teach children they have to believe in God to pledge allegience to their country.

Don't tell me that I cannot officially pledge my allegience to my country without violating my sacred beliefs.

Get it?

Uhm... a quick question.

Currently, no child is required to say the US Pledge. Period. So, in this case, to "remove" the words "Under God", you would have to prohibt any child from saying the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Meaning, if they did, there would be a punishment. If you didn't, there would be no difference from the current system. Is this not correct? If it is, wouldn't you be violating the childrens' right to free speech?

Anyways... I'm not trying to make a "perfect" argument, and I'm undecided on the issue itself. I just had a quick thought, and decided to post it here.

Your arguement is not correct. Children may or may not say the pledge if they feel like it so I am assuming that adding the words under god wouldn't be a punishable offence.

Whether children are coerced by authorities into saying the Pledge is very much at issue.

Many states and school districts continue to try to require every student to say the Pledge -- despite that being unconstitutional, but that is a different isssue.

Many, many require that classes say the Pledge.

Regardless, your premise is mistaken. There is a federal statute that defines the Pledge. That statute was amended in 1954(?) to add the words "under God" to the official Pledge. That amendment is unconstitutional. THAT is the issue.

In other words, I don't give a fuck if someone else wants to say "under God" in the Pledge. But don't teach children they have to believe in God to pledge allegience to their country.

Don't tell me that I cannot officially pledge my allegience to my country without violating my sacred beliefs.

Get it?

Firstly... its not unconsititional in those states ALLOWING students to say the pledge. the 9th circute supreme court of CALIFORNIA said it was unconstitutional FOR THAT STATE!. The Federal Supereme court has already expressed opinions that it is NOT unconstituional. IN case you didn't know, the 9th circut supreme court is the most liberal in the Nation. And until the FEDERAL supreme court rules in this manner... only in California is it unconstutional, and BY THE WAY there is no evidence to suggest that children are being coerced by administration or federal authorities. Unless they are, this is not a violation of the first amendment which would have to be the Government establishing a state religion (which it is not).

Firstly... its not unconsititional in those states ALLOWING students to say the pledge. the 9th circute supreme court of CALIFORNIA said it was unconstitutional FOR THAT STATE!. The Federal Supereme court has already expressed opinions that it is NOT unconstituional. IN case you didn't know, the 9th circut supreme court is the most liberal in the Nation. And until the FEDERAL supreme court rules in this manner... only in California is it unconstutional, and BY THE WAY there is no evidence to suggest that children are being coerced by administration or federal authorities. Unless they are, this is not a violation of the first amendment which would have to be the Government establishing a state religion (which it is not).

Boy, I don't where to start.

1. The US Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943), that it is unconstitutional to require anyone to say the Pledge.

2. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/) has nothing to do with the California Supreme Court. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ("the 9th Circuit") has jurisdiction over all federal cases arising out of the states of Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, California, Nevada, and Arizona. Here is a map (http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDCTS/).

3. The 9th Circuit ruled in 2002 in this opinion (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement) that the addition of the words "under God" by a 1954 federal statute to the previous official version of the Pledge of Allegiance (which made no reference to God) and a school district's policy of daily recitation in the classroom of the Pledge of Allegiance, with the added words included, by public school teachers are violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

4. Last year, the United States Supreme Court in this opinion (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624) dismissed that case on a technicality and did NOT decide on the merits. In other words, they decided the man bringing the lawsuit lacked standing (i.e., he had no right to challenge the policy because he lacked custody of his daughter). They did NOT decide that the 1954 statute adding "under God" to the Pledge or the school district's policy were constiutional.

5. The issue has now been raised again. This time the plaintiff has different grounds for standing and is joined by several other plaintiffs with children in schools where the Pledge is recited. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California decided recently in this opinion (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/newdowus91405opn.pdf) that the 1954 statute and the practices of four California
public school districts requiring students to recite the Pledge were unconstitutional. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the US Supreme Court has yet heard an appeal in this case.

6. Coercion in saying the Pledge is not required for the 1954 statute to violate the Establishment Clause.

7. The 9th Circuit allegedly being a "liberal" court is a myth, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand anyway.

Right-winger's definition of a "Liberal Court" a "Liberal Judge" or "an activist Judge"
Any court, or any judge...that does not fully and completely march in lockstep with the extreme right wing...and who does not give a rubber stamp to their issues.

In short, any judge or court that in any way places an obstacle in the path of the fulfillment of the extreme right-wing agenda is called "a liberal court" "a liberal judge" or "an activist judge" by those who are pushing the extreme right-wing agenda.

Of course, you need to understand also, that there is no such thing as a right-wing, extremist, activist judge. :rolleyes: *cough* Roberts *cough*

<snip>
Cant we all just get along?

Cant we all just get along?

No. We can't. Because neither side is even able to hear the other side. Neither side is willing to listen or to compromise.

We have, on the left, already caved in often enough over the past twelve years to you guys on the right. It is time for YOU GUYS on the right to cave. It is time for you guys to listen, and to compromise. We're tired of always being the ones who end up forced to sacrifice our core beliefs and principles.

And in this case, sorry, but the Constitution...and previous Supreme Court rulings...favor our side.

In God we trust is on every single piece of printed currency and the Founders of our country were also all pretty much Freemasons. A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation. The same priniciple is behind the Under God in the Pledge. Despite what you choose to think about it, it's there to both honor a creator and to honor the men who created this country.

I am sorry if this point has already came up, and by now it won't matter, but the freemasons are not a secret christian society, they are a MONOTHEISTIC society with secrets. It is nmot solely christian.

No. We can't. Because neither side is even able to hear the other side. Neither side is willing to listen or to compromise.

We have, on the left, already caved in often enough over the past twelve years to you guys on the right. It is time for YOU GUYS on the right to cave. It is time for you guys to listen, and to compromise. We're tired of always being the ones who end up forced to sacrifice our core beliefs and principles.

And in this case, sorry, but the Constitution...and previous Supreme Court rulings...favor our side.

How about instead of one side "caving in" for the other and grumbling about it, we both compromise and both get something out of it. I'd rather have it be win/win then win/lose.

How about instead of one side "caving in" for the other and grumbling about it, we both compromise and both get something out of it. I'd rather have it be win/win then win/lose.

There is no win/win.
Since the sides are diametrically opposed to each other...the one side who gets it's way wins. The side that does not get it's way loses. And it is just that simple.

I have already proposed what is closest to a win/win I can come up with...but the right wing would not consider it a win, they would consider it a loss.

My proposition was to insert a long pause betwwen "One nation" and "indivisible." People could then choose whether or not to say "Under God" in that long pause...and "Under God" would NOT be an official part of the Pledge, and no one would be forced to say it.

And that is precisely why the right-wing would consider it a loss...THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO SAY IT ANYMORE!!

The right-wing is all about forcing people to do things against their will...or forcing them to not do things that they want to do. They are all about forcing people into actions against their will.

No. We can't. Because neither side is even able to hear the other side. Neither side is willing to listen or to compromise.

We have, on the left, already caved in often enough over the past twelve years to you guys on the right. It is time for YOU GUYS on the right to cave. It is time for you guys to listen, and to compromise. We're tired of always being the ones who end up forced to sacrifice our core beliefs and principles.

And in this case, sorry, but the Constitution...and previous Supreme Court rulings...favor our side.

It's not that neither side wants to compromise, but it's that each side has the wrong people representing it. Like the Christians have wackos like Bush claiming to be christians we they OBVIOUSLY have NO idea what following Christ means. And then you have FAR OFF atheists that say stuff, that literally have Christians scared of what this world is coming to. So, i say the wrong people are representing each side. And that's why a compromise will never be reached. Personally, I say let "under God" stay in just as a piece of history and not make it manditory to be said....(which i don't think it is now, but ALOT of you claim it is)

There is no win/win.
Since the sides are diametrically opposed to each other...the one side who gets it's way wins. The side that does not get it's way loses. And it is just that simple.

I have already proposed what is closest to a win/win I can come up with...but the right wing would not consider it a win, they would consider it a loss.

My proposition was to insert a long pause betwwen "One nation" and "indivisible." People could then choose whether or not to say "Under God" in that long pause...and "Under God" would NOT be an official part of the Pledge, and no one would be forced to say it.

And that is precisely why the right-wing would consider it a loss...THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FORCE OTHER PEOPLE TO SAY IT ANYMORE!!

The right-wing is all about forcing people to do things against their will...or forcing them to not do things that they want to do. They are all about forcing people into actions against their will.

1. You really can't seem to think in terms of compromises. I mean come on there are always win/win situations and you for some reason seem to think that only one side can and should win.

2. I think in this situation the win/win would be to remove under god but let whoever wants to say it if they feel like it.

3. Generally when it comes to politics the right wing stands for individualism while the left stands for collectivism. However what seems odd is that on moral issues right wingers seem to be taking the side of collectivism. Its an interesting trend. When you say the right wing is all about forcing people to do things your mixing things up.

1. You really can't seem to think in terms of compromises. I mean come on there are always win/win situations and you for some reason seem to think that only one side can and should win.

2. I think in this situation the win/win would be to remove under god but let whoever wants to say it if they feel like it.

3. Generally when it comes to politics the right wing stands for individualism while the left stands for collectivism. However what seems odd is that on moral issues right wingers seem to be taking the side of collectivism. Its an interesting trend. When you say the right wing is all about forcing people to do things your mixing things up.

Well, at least we agree on point number 2.

As to point number 3...we on the left advocate individuality, freedom of expression, pursuit of individual happiness...while y'all on the right advocate for and attempt to force CONFORMITY on everyone else, no matter how miserable conformity may make some people.

Well, at least we agree on point number 2.

As to point number 3...we on the left advocate individuality, freedom of expression, pursuit of individual happiness...while y'all on the right advocate for and attempt to force CONFORMITY on everyone else, no matter how miserable conformity may make some people.

Really because I thought the left was for more big government. You know giving big brother more power. I don't see how that goes with individuality and giving more freedom to people.

Really because I thought the left was for more big government. You know giving big brother more power. I don't see how that goes with individuality and giving more freedom to people.

We aren't for big government enforcing individual "morality" or big government in people's bedrooms, like you guys are!

We're for big government regulating the rich and powerful so that they do not take too much advantage of. or exploit, those less fortunate.

We believe, on the left...in SOCIAL freedom...in personal, individual freedom.
You guys believe only in ECONOMIC freedom, in other words, you want to give the robber barons the right to fuck over workers, and you won't say "boo" about it...just so long as you can keep those scary gayo-Americans from getting married!

Okay, the right-wing is not pressed to the allowance of big people to screwing over everyone else. We just don't support the allowance of the poor people to get a free ride... We believe that the people who earned their money should be allowed to keep it, not be forced to give up more of it so that the government can take it. Economic freedoms, yes... but not at the expense of others. You have to earn your money, not have it handed to you.

Furthermore, we do press for personal freedoms. Such as, but not limited to, the right to bear arms and the right to private property.

I would also like to point out, again, that the Constitution never states a separation of church and state. This was not added until the Bill of Rights, which is a second document entirely. Furthermore, it states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The key word there is "Congress". Because of that, the states are allowed to govern people accordingly, as are the courts allowed to dictate what is lawful to tact into the Pledge of Allegiance. Religion shall not be impressed upon the people by a representative body of the government solely because it doesn't represent the entirety of the government. Therefore, if the judges turn something over... then it's legal.

Note, also, my previous arguments about how "God" is an interchangable noun. It doesn't establish any religion. You assume christianity only because the majority of the people are Christian in America. It doesn't impress a religion on anyone, not the objective statement. However, whatever a subjective person does is not the government's decree.

Well, except for Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, LaVeyan Satanism, Shintoism, Wicca, and other religions without a God. (The first four are atheistic religions. Shinto has kami, which are spirits, not gods. Wicca has a Goddess.)


You're confusing philosophies with religions. I'm a taoist, but I'm also a Christian. Still, that wasn't the point- the point was, the idea that "Under God" was a way of denoting the religious freedom- every religion, even if it meant no religion. It's an abstract way of looking at it, I agree.

Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent somewhere else, but I guess that's how the system works. I feel that people should really merely understand the concept that "Under God" means that we celebrate all religions, but I'm quite the realist in knowing that many people cannot comprehend that, or outwardly refuse to accept that argument.

So where's the compromise, you ask? There is none- the atheist wants the Under God part taken out of the pledge because he is offended and thinks it's unconstitutional. The other 90% of the population don't. In reality it really doesn't matter what you'all believe, it comes down to whether the Supreme Court believes it goes against the constitution. So the argument shouldn't be at the right or the left, but at the constitutionality of the two words.

No one is ever forced to recite the pledge, either. Any Jehovah's Witnesses I've had in class have stood, but they do not say the pledge as it goes against their religion.

It's not that neither side wants to compromise, but it's that each side has the wrong people representing it. Like the Christians have wackos like Bush claiming to be christians we they OBVIOUSLY have NO idea what following Christ means. And then you have FAR OFF atheists that say stuff, that literally have Christians scared of what this world is coming to. So, i say the wrong people are representing each side. And that's why a compromise will never be reached. Personally, I say let "under God" stay in just as a piece of history and not make it manditory to be said....(which i don't think it is now, but ALOT of you claim it is)

This is exactly what is happening. Quite a while back on this thread I quoted both Jesus and Paul as to how Christians were to handle those of other religions. Those on the far right have no concept as to what Jesus and Paul said on this subject.

At the same time, the other side seems to attack when there is very little value in winning. Even though the Christian majority has not lost one thing of substance, the mosquito bites just continually irritate them.

There is a win-win. Christians really need to quit argueing the constitution and begin to read their BIBLE and learn from Jesus and Paul how a Christian is to react in these situations. The other side needs to learn which battles to fight. They need to forget the mosquito attacks and concentrate on being sharks in real battles.

I think we would all be better off if the government would simply remain neutral in religion. No usage of the word "God" at all by them in official government business. Them saying that word makes them promoters of christianity, which is unconstitutional. You can argue that all you want, but freedom of religion means that the government cannot promote one religion or the other. Hindus have names for their gods, and Muslims and Jews have different names for God as well. But christians only call him/her/it "God", no name or anything, which basically says "One nation, under the Christian God..."
So I think that there would be less debate on this if people could simply respect other people's religion. Let them believe what they want, even if they worship a tree stump in their backyard, let them. Remember the "Pursuit of hapiness" thing? Yea, that means that if people are happy worshipping a dead tree stump in their backyard, they have every right to do so.
If we could stop focusing on religion and instead focus on things like what's left of our economy or the state of the schools in this country, we would all benefit. Less time on stupid arguments that no one will ever win, and more time and focus and money spent on things that matter. That is what this country needs.

if you want to get rid of "under god" in the pledge I say f*** you and get the hell out of amreica

*snip*

I would also like to point out, again, that the Constitution never states a separation of church and state. This was not added until the Bill of Rights, which is a second document entirely. Furthermore, it states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The key word there is "Congress". Because of that, the states are allowed to govern people accordingly, as are the courts allowed to dictate what is lawful to tact into the Pledge of Allegiance. Religion shall not be impressed upon the people by a representative body of the government solely because it doesn't represent the entirety of the government. Therefore, if the judges turn something over... then it's legal.

Note, also, my previous arguments about how "God" is an interchangable noun. It doesn't establish any religion. You assume christianity only because the majority of the people are Christian in America. It doesn't impress a religion on anyone, not the objective statement. However, whatever a subjective person does is not the government's decree.

1. The Constitution does address separation of Church and State. The no regious test for office provision of Artice VI.

2. As has been explained ad naseum, the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses codify separation of Church and State in the First Amendment.

3. The Fourteenth Amendment restricts states from violating fundamental liberties, including the First Amendment. So, your premise that the establishment clause is limited to the Congress is wrong. This is the doctrine of incorporation. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)), here (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm), or here (http://nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23).

4. Note that if #3 were not true that none of the provisions of the First Amendment -- free speech, free press, etc. -- would apply to the State or local governments.

5. Your argument that "God" is not a religious term and/or embraces all religious views is specious and has been fully rebutted already. I doubt even you take that argument seriously.

Okay, the right-wing is not pressed to the allowance of big people to screwing over everyone else. We just don't support the allowance of the poor people to get a free ride... We believe that the people who earned their money should be allowed to keep it, not be forced to give up more of it so that the government can take it. 1. Economic freedoms, yes... but not at the expense of others. You have to earn your money, not have it handed to you.

2. Furthermore, we do press for personal freedoms. Such as, but not limited to, the right to bear arms and the right to private property.

I would also like to point out, again, that the Constitution never states a separation of church and state. This was not added until the Bill of Rights, which is a second document entirely. Furthermore, it states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The key word there is "Congress". Because of that, the states are allowed to govern people accordingly, as are the courts allowed to dictate what is lawful to tact into the Pledge of Allegiance. Religion shall not be impressed upon the people by a representative body of the government solely because it doesn't represent the entirety of the government. Therefore, if the judges turn something over... then it's legal.

Note, also, my previous arguments about how "God" is an interchangable noun. It doesn't establish any religion. You assume christianity only because the majority of the people are Christian in America. It doesn't impress a religion on anyone, not the objective statement. However, whatever a subjective person does is not the government's decree.

1. Bullshit. Then you explain why the gap between the rich and the porr is getting bigger and bigger and bigger in this country...why wages are NOT keeping up with prices (ok, NOMINAL wages may be up...but our ACTUAL BUYING POWER is steadily decreasing -except of course, for those on the top of the economic heap....and those on the bottom are the only ones who EVER suffer!)

2. Bullshit. That's why you guys want to ban gay marriage, that's why you guys are against making discrimination against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity illegal...yeah, way to press for those individual rights, folks!! Yeah, only the individual rights YOU approve of!! That's why you huys want to reverse Lawrence vs. Texas...and Roe vs. Wade...because you are such in favor of individual freedoms...please, don't fucking make me puke. You right-wingers only press for the kind of individual freedoms that YOU PERSONALLY APPROVE OF!!
If you REALLY supported individual freedoms, you'd also support those that you personally DON'T approve of for yourselves. You would quit trying to make the lives of minorities even more miserable.

There's a REASON why most minorities hate Republicans, you know!

You're confusing philosophies with religions. I'm a taoist, but I'm also a Christian. Still, that wasn't the point- the point was, the idea that "Under God" was a way of denoting the religious freedom- every religion, even if it meant no religion. It's an abstract way of looking at it, I agree.

Personally I'd rather see my tax dollars spent somewhere else, but I guess that's how the system works. I feel that people should really merely understand the concept that "Under God" means that we celebrate all religions, but I'm quite the realist in knowing that many people cannot comprehend that, or outwardly refuse to accept that argument.

So where's the compromise, you ask? There is none- the atheist wants the Under God part taken out of the pledge because he is offended and thinks it's unconstitutional. The other 90% of the population don't. In reality it really doesn't matter what you'all believe, it comes down to whether the Supreme Court believes it goes against the constitution. So the argument shouldn't be at the right or the left, but at the constitutionality of the two words.

No one is ever forced to recite the pledge, either. Any Jehovah's Witnesses I've had in class have stood, but they do not say the pledge as it goes against their religion.

But it doesn't. It celebrates Christianity ONLY.
And it does not allow for athiests, who believe in NO God...to express their views, and forces them to act against their conscience, by forcing them to pay lip service or homage to a God that they do not believe in.
It's Unconstitutional. What part of "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" do you not understand?
The words "Under God" were ADDED in 1954, by a law passed by Congress! so it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Congress had no business, and no authority, to pass the law which added those words IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

if you want to get rid of "under god" in the pledge I say f*** you and get the hell out of amreica
and you, sir...show a great deal of understanding what America is about! Yeah...let's just take everyone who disagrees with Xin Raven, and toss them out of the country!! :rolleyes:

and you, sir...show a great deal of understanding what America is about! Yeah...let's just take everyone who disagrees with Xin Raven, and toss them out of the country!! :rolleyes:

lol, i don't think that's the BEST approach Xin Raven(although, Zexland took about the same approach with Christians when he started this thread) But this goes back to the point that both sides have people that want to act crazy. And we can't help it, my approach is to pray for them all and move on, I don't know what the passive atheist would say(def. not pray for them) but i don't think kickin them all out of the country is an option either, just a compromise.......

lol, i don't think that's the BEST approach Xin Raven(although, Zexland took about the same approach with Christians when he started this thread) But this goes back to the point that both sides have people that want to act crazy. And we can't help it, my approach is to pray for them all and move on, I don't know what the passive atheist would say(def. not pray for them) but i don't think kickin them all out of the country is an option either, just a compromise.......

The problem is...you can't compromise with people like Xin Raven. They will accept nothing but complete capitualtion to their desires. And the same goes for religious zealots and fundamentalist bigots. They will accept no compromise of any kind.

Which reminds me of an old Bene Gesserit proverb (for those who have read Dune, you'll understand) - If we won't bend, we can break.

if you want to get rid of "under god" in the pledge I say f*** you and get the hell out of amreica
I'm sure God would be proud of your language.

But it doesn't. It celebrates Christianity ONLY.

You're trying to state that only Christianity has the belief in God?

You're kidding, right?

And it does not allow for athiests, who believe in NO God...to express their views, and forces them to act against their conscience, by forcing them to pay lip service or homage to a God that they do not believe in.

Did you even read what I wrote? I mean, at all? If so, you must not have understood it, because I was noting the abstract aspect of the word "God" as meaning religion- even if it means not having one.

It's Unconstitutional. What part of "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" do you not understand?

Let's lay off of insinuating I'm an idiot. I'm not. Either we have a discussion or not, but don't question my intelligence. I understand Amendment One just fine. In fact, I recently taught it to my students.

The first part goes like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning to say, they will not create a national church- as the one in England at the time. I'm sure you'll note that it was the cause of so many people's horrific deaths as one king or queen with a different religion came into power. People can worship however they wish- as we see all the time with the various temples, churches, mosques, etc. that exist in the United States. No one will keep these people from practicing their religion. That's what that part of the first amendment means.

What it appears you're arguing, and what they'll most likely be arguing in court, is that even saying the words "Under God" is the equivalent of making someone practice a certain religion. I don't personally buy it, but whatever.

The words "Under God" were ADDED in 1954, by a law passed by Congress! so it is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. Congress had no business, and no authority, to pass the law which added those words IN THE FIRST PLACE!!

And that's what they'll argue in court. Again, I don't see how it goes against the Constitution, but I don't see how keeping those words necessarily means that you are being forced to practice a religion, either. Just as if you went to someone's wedding where you would be forced to sit through a religious ceremony, that would not constitute making you practice a religion, either.

I personally believe that the words "Under God" in the pledge denote the idea of a religious freedom, not that of forcing Christianity down your throat. I really don't care about other people's religion, as I've always felt it to be personal, but most people I know do seem to be Christian. My Indian friends, however, have no problem with the pledge, and just see as the "Under God" as their gods/goddesses, not the Christian God. Or Jewish God. Or Muslim God (Allah), and so on and so forth. So I guess it really depends upon how you look at it.

In court, one side will argue the abstract aspect, the other side will argue the concrete one. I guess we'll see what the courts decide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You're Australia, so this spefic issue concerns you how?

The Constitution does not demand "under God" being removed from the pledge of the allegiance just like it does not say there is a "right" to abortion. It says nothing about both issues either way. Period. That phrase was added in the 50s to show that America had freedom of religion unlike the godless Soviet Union. Congress added it, so if you want to remove it.. ask you're Senators and Congressmen. Then again, you're Australian so... just keep doing what you're doing --> :headbang:

Duh, America is not a theocracy and never will be. We have Iran to show us how pathetic a theocracy can be. And before you lump us "Yankees" (funny because I'm a Southern Catholic Italian from Louisiana and conservative too! go figure!) in a group as all right-wingers, try to come up with a better question to prove your point. What does "under God" have to do with ALL of our President's being practicing Christians? The God in our Constitution is believed to be the Deist (spelling?) God or more of a reference to Nature that most of our founding fathers believed in. Personally, I don't care what God they worshiped because about 96% (Gallop Poll) of Americans say they believe in God. Do we all worship the same God? Hell no, but a large majority of Americans prefer the phrase "under God" to remain in the Pledge.

Sorry if I don't respond to yours or others possible rebukes but, life calls and I can only read this forum so much. Just had to respond because your post is just ridiculous.

1. You're trying to state that only Christianity has the belief in God?

You're kidding, right?



2. Did you even read what I wrote? I mean, at all? If so, you must not have understood it, because I was noting the abstract aspect of the word "God" as meaning religion- even if it means not having one.



3. Let's lay off of insinuating I'm an idiot. I'm not. Either we have a discussion or not, but don't question my intelligence. I understand Amendment One just fine. In fact, I recently taught it to my students.

The first part goes like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Meaning to say, they will not create a national church- as the one in England at the time. I'm sure you'll note that it was the cause of so many people's horrific deaths as one king or queen with a different religion came into power. People can worship however they wish- as we see all the time with the various temples, churches, mosques, etc. that exist in the United States. No one will keep these people from practicing their religion. That's what that part of the first amendment means.

4. What it appears you're arguing, and what they'll most likely be arguing in court, is that even saying the words "Under God" is the equivalent of making someone practice a certain religion. I don't personally buy it, but whatever.



5. And that's what they'll argue in court. Again, I don't see how it goes against the Constitution, but I don't see how keeping those words necessarily means that you are being forced to practice a religion, either. Just as if you went to someone's wedding where you would be forced to sit through a religious ceremony, that would not constitute making you practice a religion, either.

6. I personally believe that the words "Under God" in the pledge denote the idea of a religious freedom, not that of forcing Christianity down your throat. I really don't care about other people's religion, as I've always felt it to be personal, but most people I know do seem to be Christian. My Indian friends, however, have no problem with the pledge, and just see as the "Under God" as their gods/goddesses, not the Christian God. Or Jewish God. Or Muslim God (Allah), and so on and so forth. So I guess it really depends upon how you look at it.

7. In court, one side will argue the abstract aspect, the other side will argue the concrete one. I guess we'll see what the courts decide.

1. Other religions have their God/Goddess, or Gods/Goddesses...but only Christianity calls it "God" with a capital G. Muslims call him Allah, Jews call him Yahweh...so don't give me garbage. You know damn well that the "Under God" refers specifically to the Christian God. Any argument otherwise is at best disingenuous, at the very least, it is intellectually dishonest...and at worst, an outright lie.

2. The word "god" (note the small g) is in fact abstract. The word "God" (note the capital G) is not in any way, abstract. It is a direct reference to the Christian God and you bloody well know it. To claim otherwise is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

3. I'm not insinuating you are an idiot. If that is what you take from my words, well, then, I'm sorry for your perception, but I stand by my words...WHAT PART OF "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" do you not understand?

4. It is, at the very least, forcing people to at least pay lip service to the concept of a monotheism...to acknowledge the existence of a god...and, more specifically, the Christian God. A good Christian does not force someone to do something against their conscience. Yet, millions of athiests and practitioners of religions other than Christianity are forced to do exactly that, every time they are forced to recite the Pledge.

5. Look at the INTENT of those who passed the bill and signed it into law. Look into The Congressional Record for 1954, the year in which this bill was devated on the floor of the House and the Senate, and the INTENT of those proposing and passing the law becomes crystal clear: "To differentiate our nation from Godless Communists." Therefore, it WAS the INTENT of those proposing and passing the law to establish this nation as a religious nation, and, more specifically, a Christian nation. And might I point out that The Treaty of Tripoli, in 1797, states that this country "was, in no way, founded upon the Christian religion." And I'm sure that you are aware, by the laws of this land, that treaties supercede even the Constitution! And yet...it was the clear intent of legislators at the time (the era of McCarthyism) to establish this nation as a religious nation...which is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

6. I feel it is forcing Christianity down the throats of others, because the "God" is capitalized. More to the point, it is STILL forcing at least the paying of lip service to a god...and, more specifically, a monotheism...thus denying those who are athiest...or those who believe in a polytheism...the ability to say the Pledge, and hold true to their own religious convictions.

7. I already know how the case will be decided, especially with Chief Justice ROBERTS now firmly ensconsed in a very undeserved position of prominence. The Court will not have the SPINE to uphold the actual Constitution, because it would mean going against the populat will of the people of this country. I'm fully well aware I'm in the minority opinion on this, but I'm also on the Constitutionally-correct side.
Supreme Court justices are given lifelong tenure, in theory, so that they have the ability to uphold the Constitution, even if what the Constitution says is very unpopular with the people. They do not have to stand election, supposedly to shield them...and make them able to make unpopular, yet Constitutionally-correct rulings in these matters. However, the Suprreme Court, in recent years, has shown they lack the spine, even given their immunity...to make unpopular, yet Constitutionally-correct rulings!
So, your side is likely to win this one, anyway. But they are gonna keep hearing from me, and people like me.

My relationship with God is mine, and mine alone. I let no man, and no nation interfere with it. Likewise, my patriotism, and allegiance to this country, and to our Flag...does not require mention of any man's God...or god. There was, once, such a thing as separation of church and state...but, as we slide further down the slippery slope leading to a new brand of fascism in this country...as we inexhorably slide ever further towards a Corporatocracy/Theocracy...instead of the Representative Republic we once were...more and more of your rights and freedoms are going to be leached away, because someone powerful decided that your exercise of those rights is somehow "offensive" to him. and you will wake up some day, with all your rights leached away...and all your ability to fight against it leached away, and you are going to wonder what the hell happened to this country...and it will be too late.
so enjoy your little victory. It won't be long before someone takes from YOU some right or privilege that is near and dear to YOUR heart...and then maybe you will see things differently.
We have increasingly become a country that is all-too-willing to take away the rights of OTHER PEOPLE...especially if the exercise of those rights, in some way, is "offensive" to the popular majority.
Welcome to the new Amurikkka! Tyranny by the majority! Fuck the minorities, they deserve no rights, or freedoms, they will conform or die!! YeeeeeeHawwwwwww!!!

Christianity is NOT the only religion that worships a God or GOD.........AND another thing yall should realize that christians are the only ones fighting against the atheists to keep "under God" in the pledge. There's so people that aren't christians that support the continuance of it in the pledge. So, don't blame it all on the Christians, we are just the biggest group to support it and God, but we aren't the ONLY ones. And Allah, Yahwah(actually Jews call him Jehovah) which in the bible means God, so, It's basically the same thing, no matter if you say Allah or Jehovah, that just in other languages for the same thing, GOD.......

Christianity is NOT the only religion that worships a God or GOD.........AND another thing yall should realize that christians are the only ones fighting against the atheists to keep "under God" in the pledge. There's so people that aren't christians that support the continuance of it in the pledge. So, don't blame it all on the Christians, we are just the biggest group to support it and God, but we aren't the ONLY ones. And Allah, Yahwah(actually Jews call him Jehovah) which in the bible means God, so, It's basically the same thing, no matter if you say Allah or Jehovah, that just in other languages for the same thing, GOD.......

Athiests? I am not one and I think it don't belong there. There are many of us that belive in the intent of the person who wrote the pledge. A minister who left GOD out of it? There are many of us who belive in the intents of Madison and Jefferson who made an effort to leave God out of the DOI and the Consitution. Well some people think the DOI references it but it appears more generic(ie their creator instead of the creator).

I get to call prove your Jewish and Muslim support of having "Under God" in the pledge.

Finally, it's not a case of keeping the athiests at bay. It's the Christians who have problems about their faith trying to keep it in.

Reading "In God we trust" and muttering "Under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

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."*
This is the only reason I have one thing against Atheists. America doesn't need to be a theocracy, or have a heirarchy (damn I love using and saying that word), our great lord is God, like it or not! Why do you think we yankees always mention Jesus Christ and God in sad times or other important times! And God is our creator.
Ima Goth, (not really important to this but) I follow Christianity passionatly, and not a Athiest, I believe in God and follow my religion without question.
I don't want flaming, but this is to Athiests who are WAY TOO against religion - or Christianity: :upyours:

This is the only reason I have one thing against Atheists. America doesn't need to be a theocracy, or have a heirarchy (damn I love using and saying that word), our great lord is God, like it or not! Why do you think we yankees always mention Jesus Christ and God in sad times or other important times! And God is our creator.
Ima Goth, (not really important to this but) I follow Christianity passionatly, and not a Athiest, I believe in God and follow my religion without question.
I don't want flaming, but this is to Athiests who are WAY TOO against religion - or Christianity: :upyours:

Man I've heard of fighting fire with fire but fighting idiocy with idiocy thats got to be a new one.

Man I've heard of fighting fire with fire but fighting idiocy with idiocy thats got to be a new one.
leave me alone

leave me alone

You bumped it so deal with it.

You bumped it so deal with it.
I didn't bump it now leave me alone!

leave me alone

So that would what make this the second time you've run into the LA LA LA LA LA technique economic?

This is the only reason I have one thing against Atheists. America doesn't need to be a theocracy, or have a heirarchy (damn I love using and saying that word), our great lord is God, like it or not! Why do you think we yankees always mention Jesus Christ and God in sad times or other important times! And God is our creator.
Ima Goth, (not really important to this but) I follow Christianity passionatly, and not a Athiest, I believe in God and follow my religion without question.
I don't want flaming, but this is to Athiests who are WAY TOO against religion - or Christianity: :upyours:

And the same back to you Christians who want to stick your noses and your lawbooks into MY FUCKING BEDROOM!!!

Fuuuuck man, can't you read? Nowhere in the Constitution do the words separation of church and state appear for one. Secondly, the pledge is far from ordained gospel, and thirdly militant athiests such as yourself are just as irrational as any annoying extremist fundamentalist christians. I love being an agnostic.

Agnostics are the worst "there might be a god, there might not be a god".

The Pledge doesn't signify Christianity. America, however, is a majority of Christians. Because of that, it's understood--generally--as the Christian God. The Pledge means whatever it should mean to whomever says it. I say it and declare my allegiance under my Christian God. Someone else can declare their allegiance under Allah, or under whomever or whatever. The point of that part of the Pledge was to give the person pledging their allegiance a guidance under which they pledge, not to say, "You pledge in a Christian nation." Hence the multiple definitions of the one word "God".

The words "under god" do signify Christianity. The Knights of Columbus (http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm) (Catholic Christians) is the group that campaigned Congress to add "Under God" to the pledge.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm)

This is the only reason I have one thing against Atheists. America doesn't need to be a theocracy, or have a heirarchy (damn I love using and saying that word), our great lord is God, like it or not! Why do you think we yankees always mention Jesus Christ and God in sad times or other important times! And God is our creator.
Ima Goth, (not really important to this but) I follow Christianity passionatly, and not a Athiest, I believe in God and follow my religion without question.
I don't want flaming, but this is to Athiests who are WAY TOO against religion - or Christianity: :upyours:

Religion is fine, it's the part in believing in God that's a load of shit.
Show me god and I'll lick your balls.

Religion is fine, it's the part in believing in God that's a load of shit.
Show me god and I'll lick your balls.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but there is a very slim chance you'll get to lick someone's balls in this case.
Nobody can show you a God or any other real diety. Christianity, like all other religions, are based on faith alone.

This is the only reason I have one thing against Atheists. America doesn't need to be a theocracy, or have a heirarchy (damn I love using and saying that word), our great lord is God, like it or not! Why do you think we yankees always mention Jesus Christ and God in sad times or other important times! And God is our creator.
Ima Goth, (not really important to this but) I follow Christianity passionatly, and not a Athiest, I believe in God and follow my religion without question.
I don't want flaming, but this is to Athiests who are WAY TOO against religion - or Christianity: :upyours:

Translation: My fingers are in my ears. LALALALALALALALALALA

Wowwwwwwww so what you are saying is you are a zelot?

Athiests? I am not one and I think it don't belong there. There are many of us that belive in the intent of the person who wrote the pledge. A minister who left GOD out of it? There are many of us who belive in the intents of Madison and Jefferson who made an effort to leave God out of the DOI and the Consitution. Well some people think the DOI references it but it appears more generic(ie their creator instead of the creator).

I get to call prove your Jewish and Muslim support of having "Under God" in the pledge.

Finally, it's not a case of keeping the athiests at bay. It's the Christians who have problems about their faith trying to keep it in.

Reading "In God we trust" and muttering "Under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

that's true, but if you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much to have the 'word' written on a dollar or in the Pledge of Allegience. Besides, the bigger issue is when we say the Pledge of Allegience, your not pledging Allegience to God, but to America. One Nation, Under God, just signifizes a moment in History were America claimed to be a godly nation unlike the Russian communists. Also, it signifzes America's roots in God, because that's what the pilgirms came over to America to find religious freedom. Freedom to serve God however they wanted, not under England's rules. That's why i think it's stupid for someone to believe that Freedom OF religion includes Freedom FROM religion(that's too COMEPLETELY different
things)

Oh and i can't completely show you an example of a Jew wanting "under God" in the pledge, but i have SEVERAL examples of Non-christians, muslims, and catholics, that want it to stay in.

The words "under god" do signify Christianity. The Knights of Columbus (Catholic Christians) is the group that campaigned Congress to add "Under God" to the pledge.


Catholic Christians, WOW that's a new one......well, excuse me, but i have to dissagree with you on that statement. Yes! christians are the main known group to profess belief in God, but we are NOT the only ones. I have said this 10 thousand times, Jews, Catholics(which is NOT a complete branch of christianity), Muslims, Non-christians, ALL kinds of groups of people, that have a belief in GOD.

that's true, but if you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much to have the 'word' written on a dollar or in the Pledge of Allegience. Besides, the bigger issue is when we say the Pledge of Allegience, your not pledging Allegience to God, but to America. One Nation, Under God, just signifizes a moment in History were America claimed to be a godly nation unlike the Russian communists. Also, it signifzes America's roots in God, because that's what the pilgirms came over to America to find religious freedom. Freedom to serve God however they wanted, not under England's rules. That's why i think it's stupid for someone to believe that Freedom OF religion includes Freedom FROM religion(that's too COMEPLETELY different
things)

Are you honestly trying to tell me I have no right to be free from YOUR religious bullshit?
How about if the dominant religion here was Islam, and you happen to be a Christian? Wouldn't you want to be free from the Muslim's religious bullshit?

Freedom of Religion means a freedom to worship as you please...or to not worship at all, if that is your pleasure. More to the point, I should not have to pay lip service or homage to someone else's God if I don't fucking want to!

The words "under god" do signify Christianity. The Knights of Columbus (http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm) (Catholic Christians) is the group that campaigned Congress to add "Under God" to the pledge.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm) Didn't an Irish Knights of Columbus chap say the immortal line: "There was no sex in Ireland before television"?

1. Other religions have their God/Goddess, or Gods/Goddesses...but only Christianity calls it "God" with a capital G. <snip>

I believe if you want to get specific about it, Christians call Him "Lord." You are arguing semantics here.



2. The word "god" (note the small g) is in fact abstract. The word "God" (note the capital G) is not in any way, abstract. It is a direct reference to the Christian God and you bloody well know it. To claim otherwise is, at best, intellectually dishonest.

This is the second time you've accused me of lying. You may disagree with me, but you do not have any basis to suggest I am trying to deceive you in any way.

Again, semantics.


3. I'm not insinuating you are an idiot. If that is what you take from my words, well, then, I'm sorry for your perception, but I stand by my words...WHAT PART OF "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" do you not understand?

Obviously you didn't bother to read what I wrote, or, again, you didn't understand it. I haven't the time to go over it again.


4. It is, at the very least, forcing people to at least pay lip service to the concept of a monotheism...to acknowledge the existence of a god...and, more specifically, the Christian God. A good Christian does not force someone to do something against their conscience. Yet, millions of athiests and practitioners of religions other than Christianity are forced to do exactly that, every time they are forced to recite the Pledge.

How so? The pledge does not in any way say "You must believe in God to believe in America." You are pledging to the republic... not to any religion itself.

The United States was created in a belief in a Creator- those certain unalienable rights noted in the Declaration of Independence were given by a Creator... there has always been the idea of a higher power. For goodness sakes, we were founded on people fleeing Europe for religious freedom.



6. I feel it is forcing Christianity down the throats of others, because the "God" is capitalized. More to the point, it is STILL forcing at least the paying of lip service to a god...and, more specifically, a monotheism...thus denying those who are athiest...or those who believe in a polytheism...the ability to say the Pledge, and hold true to their own religious convictions.

You obviously have some other issues with Christianity that have nothing to do with this argument.

I'm not responding to the rest of your argument- you have no idea who I am and yet you have already judged me and think you can determine my political beliefs, my race, or my social status. You know none of these.

You seemed to have the ability at first to be able to hold a decent argument, but you delve into name calling and profanity and reiterating previously stated arguments. Quite disappointing.

that's true, but if you don't believe in God, then why does it bother you so much to have the 'word' written on a dollar or in the Pledge of Allegience.

Never said I was an athiest.


Besides, the bigger issue is when we say the Pledge of Allegience, your not pledging Allegience to God, but to America. One Nation, Under God, just signifizes a moment in History were America claimed to be a godly nation unlike the Russian communists. Also, it signifzes America's roots in God, because that's what the pilgirms came over to America to find religious freedom. Freedom to serve God however they wanted, not under England's rules.

Ahh the myth of the pilgrims and religous freedom. :rolleyes:

Sorry but the english seperatists (we call them the pilgrims) found that religious freedom in Holland. At that time it was the safehaven for anybody. The Hugonaughts, the Belgian Wollan, and the Pilgrims.

The left not liking being integrated into dutch society. Once they got here, they hardly practiced Religious freedom. They set up a quasi-theocracy which if you went against the elders you got tossed from the camps.

These people are hardly worth honoring. They robbed graves and executed the natives for volating puritan law(sources are their diaries. The grave robbing was described as gifts from God).


That's why i think it's stupid for someone to believe that Freedom OF religion includes Freedom FROM religion(that's too COMEPLETELY different
things)

Yes freedom from religion means you don't have to pass a religious test to be part of this nation.


Oh and i can't completely show you an example of a Jew wanting "under God" in the pledge, but i have SEVERAL examples of Non-christians, muslims, and catholics, that want it to stay in.

And I have several that think it should be removed.

Reading "In God We Trust" and uttering "Under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.


Catholic Christians, WOW that's a new one......well, excuse me, but i have to dissagree with you on that statement. Yes! christians are the main known group to profess belief in God, but we are NOT the only ones. I have said this 10 thousand times, Jews, Catholics(which is NOT a complete branch of christianity), Muslims, Non-christians, ALL kinds of groups of people, that have a belief in GOD.

Belief in God and how he should be honored are two different things.

Sorry but many that belive don't think the pledge should be used for honoring.

Sophistry is so amusing.

We have one line of argument here that says "under God" in the Pledge merely symbolizes the nation's committment to religious freedom. This flies in the face of the literal language, the definition of "God," and the express statements of purpose of the Congressmen that passed the law adding the words to the Pledge. By suspending the rules of English and historical reference, this notion ignores the 800-pound Gorrilla, i.e., the literal meaning of "under God." One nation under God. God Almighty. The God. A monotheistic and almost certainly Christian God if any dictionary is consulted.
The OED makes clear that one of the 2 primary branches of meaning of the word "god" is the Christian God and that the first meaning doesn't really apply when the phrase "God" alone with a capital G is used.

We have another line of argument that says "under God" is simply a historical reference. That historically our nation has been religious. But that is not what it says. It does not say: One nation, with a religious history, indivisible..." Whether it is a fact that our Nation is/was/will be "under God" is a religious question of the highest order. First, it pressuposes the existence of God and then in presupposes our subservience. These are matters of conscience, not mere historical fact.

God simply isnt important to all americans. There fore it shouldnt be used. Now may I have a cookie before I go to sleep?

Every "Christian" should know that the BIBLE argues against the combining of Church and State AND says Christians are NOT to do something that will go against the conscience of anyone around them. A TRUE Christian would not be forcing this on others. Problem solved.

Every "Christian" should know that the BIBLE argues against the combining of Church and State AND says Christians are NOT to do something that will go against the conscience of anyone around them. A TRUE Christian would not be forcing this on others. Problem solved.

You'd think so...and you'd sure wish it was that easy. But therin lies the rub. Most so-called "Christians" are anything BUT true Christians. Tis much easier to call yourself a Christian than to actually BE one...and ACT LIKE ONE!!

Most modern-day "Christians" have God and Jesus in their HEAD...but not in their HEART. That is why they act as they do. If they had God and Jesus in their HEART...then they would know that their actions are misguided, wrong, abhorrent, and just plain against God, and what He commanded. Most modern-day Christians are all hung up on the rules and regs...and finger-pointing at all the others who are breaking them...that they fail to get to the parts about love, tolerance, patience, mercy, forgiveness...they fail to get to the part about removing the plank from their own eye, before worrying about the speck in their brother's eye...they never get to the part about loving your neighbor as yourself, and do unto others...they never get to the part about Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I'm convinced that most modern-day Christians are in fact minions of Satan, who have been decieved by Satan, into believing they are doing God's work...when, in fact, they are actually doing Satan's work...by driving so many people (especially gay, lesbian, bi, and trans people) AWAY from God and Jesus! They really THINK they are minions of God and doing God's work, but they have been deceived.

Let's face it. The Bible says God wants us to "come boldly." And also, He wants us to come of our own free will...He does not want people coerced, badgered, or forced into coming to Him.

Now, if the only image you are ever shown of God leads you to believe and hold the image of God as an auditor before whom your books never balance, a teacher whose class you dread, and a parent who abuses you but never affirms you...you are not likely to come boldly." In fact, you are more likely to not come at all!!

So, the hateful, vengeful, wrathful, unmerciful, fearsome God portrayed by the fundamentalists...is not a God any reasonable person would want to go to. And by spreading this image of God, they are turning people away from the REAL God...the one in the New Testament and the Gospels...the one of love, mercy, tolerance, forgiveness, patience, and joy. By obscuring that TRUE God....the fundamentalists are, in my not so humble opinion, minions of Satan, doing Satan's work...and have been deceived into believing otherwise.

Are you honestly trying to tell me I have no right to be free from YOUR religious bullshit?
How about if the dominant religion here was Islam, and you happen to be a Christian? Wouldn't you want to be free from the Muslim's religious bullshit?

Freedom of Religion means a freedom to worship as you please...or to not worship at all, if that is your pleasure. More to the point, I should not have to pay lip service or homage to someone else's God if I don't fucking want to!


Okay, THIS IS WHAT I MEANT, READ CAREFULLY: if ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY are too Religions. Freedom of religion means if your a christian and the dominant religion is Muslim you still can worship how you want, and vice versa. OKAY! now Atheism isn't a religion, because it's Anti-religious, so Atheism CAN'T be a religion because that's against what they believe(although in some ways they are a religion), SO, that is why i say Freedom of Religion Means you can worship as you please just like you said......BUT not worshiping is not a Religion. Besides, i am just stating what i think, what i say isn't the LAW! I'm just saying what i believe. And you don't have to pay homage to someone else's God if you don't want to, BUT having God in the Pledge and on a dollar bill doesn't mean your worshiping him.........


Yes freedom from religion means you don't have to pass a religious test to be part of this nation.


Where in the world did you hear that from? Christianity isn't the "Religion of America" America has no MAIN religion. Yes, Christianity is one of the dominant ones. And your right when you say that saying "Under God" and "In God we Trust" doesn't make me a better christian, but like i've said before, maybe i don't want it to stay in there just a christian, but as an America citizen who doesn't want to change my way of saying the pledge or wasting more Gov. time and money that could be used to do some good for hurting Americans to take off "In God We Trust" on the money or change ALL the history books to take "Under God" out. I mean to me, there are MANY MORE important issues the gov. needs to be taking care of than this. How about the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita? The THOUSANDS dying of AIDS and HIV? How about bringing the soldiers back home from this unnesscesary war? This should be the LEAST of the things on the American 2 do list. Because someone is ALWAYS going to be upset, whether it stays in or not........

Okay, THIS IS WHAT I MEANT, READ CAREFULLY: if ISLAM and CHRISTIANITY are too Religions. Freedom of religion means if your a christian and the dominant religion is Muslim you still can worship how you want, and vice versa. OKAY! now Atheism isn't a religion, because it's Anti-religious, so Atheism CAN'T be a religion because that's against what they believe(although in some ways they are a religion), SO, that is why i say Freedom of Religion Means you can worship as you please just like you said......BUT not worshiping is not a Religion. Besides, i am just stating what i think, what i say isn't the LAW! I'm just saying what i believe. And you don't have to pay homage to someone else's God if you don't want to, BUT having God in the Pledge and on a dollar bill doesn't mean your worshiping him.........

Government in our democracy, state and national, must be neutral in matters of religious theory, doctrine, and practice. It may not be hostile to any religion or to the advocacy of no-religion; and it may not aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another or even against the militant opposite. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

Justice Abe Fortas, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

alright so i just jumped in and i felt like saying my opinion on this , i have only read the first 3 things so dont yell at me if some one has already said this, but i think that the "under god" part in the pledge should stay, its not compulsory to say the pledge first of all so those F***ing B****es can shut up and not say it and only kids say it anyway (pretty much) and they know it by heart probably so they probably don't even relize what they are saying in the pledge if they dont believe in god or they probably dont stop to think about what it means so it makes no F***ing difference, they are F***ing words, just F***ing words so who cares leave it be god hating A**holes!

srry for all the strong word guys just that how i feel and i also used probably alot so srry for the sloppiness.("anyone under 18 that is unappropriate for you" "yah but its bleeped out!" "shut the F*** up kid listen F***ing cursing is not the way to go its a F***ing bad habit B***h"