NationStates Jolt Archive

I find the idea of making people swear allegiance to their country's flag in school of all places to be silly.

It was not even written in the original. It was added in the 1950s by Congress.
The Pledge of Allegiance itself was not written in the Founders' time. 1892.

Well the Knight's of Columbus were one of the major champions for getting the phrase added. The fact it is "God" and not "god" also points it's meaning to the Christian god.
They specifically added it so it would double as a public prayer.

Many Christians will tell you that this country was founded for Christianity. The fact they zealously defend keeping these phrases in place is a good reason for their removal simply to send them a message of you are free to worship as you see fit but don't expect everybody else to live by your moral code.

“As the government is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” John Adams, Excerpt from Treaty of Tripoli

You see no problem with the government violating the constitution?

Well seeing as I'm not American, I really couldn't give a stuff about your constitution.



If you need that explained to you you're thick.

Well fuck me you are nice. Dad, Dad, I can't do this sum, please explain the best way to do division for me. Fuck off son you're thick.

Ask yourself ohhhh high and mighty brain, do you understand everthing about everything? Now I have pationtly explianed my position, and why I don't understand, and I have asked many times for your position and why you hold it, yet I get nowt but abuse, twat! Thats an argument winner for sure huh.



Which explicitly rules out animism, polytheism, and a whole slew of other religions.

No you are wrong. Look up the word God and tell me what it says. If you hold a belief in a God, any God, then because we use the English language, we can just use the word God to mean, all and any without the need to list every example or name, you get that?



And you continually miss the problem by a mile. The contents of the pledge is federal law. Federal law has created a reference to god. It shouldn't be able to do that.

Ahhh better, thank you for explaining that to me. That is what I asked for, now why didn't one of you just say that? Too busy slagging people off that don't agree with I imagine.


Police coming into your house rifling through your drawers and then leaving doesn't harm me, but it's still illegal.

Sorry but that is quite legal and within their powers, if they have a warrent, or just cause to susspect you of a crime.



Yes, some of us actually stand up for something that's wrong even when it doesn't personally harm us.
This is called conviction, and standing up on principle.


Okay now here is the rub, if as you say it is illegal then fine I can understand that, but yet the question remains, what harm dos it do? Anybody?



When you understand that, come back here.

Ohh well cheers, for telling me what I can and can't do, that means soooo much to me comeing form an intelectual such as yourself, masser!;)

Maybe Colorado sucks. Maybe they need to take some advice from Virginia.

The students are required to read this document, or have it read to them, and then to sign a form stating that they have either read it or had it read to them.

The parents also sign for the same reasons.

That way, everyone knows the rules in advance.

I lawl at you and your imaginings that children or parents actually READ the "students rights and responsibilities" handbook.

I lawl at you and your imaginings that children or parents actually READ the "students rights and responsibilities" handbook.

What why would responsible parents not read such stuff from the schools? I mean I do, do you?

In my school up intil 6th grade we were forced to say the pledge Every signle day, and if we didn't we got in trouble. The high school still has to say it once a week.

I find the idea of making people swear allegiance to their country's flag in school of all places to be silly.

Very much agreed.

Unfortunately the question of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance tends to obscure the more fundamental question: whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance should be said in school at all.

Sheesh, okay show me where it has been explained, because I have been here since page ten or so were I said something along the lines of.

I call bullshit.

'I can see no problem what-so-ever, as surly those who belive in God will have no problem with it, and those that don't will have no problem pledgeing towards somthing they don't belive in'

Nobody has explained why there would be a problem to me, even though I have asked about half a dozen times.

So please explain it to me?

"those that don't will HAVE a problem pledging to something they don't believe in" - Fixed it for you. If I really have to point out something that obvious... Jesus H. Christ...

As to Christian God, sorry, does the pledge menation, Just JHVH, or The God of Abraham? No I think it just says God.

God is the word we use to talk about the creator of the universe, as Allah is the Arabic translation of the word God. So nowhere does it explicitly state just the Christian God.

I call bullshit. I challenged you all to use the argument that, back in the 50's when it was instituted, they didn't clearly intend it to be the christian god. You have since not taken me up on that challenge. I suggest you do it now or drop this argument.

I also said as a demonstration of how you are all rowing about what is basicaly a nothing, a non-problem, something along the lines of:

'If I pledged alligence to the bogeyman(a thing I don't belive exists) then what does that actualy mean, or what harm does it do me?'

It means you're pledging allegience to the fucking boogeyman. How ridiculous do you have to be?

Nothing, it means nowt, it does me now harm, it does not serve to brainwash me into beliving in the bogey man, it is rubbish and I realise it is so. So again, what is the issue here?

What if you don't realize it is so. What if you believe in the tooth fairy instead, and you believe it to be blasphemy that you should have to pledge loyalty to the boogeyman. What if you, on general principle, don't want to pledge to a fucking boogeyman? You have the right not to, therefore, it should not even be introduced into the pledge. Those that believe in the boogeyman can add in their own schtick as they like, and the rest can add in their own stuff, or realize the pledge is bullshit in entirety and forego the whole thing.

In reality there is non, it is people getting all upset over nothing. Unless you have evidance, objective evidnace that people have been harmed, or are being harmed in some way, any way by this. Ff that is the case, then show me, I have asked this half a dozen times, and yet, nobody has complied with me request?

I wonder why?

You have asked, we have given. You have dodged, we have shown you other ways. You have ignored, we have continued. After this post, I give up. Honestly. You are a daft, ignorant, unintelligent individual if, by now, you do not realize the harm we mean..

Very much agreed.

Unfortunately the question of whether "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance tends to obscure the more fundamental question: whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance should be said in school at all.

It shouldn't be mandatory. That's for sure.

It shouldn't be mandatory. That's for sure.

It's not. But it shouldn't be official either.

It's not. But it shouldn't be official either.

It was in my school. I was given in-school suspension in jr. high for refusing to say it. [I was going through my commumist phase.]

It was in my school. I was given in-school suspension in jr. high for refusing to say it. [I was going through my commumist phase.]You don't have to be a communist to not share in a group delusion. The opposite is quite often the case, in fact.

It was in my school. I was given in-school suspension in jr. high for refusing to say it. [I was going through my commumist phase.]

Quiet, you! We've been told, time and again, over and over, this shit doesn't happen! So says SCOTUS the great!



Especially not in Virginia!

You don't have to be a communist to not share in a group delusion. The opposite is quite often the case, in fact.

I'm not saying you have to. I was just giving my particular reason. I was abstaining from saying pledge as an act of protest against the US and it's policies. I was in 8th grade and very idealistic.

I'm not saying you have to. I was just giving my particular reason. I wasn't saying pledge as an act of protest against the US and it's policies. I was in 8th grade and very idealistic.

No worries, more a general statement than a barb at yourself.
I've been (and sometimes continue to be) called a this/that/t'other based on general perception.
So you really meant its socio-economic policies?

Quiet, you! We've been told, time and again, over and over, this shit doesn't happen! So says SCOTUS the great!



Especially not in Virginia!

Right. Here in America, a student's constitutional rights are never violated. What was I thinking!

I call bullshit.

Hey look it's you. Now as I remeber it, I never did get an explaination off you you, just shit like the above. Go ahead, you call bullshit, then post me my questions to you, and your excelent replies that answerd my questions?


"those that don't will HAVE a problem pledging to something they don't believe in" - Fixed it for you. If I really have to point out something that obvious... Jesus H. Christ...

A perfect example of what I mean. Where in the above is the answer, the reason I asked for? Nowhere, there is a statement, but no pursasive argument, shit NO argument what-so-ever to back that statement up. I am then to belive it because you say so?

My argument, is if you don't belive it then what is the problem? Again I call up the ficticious bogeyman, I pledge my life and alegeance to it.

I can do that, I can say them words, and it does me no harm because I do not belive in the bogey man. In essance saying it means nothing to me. So explain it to poor little thick me, this thing that has you sooo riled up, that I should just know about it?



I call bullshit. I challenged you all to use the argument that, back in the 50's when it was instituted, they didn't clearly intend it to be the christian god. You have since not taken me up on that challenge. I suggest you do it now or drop this argument.

Really, kindly point me towards that post?



It means you're pledging allegience to the fucking boogeyman. How ridiculous do you have to be?

Ohh so if I change the word from God to bogey man, you suddenly understand the ridiculousness of it. That my friend is what I have been trying to point out. It is ridiculus, by your own admission the whole thing is pointless(I think that was the word you used?) So in that case why are you so upset?



What if you don't realize it is so. What if you believe in the tooth fairy instead, and you believe it to be blasphemy that you should have to pledge loyalty to the boogeyman. What if you, on general principle, don't want to pledge to a fucking boogeyman? You have the right not to, therefore, it should not even be introduced into the pledge. Those that believe in the boogeyman can add in their own schtick as they like, and the rest can add in their own stuff, or realize the pledge is bullshit in entirety and forego the whole thing.

Yeah and I belive that it is not forced, that it is illeagal to do so? For the record, I agree with you it is all rather silly and pointless, my beef is if people ralise that, the why the big brewhaha? I mean there are much more important things to get wond up and angree about. You sound like a kid, getting all emotional over some words they like you to say in school.




You have asked, we have given. You have dodged, we have shown you other ways. You have ignored, we have continued. After this post, I give up. Honestly. You are a daft, ignorant, unintelligent individual if, by now, you do not realize the harm we mean.

Quite frankly that is bollox, nobody answered me, apart from the person who called me thick a few posts ago. Again I invite you to prove me wrong by pointing me to where my questions where in fact answered. And indeed, I have uet top see a single example of this harm you talk about. C'on, if it truly is so, why do I only get 'you're soooo stupid, you should just know what I mean, fuck off you thicko'

Show me man!

Right. Here in America, a student's constitutional rights are never violated. What was I thinking!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0703230285mar23,1,4097654.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed

Another brick in the wall ....

Right. Here in America, a student's constitutional rights are never violated. What was I thinking!

But Eve said so! It has to be true!

Eh, I don't really care. I think there are way more dangerous intrusions of religion in to government (and vice versa) than a single, nonspecific mention of God in a non-binding pledge that has no real role in any aspect of the government's operation.

Hey look it's you. Now as I remeber it, I never did get an explaination off you you, just shit like the above. Go ahead, you call bullshit, then post me my questions to you, and your excelent replies that answerd my questions?



A perfect example of what I mean. Where in the above is the answer, the reason I asked for? Nowhere, there is a statement, but no pursasive argument, shit NO argument what-so-ever to back that statement up. I am then to belive it because you say so?

Honestly, what more do you need? Any question you're asking is irrelevant to the topic at hand, because the answer to the topic has been given.

My argument, is if you don't belive it then what is the problem? Again I call up the ficticious bogeyman, I pledge my life and alegeance to it.

I can't even do this. Scroll down.

I can do that, I can say them words, and it does me no harm because I do not belive in the bogey man. In essance saying it means nothing to me. So explain it to poor little thick me, this thing that has you sooo riled up, that I should just know about it?




Really, kindly point me towards that post?




Ohh so if I change the word from God to bogey man, you suddenly understand the ridiculousness of it. That my friend is what I have been trying to point out. It is ridiculus, by your own admission the whole thing is pointless(I think that was the word you used?) So in that case why are you so upset?




Yeah and I belive that it is not forced, that it is illeagal to do so? For the record, I agree with you it is all rather silly and pointless, my beef is if people ralise that, the why the big brewhaha? I mean there are much more important things to get wond up and angree about. You sound like a kid, getting all emotional over some words they like you to say in school.





Quite frankly that is bollox, nobody answered me, apart from the person who called me thick a few posts ago. Again I invite you to prove me wrong by pointing me to where my questions where in fact answered. And indeed, I have uet top see a single example of this harm you talk about. C'on, if it truly is so, why do I only get 'you're soooo stupid, you should just know what I mean, fuck off you thicko'

Show me man!

I got about two paragraphs into your post and almost had an aneurism. Everything you've asked for has been given. It's, for all intents and purposes, -not- illegal do so, and it happens all the time. I'm done with you. I tire of having to explain the obvious in such detail so many times to the same person.

Anyone else have a question?

No worries, more a general statement than a barb at yourself.
I've been (and sometimes continue to be) called a this/that/t'other based on general perception.
So you really meant its socio-economic policies?

Mostly. I was enamoured with the idea that everyone would work together for the greater good. I despised big business. I thought the government would do well to look after it's poor.

I'm still anti-big business, but I choose now to vote with my wallet. So that makes me a capitalist.

I got about two paragraphs into your post and almost had an aneurism. Everything you've asked for has been given. It's, for all intents and purposes, -not- illegal do so, and it happens all the time. I'm done with you. I tire of having to explain the obvious in such detail so many times to the same person.

Anyone else have a question?

Doesn't happen where I live. Sorry. Teachers have been fired for less.

I got about two paragraphs into your post and almost had an aneurism. Everything you've asked for has been given. It's, for all intents and purposes, -not- illegal do so, and it happens all the time. I'm done with you. I tire of having to explain the obvious in such detail so many times to the same person.

Anyone else have a question?


You mate are basicaly a fuckin' liar, you just have not done what you say you have. still if mere words can cause you to 'almost have an aneurism' then I'm begining to understand your rage!

Doesn't happen where I live. Sorry. Teachers have been fired for less.

Oh, of course. Because where you live is the standard for what goes on countrywide.

You mate are basicaly a fuckin' liar, you just have not done what you say you have. still if mere words can cause you to 'almost have an aneurism' then I'm begining to understand your rage!

I'm not replying to any more of your posts in this thread.

Oh, of course. Because where you live is the standard for what goes on countrywide.


Heheh you should direct that comment back at yourself.

Doesn't happen where I live. Sorry.

whitepaperwhitepaperwhitepaperwhitepaperwhitepaper

So what do you think of Bong Hits 4 Jesus? Good to see that prick Starr in action again?

I'm not replying to any more of your posts in this thread.

Bwahahah you just did!

Still I'm glad, it shows me who I can and can't trust here umm!

No you are wrong. Look up the word God and tell me what it says. If you hold a belief in a God, any God, then because we use the English language, we can just use the word God to mean, all and any without the need to list every example or name, you get that?

See here is where you are wrong. There is a difference between god, and God.

A god is a general term, it means "a god", look up the word god and you will see what god means.

God (note the capital G) is a title (or a name). It refers to a specific entity refered to with the title of God. Which is specifically the Abrahamic god.

god means a god

God means a specific conceptualization of a god.


Ahhh better, thank you for explaining that to me. That is what I asked for, now why didn't one of you just say that?

It was said, many people mentioned the phrase under god was added by law un the 50s.

That's the point. The pledge isn't just something someone made up. It is defined by federal law. There is a law that states exactly what the pledge says in every word. In the 50s that law was amended to insert the words "under god"

The federal government passed A LAW that says it. Many feel that is unconstitutional, and the 9th circuit, so far, agreed.


Sorry but that is quite legal and within their powers, if they have a warrent, or just cause to susspect you of a crime.

Sorry, I meant without a warrant. By the way cause to suspect you of a crime is insufficient, needs to be, at least in the US, exigent circumstances.

So, if the police come into your house, without a warrant, rifle through your stuff, then leave, are you harmed?

Can they do it?


Okay now here is the rub, if as you say it is illegal then fine I can understand that, but yet the question remains, what harm dos it do? Anybody?

Doesn't matter. Not a bit. Constitution says "the government can not do this" If they do it, it's illegal. They've gone beyond their powers. This can not be allowed, ever.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0703230285mar23,1,4097654.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed

Another brick in the wall ....

My favorite quote from the article: Penny: "This kid was clearly testing the limits of his elders' tolerance with this waste of his free-speech rights."

After Tinker v Des Moines (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html), one would think this would no longer be an issue.

Edit: Another Brick in The Wall just started playing on Last.fm. Appropriate.

My favorite quote from the article: Penny: "This kid was clearly testing the limits of his elders' tolerance with this waste of his free-speech rights."
So totally 60's, man!
After Tinker v Des Moines (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html), one would think this would no longer be an issue.After the relative success Starr had with Clinton and co., perhaps the guy's decided it's time for a new precedent?

Edit: Another Brick in The Wall just started playing on Last.fm. Appropriate.I am quite the lucky guesser. *nods solemnly*

So totally 60's, man!
She sounds like some old curmedgeon. WTF? How does one waste a right?

After the relative success Starr had with Clinton and co., perhaps the guy's decided it's time for a new precedent?
Or we can just go along with Bush's "policy" on constitutional rights: We have them until it's incoveinent for him.

I am quite the lucky guesser. *nods solemnly*
:D

Oh, of course. Because where you live is the standard for what goes on countrywide.

Maybe you should move here.

Maybe you should move here.

maybe you should realize that when you make a claim that something is "not done" the burden is on you to demonstrate that it never happens and not the opposition to demonstrate that it does.

Maybe you should move here.

I live in the same state, smartass - we're probably no less than fifty miles from eachother.

I doubt that "how about everyone move near me, then?" attitude fits the entire country.

I live in the same state, smartass - we're probably no less than fifty miles from eachother.

I doubt that "how about everyone move near me, then?" attitude fits the entire country.
Well, you should both move to Oregon. That would solve all problems.:D

Should it be illegal to say 'under God' in the United States' Pledge of Alligence:confused:

*Groans loudly*

Should it be illegal? No.

Should it be there? No.

Its in there due to the history from which and when it was created.

Eh, I don't really care. I think there are way more dangerous intrusions of religion in to government (and vice versa) than a single, nonspecific mention of God in a non-binding pledge that has no real role in any aspect of the government's operation.

Ahhh but could it not be argued that the little transgressions are what eventually emboldened them to the greater ones?

Should it be illegal? No.

Should it be there? No.

Its in there due to the history from which and when it was created.Duh?

Sorry, no teachers out of line here.

You're in every class room, every day, during the pledge?

Congratulations on figuring out that omnipresence thing.

Well seeing as I'm not American, I really couldn't give a stuff about your constitution.

Then why the hell do you "give a stuff" about the pledge of allegiance?




No you are wrong. Look up the word God and tell me what it says. If you hold a belief in a God, any God, then because we use the English language, we can just use the word God to mean, all and any without the need to list every example or name, you get that?


A god, any god is NOT capitalized. When you start it with a big G it refers to the god of Monotheisim.

I think we should replace the word "God" with "Atmospheric Pressure".

up to page 15...I'll hit the rest in a sec.
*slam*

OBJECTION!!!

Anyone who knows anything about this topic knows that people ARE NOT FORCED TO SAY THE FUCKING PLEDGE OF ALLIGENCE nor are they obligated to say under God.

For Christ sakes, understand that.

Even though it is NOT being imposed on others as it is VOLUNTARY to say it.

Check up on the Supreme Court Decisions. According to the Supreme Court, people cannot force you to say the Pledge of Allegience and that was even BEFORE Under God was added.

And as I said many times, by doing so, they are INVIOLATION OF THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND thanks to SCOTUS!

How many times does that need to be said to you?
And we all know that people never break the law, of course.

Sorry, most people don't have the time or resources to challenge a school over the pledge. They can continue to break the law untill someone does.
And you can get into trouble for not standing, or not facing the flag. Why should I be forced to do even that much? It is a waste of time, time that is better spent doing just about anything else.

And before you say "It takes what, 1 minute(including the mandatory moment of silence that is increasingly being followed)?", that works out to 3 hours every year that are spent on somethng as stupid as the pledge. Over the course of your 12 year education, that is 36 hours wasted. Also, as schools swap formats to 180+ school years, or year round schooling, it gets to be even more.

*sigh* No, but that's usually the punishment for breaking a crime.

What other deterrant is there? Is there some sort of fine for telling kids to do the pledge? Is some asshat named Corneliu going to incessantly remind them that they're acting against a SCOTUS decision?

Is nothing at all going to happen? If so, stafu about it being against SCOTUS and the supreme court.Actually, the punishment would likely be a fine, possibly lost jobs or shuffled jobs, that kinda thing, as well as legal expenses.

Again and the big deal is........?
k. This thread is about if it is okay to demand the pledge. He presented evidence that it isn't. Your stance is opposite that.

That should be self-explanatory.

The rules ARE quite explicitly stated, repeated, signed, and known where I am.

Everyone - the teachers, the administrators, the parents, and the children are all fully briefed on the Pledge as I posted above.

What you claim happened in Colorado does not take place in Virginia.
VA is part of the US, no? Well, the pledge would be a national thing. Great, it doesn't happen in VA (I'll give you that, tho I doubt it, and we have evidence in this thread to the contrary). National issues impact ALL states, not just Colorado.
Sorry, no teachers out of line here.Of course not. VA is perfect in every way. Alow me to bow down and fellate the sheer awesomness of VA.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0703230285mar23,1,4097654.story?coll=chi-newslocalchicago-hed

Another brick in the wall ....It'll get tossed, thank dog.

Doesn't happen where I live. Sorry. Teachers have been fired for less.
Doubtful. Welcome to the tenure system...fun for the whole family.



The fact still remains, it doesn't matter if every student is required to participate or not. It is required that schools offer it daily. As such, it is a state sponsorship of the deity "God". It has no place in schools with that phrase still in it. Without the phrase, it moves from being a state sponsorship of religion to a huge waste of time, and still doesn't really belong.

Oh, and just for the hell of it, I might as well throw this fun little tidbit in.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2006/07/26/43fed-2.h25.html?qs=pledge
The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would strip federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over cases on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance or its recitation—a measure that would block challenges to the pledge in public schools.
Therefore, when schools do break the law, the students and families impacted will no longer have a way to hold them accountable, unless they go to the state or federal legislature. Wonderful.

See here is where you are wrong. There is a difference between god, and God.

A god is a general term, it means "a god", look up the word god and you will see what god means.

God (note the capital G) is a title (or a name). It refers to a specific entity refered to with the title of God. Which is specifically the Abrahamic god.

god means a god

God means a specific conceptualization of a god.

Ahh and there my friend you are wrong. God should always be written with the capitol, this is correct English grammer.

As I say the word God is defined as the creator, so unless we specificaly say JHWV, or the God of Abraham, or the God of the Vikings, we mean simply the creator.

Then why the hell do you "give a stuff" about the pledge of allegiance?

*sigh* I don't I merely wanted to know why the big brewhaha, it seems to me to be a pointless row over nowt.

Look I'll explain it again to ya.

Those who belive in God would surly have no problems with the pledge, my question was this:

Why would those who don't belive in God have any problems pledgeing to something they know does not exist?

The example I gave was, it is like me saying the words, I pledge allegance to the bogeyman.

I can say these words, and you know what they actualy cause me no harm, I don't belive in the bogeyman, so essentialy these words are meaningless to me, thay cause me no harm, they do not brainwash me into beliveing in the bogey man, so why the fuss?[/QUOTE]






A god, any god is NOT capitalized. When you start it with a big G it refers to the god of Monotheisim.

You know what that is absolute rubbish, please show me where you got this idea?
God is just the English word we use to mean the creator.

I agree with Morganatron here.

Then how bout we not have it there and you guys can add it if you really feel like ...

You know what that is absolute rubbish, please show me where you got this idea?
God is just the English word we use to mean the creator.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/god

Simply a supernatural being. Also, try typing god in the search blank with a capitol letter. Guess what, NOTHING IS THERE! Also, what creator?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/god

Simply a supernatural being. Also, try typing god in the search blank with a capitol letter. Guess what, NOTHING IS THERE! Also, what creator?

Sorry whats you point, this site backs up exactly what I said?

As so:

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped 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

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

Exactly. Only this definition deals with God (capital G). The creator and ruler of the universe, perfect being in power and wisdom. See where it says "capitalized"? No other definition you have provided contains this caveat, so this is the only definition that deals with God, not god.

So look how it describes capital G God. That's largely an abrahamic notion of god. Many religions, still practiced today, especially polytheistic ones, do not paint a version of god in this fashion. Many religions have lesser gods, not all powerful or perfect, many see gods as flawed, almost human like.

The idea of an all powerful, all benevolent creater of all and everything is largely an abrahamic construct.

So...you kinda shot yourself in the foot there, didn't ya?

God is just the English word we use to mean the creator.

Actually, by the very definition you just supplied, it is not. God does not simply mean "creator". Look at your own definition.

Exactly. Only this definition deals with God (capital G). The creator and ruler of the universe, perfect being in power and wisdom. See where it says "capitalized"? No other definition you have provided contains this caveat, so this is the only definition that deals with God, not god.

So look how it describes capital G God. That's largely an abrahamic notion of god. Many religions, still practiced today, especially polytheistic ones, do not paint a version of god in this fashion. Many religions have lesser gods, not all powerful or perfect, many see gods as flawed, almost human like.

The idea of an all powerful, all benevolent creater of all and everything is largely an abrahamic construct.

So...you kinda shot yourself in the foot there, didn't ya?

*sigh* no not really.

Lets look.

It says:

'the supreme or ultimate reality:' Then it lists sub divissions, which is to say 'the wrod can also be applied thusly, that is also be applied, not the main meaning.

It is clear that the main meaning of God is 'the supreme or ultimate reality:'

Now just where does it speciify in these words, 'Only the Christian concept of God'?

Actually, by the very definition you just supplied, it is not. God does not simply mean "creator". Look at your own definition.

Bah, pedantic.

Whether I say creator, or supreme entitly it is very clear that I mean God. I can also use, ultimate truth, true reality, Satnaam, God, or Allah, it is clear which concept is meant, and again none of these words mean anything other than God - the creator, not God the Christian concept, not God the Hindu concept, just plain old simple God.

*sigh* no not really.

Lets look.

It says:

'the supreme or ultimate reality:' Then it lists sub divissions, which is to say 'the wrod can also be applied thusly, that is also be applied, not the main meaning.

It is clear that the main meaning of God is 'the supreme or ultimate reality:'

Now just where does it speciify in these words, 'Only the Christian concept of God'?

Except that's not at all how it reads, in the slightest.

Here it is, with original emphasis

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


Notice the catagories "a" and "b". It doesn't say simply "supreme or ultimate reality".

Now, even if it did, that's still not ok as many religions do NOT view god as a supreme or ultimate reality. But moving on.

remember A and B are subcatagories, one or the other.

So it's the supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Or

the supreme or ultimate reality as the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit.

Many religions adopt neither of these viewpoints and thus do not encorporate such a version of God. In fact, typically only three do.

Bah, pedantic.

Whether I say creator, or supreme entitly it is very clear that I mean God. I can also use, ultimate truth, true reality, Satnaam, God, or Allah, it is clear which concept is meant, and again none of these words mean anything other than God - the creator, not God the Christian concept, not God the Hindu concept, just plain old simple God.

And what you clearly don't get it that many religions do not view god or gods in this fashion. The definition of God (capital G) implies a specific definition and viewpoint of a god, one that is not held by a great many religions.

Except that's not at all how it reads, in the slightest.

Here it is, with original emphasis

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind


Notice the catagories "a" and "b". It doesn't say simply "supreme or ultimate reality".

Now, even if it did, that's still not ok as many religions do NOT view god as a supreme or ultimate reality. But moving on.

remember A and B are subcatagories, one or the other.

So it's the supreme or ultimate reality as the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Or

the supreme or ultimate reality as the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit.

Many religions adopt neither of these viewpoints and thus do not encorporate such a version of God. In fact, typically only three do.


Jesus, how thick are you?

Let me try to explain. Lets take another word, and to make it plain I have used the same online dictionary.

Motor:

1 : one that imparts motion; specifically : PRIME MOVER
2 : any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion: as a : a small compact engine b : INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE; especially : a gasoline engine c : a rotating machine that transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy
3 : MOTOR VEHICLE; especially : AUTOMOBILE

Well we can safetly ignore 1, and 3 and concern ourselves only with 2.

As you can see the pertinant bit is this: 'any of various power units that develop energy or impart motion:'

This gives us the main, or normal meaning, a, and b, are examples, so lets take it back a bit.

God:

'the supreme or ultimate reality'

This then is the main or normal meaning of the word God, or like I have done we can simply say creator, and still the meaning is the same.

a: 'the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe'

And,

b: 'Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind'

Are then just examples. They have no relevance to the point I am making, which is, in English the word God merley means the creator, or if you must, the supreme or ultimate reality.

Nowhere does it say that the word God means strictly the Christian God.

Nowhere does it say that the word God means strictly the Christian God.

And nobody ever said it did. So I have no idea why you keep insisting it doesn't.

I agree with you, let's say that right now. God does not soley mean the christian version of god.

It does mean a version of God consistant with christianities views. We can also agree to that.

Now what you're just entirely ignoring, over and over again, is that the idea of God, an idea not exclusively Christian, but held by christianity, is not related to other religions' concepts of god/gods

With me? Not all religions view god as God. Some do, one of them is christianity.

Is christianity the ONLY one? No. The concept of God is not exclusive to christianity.

But neither is it inclusive to encompass a belief held by all religions.

Get me?

And nobody ever said it did. So I have no idea why you keep insisting it doesn't.

I agree with you, let's say that right now. God does not soley mean the christian version of god.

It does mean a version of God consistant with christianities views. We can also agree to that.

Now what you're just entirely ignoring, over and over again, is that the idea of God, an idea not exclusively Christian, but held by christianity, is not related to other religions' concepts of god/gods

With me? Not all religions view god as God. Some do, one of them is christianity.

Is christianity the ONLY one? No. The concept of God is not exclusive to christianity.

But neither is it inclusive to encompass a belief held by all religions.

Get me?

I fully understand what you say, and I'm glad that we can now agree that the Word God does not imply nor mean soley the Christian concept of God.

So that agreed, what do you mean by this?

'Now what you're just entirely ignoring, over and over again, is that the idea of God, an idea not exclusively Christian, but held by christianity, is not related to other religions' concepts of god/gods'

Because I never said that at all, all I said was the the word God is the word we use in English to mean the creator. Can you show me any religion where the belife is not God (as used in the english language) , created?

Can you show me any religion where the belife is not God (as used in the english language) , created?

I'm not sure I understand the question here, the belief is not God created?

Do you mean a belief where creation is not the work of god?

Hey i know i am not from the US but i have a few things to say. I dont feel it is right to force people to not have a freedom in religion. In Britain, if you are catholic, you go to a catholic school. If you are non religios you go to a non religious school and so on. Thats is much more simple as you can state your own beliefs not a countries as a whole. Thats like saying because the country is Catholic or believes in a "god" then you have to and thats unfair. Dosnt the US have religious and non religious schools?

I'm not sure I understand the question here, the belief is not God created?

Do you mean a belief where creation is not the work of god?

Yeah we can put it that way.

Ahh and there my friend you are wrong. God should always be written with the capitol, this is correct English grammer.

As I say the word God is defined as the creator, so unless we specificaly say JHWV, or the God of Abraham, or the God of the Vikings, we mean simply the creator.

I'm gonna break my promise not to respond to your answers, because I'm a Grammar Nazi.

A god, as in, a random god, not any specific god, is lowercase, because it's not a proper noun. It's a person place or thing, but it's not a specific person or specific place or specific thing.

If you say "Jeff, the God of Biscuits", then it's capitalized, because you're talking about a specific god. If you say God, then it's a proper noun, because you're talking about a specific god - the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

If you say "My aunt", then it's lowercase. If you say "My Aunt Linda", then it's capitalized, because it's a specific aunt with a specific name.


So, to review: proper nouns are your friends.

I'm gonna break my promise not to respond to your answers, because I'm a Grammar Nazi.

A god, as in, a random god, not any specific god, is lowercase, because it's not a proper noun. It's a person place or thing, but it's not a specific person or specific place or specific thing.

If you say "Jeff, the God of Biscuits", then it's capitalized, because you're talking about a specific god. If you say God, then it's a proper noun, because you're talking about a specific god - the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

If you say "My aunt", then it's lowercase. If you say "My Aunt Linda", then it's capitalized, because it's a specific aunt with a specific name.


So, to review: proper nouns are your friends.

Many thanks for your answer, but we have that one all sorted now.

Unless of course you can show me specifly where it says God means specificly the God of Abraham?

As opposed to God means the supreame being, or creator.

I'm gonna break my promise not to respond to your answers, because I'm a Grammar Nazi.

A god, as in, a random god, not any specific god, is lowercase, because it's not a proper noun. It's a person place or thing, but it's not a specific person or specific place or specific thing.

If you say "Jeff, the God of Biscuits", then it's capitalized, because you're talking about a specific god. If you say God, then it's a proper noun, because you're talking about a specific god - the monotheistic Abrahamic god.

If you say "My aunt", then it's lowercase. If you say "My Aunt Linda", then it's capitalized, because it's a specific aunt with a specific name.


So, to review: proper nouns are your friends.

Many thanks for your answer, but we have that one all sorted now.

Unless of course you can show me specifly where it says God means specificly the God of Abraham?

As opposed to God means the supreame being, or creator.

Many thanks for your answer, but we have that one all sorted now.

Unless of course you can show me specifly where it says God means specificly the God of Abraham?

As opposed to God means the supreame being, or creator.

Supreme being, yes. As in, THE supreme being. One supreme being. Monotheism.

"God" does not mean Zeus. He's a god, but I know of no situation in which he is referred to as "God", because that's not his name. The Abrahamic God, however, is a lazy bastard and couldn't tell us his actual name, so we just call him a proper noun form of the simple noun word people use to refer to a great deity or great deities.

Therefore when it's capitalized, it's most likely, and very arguably, referring to the Abrahamic God.

"Jeff, the God of Biscuits"

10 points for the Izzard reference.

10 points for the Izzard reference.

Woot.

Eddie Izzard ftw, indeed.

Supreme being, yes. As in, THE supreme being. One supreme being. Monotheism.

"God" does not mean Zeus. He's a god, but I know of no situation in which he is referred to as "God", because that's not his name. The Abrahamic God, however, is a lazy bastard and couldn't tell us his actual name, so we just call him a proper noun form of the simple noun word people use to refer to a great deity or great deities.

Therefore when it's capitalized, it's most likely, and very arguably, referring to the Abrahamic God.

I beg to differ. Supreame does not mean only it means the top, the number 1 the best.

Zeus is must assuredly a God, in a pantheon of gods, being the supreame God in Greek mythology.

JHVH is the name of the God of Abraham, not God. God it what JHVH is.

If I was Arabic instead of English I could even say that JHVH is the name of the Allah of Abraham. Allah is what JHVH is.

It would mean the same, the word God is just the word we use to denote a supreame entity, it does not mean specificly the God of Abraham. Again unless you can show me where it does say that?

Zeus is must assuredly a God, in a pantheon of gods, being the supreame God in Greek mythology.

See, this is where you are 100% totally, factually wrong.

You can not say Zeus is a God. God is a title. God is a proper name/title. When you are using it to reference one god of gods, it's simply a god.

Zeus is a god. Not a God.

Zeus, while he leads the pantheon, is not the supreme creator. This is where your analysis veers way off course. It is improper grammar to say "Zeus is a God". Likewise the phrase "under God" can not, through its structure, refer to him.

I beg to differ. Supreame does not mean only it means the top, the number 1 the best.

Zeus is must assuredly a God, in a pantheon of gods, being the supreame God in Greek mythology.

JHVH is the name of the God of Abraham, not God. God it what JHVH is.

If I was Arabic instead of English I could even say that JHVH is the name of the Allah of Abraham. Allah is what JHVH is.

It would mean the same, the word God is just the word we use to denote a supreame entity, it does not mean specificly the God of Abraham. Again unless you can show me where it does say that?

But again, you ignore proper nouns.

And no, Zeus isn't the "supreame" god, either. He just ended up leading them - I'm pretty sure it was Cronos who gave birth to the lesser gods, including Zeus, who killed Cronos with a sickle.

Should it be illegal to say 'under God' in the United States' Pledge of Alligence:confused:

Im my philosophy, I think it would be appropriate, for those taking the pledge too choose too say the line "under god". Is it that big of a deal? The pledge should be compulsory, but the line must be a choice.

But again, you ignore proper nouns.

And no, Zeus isn't the "supreame" god, either. He just ended up leading them - I'm pretty sure it was Cronos who gave birth to the lesser gods, including Zeus, who killed Cronos with a sickle.


Heh you are funny, I'm starting to like you. So instead of defend your statement about the God of Abrahams name being God, you decide to pick me up on the meaning of the word supreame?

Well okay then, if that's how you want it.

The same thing happens in Viking mythology, Odin killed the God who birthed the universe he was helped in it by his brothers Vili and Ve, yet Odin rose, as did Zeus to become the supreame God.

Supreame meaning, best, number 1, tops, or perhaps leader in this context. Do you really want to argue this?

Nouns, when I talk about my Dad, is it correct grammar to say dad, or Dad?

When I talk about God being the creator, then this is equivilent to a title is it not, so then is it correct grammar to use God or god?

See, this is where you are 100% totally, factually wrong.

You can not say Zeus is a God. God is a title. God is a proper name/title. When you are using it to reference one god of gods, it's simply a god.

Zeus is a god. Not a God.

Zeus, while he leads the pantheon, is not the supreme creator. This is where your analysis veers way off course. It is improper grammar to say "Zeus is a God". Likewise the phrase "under God" can not, through its structure, refer to him.

Indeed. Saying "under God" and having it refer to a generalization of creation entities, regardless of religious origin, is like saying 'Jeff" in place of person, or people. If they meant it to mean any religious spectre that created the world, then they should've said "under gods" - lowercase, because it's nonspecific, and pluralize 'god' because it's for all of them.

Even then it would've been too vague, but it would've been grammatically correct for the assumption you're going on.

It was not even written in the original. It was added in the 1950s by Congress.

Eisenhower did it.

Heh you are funny, I'm starting to like you. So instead of defend your statement about the God of Abrahams name being God, you decide to pick me up on the meaning of the word supreame?

Well okay then, if that's how you want it.

The same thing happens in Viking mythology, Odin killed the God who birthed the universe he was helped in it by his brothers Vili and Ve, yet Odin rose, as did Zeus to become the supreame God.

Supreame meaning, best, number 1, tops, or perhaps leader in this context. Do you really want to argue this?

Nouns, when I talk about my Dad, is it correct grammar to say dad, or Dad?

When I talk about God being the creator, then this is equivilent to a title is it not, so then is it correct grammar to use God or god?

I wasn't noting anything about the word "supreame", other than you spelled it incorrectly. Supreme (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreame), thank you.

I must seriously assume you have insanely poor reading comprehension. I've already told you why we refer to the Abrahamic god as "God", because we don't know his name, so he was given the name God, making the former title of "god, supreme being, creator of all the universe" a proper noun, and turning it into the name we refer to him as.

I'm not picking on you - I really think there's something wrong with the way you process information. This isn't the first time in the thread you've denied having been answered when you clearly have.

See, this is where you are 100% totally, factually wrong.

You can not say Zeus is a God. God is a title. God is a proper name/title. When you are using it to reference one god of gods, it's simply a god.

Zeus is a god. Not a God.

Zeus, while he leads the pantheon, is not the supreme creator. This is where your analysis veers way off course. It is improper grammar to say "Zeus is a God". Likewise the phrase "under God" can not, through its structure, refer to him.

Hold on you contradict your self here.

On the one hand you say that Zeus is a god, then on the other you say that God is a title.

Zeus has the title of God, yes? Zeus is a God.

if I was a knighted, I would be Sir Peeps, so it is correct to say Peeps is a Sir.

As to supreame creator, I did not use that phrase.

Indeed. Saying "under God" and having it refer to a generalization of creation entities, regardless of religious origin, is like saying 'Jeff" in place of person, or people. If they meant it to mean any religious spectre that created the world, then they should've said "under gods" - lowercase, because it's nonspecific, and pluralize 'god' because it's for all of them.

Even then it would've been too vague, but it would've been grammatically correct for the assumption you're going on.

Heheh and what makes me laugh loudest about this whole 'debate' is we are talking about a spoken pledge.

All of this God, or god aside though, I think the real problem you guys have is the inclusion of religoin in the pledge, soooo all this time you have been building your arguments on falseness, heh ohh my!

I wasn't noting anything about the word "supreame", other than you spelled it incorrectly. Supreme (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreame), thank you.

I must seriously assume you have insanely poor reading comprehension. I've already told you why we refer to the Abrahamic god as "God", because we don't know his name, so he was given the name God, making the former title of "god, supreme being, creator of all the universe" a proper noun, and turning it into the name we refer to him as.

I'm not picking on you - I really think there's something wrong with the way you process information. This isn't the first time in the thread you've denied having been answered when you clearly have.

Well yes there is something wrong with the way my brain process data, I am dyslexic, this though effects only my writting not my reading.

That aside though, really you disagree that the God of Abraham's name is not God, but JHVH, really, you have really never heard that before?

You misunderstand my intentions then, which perhaps points to an error in your own reading comprension? I fully understand whatyou mean when you talk about the differance between God and god, I merely disagree. As to having been answered or not, I have asked twice for you to show me 'where it says that God means specificly only the God of Abraham'

You have told me why you belive what you do, but 'showing' me any evidance for it, nope, nothing yet. I'm not picking on you, but you do know what the word show means yeah? It does not mean tell.

Nouns, when I talk about my Dad, is it correct grammar to say dad, or Dad?

dad.

When I talk about God being the creator, then this is equivilent to a title is it not, so then is it correct grammar to use God or god?

Yes it is, a god that is the creator can be refered to as God, being that God, as a title, is the creator.

But, once again, not everybody believes that. You have yet to address this. Not all religions that have a concept of "god" would grand that god the title of God (IE the creator).

dad.



Yes it is, a god that is the creator can be refered to as God, being that God, as a title, is the creator.

But, once again, not everybody believes that. You have yet to address this. Not all religions that have a concept of "god" would grand that god the title of God (IE the creator).

Yep you said this before, and I invited you to show me such a religion.

All of this God, or god aside though, I think the real problem you guys have is the inclusion of religoin in the pledge, soooo all this time you have been building your arguments on falseness, heh ohh my!

Not build on falseness at all. The definition of God versus god, and whether God can be said to reference to a specific set of beliefs is entirely relevant to whether the phrase "under God" is defined as a religious statement.

That's the whole point, whether or not religion is included in the phrase ENTIRELY hinges on definitions of god v. God.

That's the entire POINT to this discussion. Whether the phrase "under God" qualifies as religious sentiment or not specifically and entirely relates to how we should define the word "God".

Yep you said this before, and I invited you to show me such a religion.

one was already mentioned, traditional greek. Zeus did not create the world, it was already created by the time odin's father cronos conceived him.

And norse. Odin wasn't the creator, his father was Bor. Bor's father was Buri who was freed from an ice flow by a cow named Audhumla, and all of them were predated by Ymir the Frost Giant who himself wasn't really a creator in any sense anyway.

Or Voodoon. Danbhala-Wedo gave birth to the demi gods, the loahs, who themselves sorta muddled through and created things, but no one of them can be pinned on being "the creator". Aida-Wedo, the Rainbow, the wife of Danbhalah, showed the first people how to procreate and grow society. Neither Danbhala nor Aida can be pinned on being "THE creator" and their children had a fair hand in it to.

Or shintoism. Heaven and earth began as one, but seperated. The first god was born, creating his children, then tasked the children to finish creation. While there was a first god, in the sense that odin or zeus were the first of the pantheon, the first god did not directly create everything, some things existed before him, and the tasks of creation were left to his children.

None of these pin creation, or even the catalysts for creation, on a SINGLE entity. Some don't really address the fundamental beginnings at all.

Im my philosophy, I think it would be appropriate, for those taking the pledge too choose too say the line "under god". Is it that big of a deal? The pledge should be compulsory, but the line must be a choice.

They're not obligated to say under god as it is.

Hold on you contradict your self here.

On the one hand you say that Zeus is a god, then on the other you say that God is a title.

Zeus has the title of God, yes? Zeus is a God.

if I was a knighted, I would be Sir Peeps, so it is correct to say Peeps is a Sir.

As to supreame creator, I did not use that phrase.

I'm laughing my ass off.

He capitalized god there because it was the start of a new sentence.

Zeus has the title of God, yes?

No. He does not. Zeus was never refered to with the title of "God". He was refered to as "a god".

He was refered to as Father Zeus. In this instance "Father" was a title. Zeus never had the title of God, and was never refered to as God. He was refered to as Father, or "a god" but was never given the title of God.

one was already mentioned, traditional greek. Zeus did not create the world, it was already created by the time odin's father cronos conceived him.

And norse. Odin wasn't the creator, his father was Bor. Bor's father was Buri who was freed from an ice flow by a cow named Audhumla, and all of them were predated by Ymir the Frost Giant who himself wasn't really a creator in any sense anyway.

Or Voodoon. Danbhala-Wedo gave birth to the demi gods, the loahs, who themselves sorta muddled through and created things, but no one of them can be pinned on being "the creator". Aida-Wedo, the Rainbow, the wife of Danbhalah, showed the first people how to procreate and grow society. Neither Danbhala nor Aida can be pinned on being "THE creator" and their children had a fair hand in it to.

None of these pin creation, or even the catalysts for creation, on a SINGLE entity. Some don't really address the fundamental beginnings at all.

Ahh now thats good.

I know a lot about Viking mythology, so we can concetrate on that. I tell ya what I'll concede and call you right if when I go away and search through some texts, and if I find cannot find any examples of any Old Norse words that translate as God, in the myths.

However if I can find somthing that can be translated from old Norse into the moderen word God, for any of the names you have named above, what then huh?;)

I'm laughing my ass off.

He capitalized god there because it was the start of a new sentence.

Bwhahahaha and you have just shown that indeed your reading skills are not that good.

They're not obligated to say under god as it is.

they're not obligated to say any part of it. This is still irrelevant.

Whether or not one is compelled to say it is a free speech issue.

The question of the appropriateness of the phrase "under God" is a establishment of religion issue. The fact that they are not compelled to say it takes away some of the concern of the free speech issue, but does not in any way address the establishment issue.

Ahh now thats good.

I know a lot about Viking mythology, so we can concetrate on that. I tell ya what I'll concede and call you right if when I go away and search through some texts, and if I find cannot find any examples of any Old Norse words that translate as God, in the myths.

However if I can find somthing that can be translated from old Norse into the moderen word God, for any of the names you have named above, what then huh?;)

Norse in particular gets....wierd. Mainly because Norse mythology doesn't really spend a lot of time addressing the full creation of existance. It rarely talks about creation, it more talks about the gods from beyond creation to ragnarok. The beginning times are dealt with only briefly.

Norse in particular gets....wierd. Mainly because Norse mythology doesn't really spend a lot of time addressing the full creation of existance. It rarely talks about creation, it more talks about the gods from beyond creation to ragnarok. The beginning times are dealt with only briefly.

Yep that is quite true, heh but I'm sure I can go and dig up summit, or talk to some people.

they're not obligated to say any part of it. This is still irrelevant.

Whether or not one is compelled to say it is a free speech issue.

The question of the appropriateness of the phrase "under God" is a establishment of religion issue.

Well since it does not really mention whose God it is... it is not an establishment of religion.

The fact that they are not compelled to say it takes away some of the concern of the free speech issue, but does not in any way address the establishment issue.

Actually it does for the same reason as you posted.

Ahh now thats good.

I know a lot about Viking mythology, so we can concetrate on that. I tell ya what I'll concede and call you right if when I go away and search through some texts, and if I find cannot find any examples of any Old Norse words that translate as God, in the myths.

However if I can find somthing that can be translated from old Norse into the moderen word God, for any of the names you have named above, what then huh?;)

I'm not sure how capitalization translates.

But the point is, you're ignoring proper nouns completely. Regardless of what you're talking about, proper nouns always apply. If Athena is a god, then you must concede that god does not always mean a creator, because she was not one. She was birthed from Cronos' skull.

She is a god, but she is not God. If she was God, then so would have to be Ares, and Zeus, and Hera, and all the other greek gods - but they're not all collectively referred to as God, because they're not God, because they are gods, plural, more than one. They share the label "god", because it takes the definition of a divine supernatural entity and uses the word "god" lowercase g to define it.

I'm TELLING you these things, because they're true. How can I SHOW you this unless I drag you to a highschool English class and make you do the homework referring to proper nouns, and then showing you the failing grade you'd get?

Well since it does not really mention whose God it is... it is not an establishment of religion.



Actually it does for the same reason as you posted.

Don't you start. -_-

Don't you start. -_-

I'm not starting something. That is only in your head.

Bwhahahaha and you have just shown that indeed your reading skills are not that good.

Jesus Christ.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/neodarkheart/title.jpg

Note to where the red line is. This is what you were referring to when you said what you said that's being underlined in blue.

The red line shows, quite clearly, both times he referred to "God" as being a title, it was at the beginning of a sentence, hence, he had to capitalize god regardless of the topic at hand or whether or not it was a proper noun.

I feel so sorry for you that you have the audacity to be so wrong, and look so stupid, yet not even realize it in the slightest.

I'm not starting something. That is only in your head.

Then why refer to the noun, god, and use the proper noun version, God, unless you either haven't read any of the thread for the last four or so pages or you were starting something?

Then why refer to the noun, god, and use the proper noun version, God, unless you either haven't read any of the thread for the last four or so pages or you were starting something?

Or could it be that I was referring to something that is beyond your ability to comprehend?

Or could it be that I was referring to something that is beyond your ability to comprehend?
No.

This has been another edition of Short Answers To Silly Questions.

No.

This has been another edition of Short Answers To Silly Questions.

A CHALLENGER APPROACHES!


Let's all welcome Bottle to the thread!

I hope she stays. We need new people.

I think it's the point in the thread where inane poll analysis is appropriate.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that the non-atheists are split on the issue.

I do find it a little surprising that 15 atheists want to keep "Under God" in the pledge. What's the rationale for that?

My guess is apathy.

I think it's the point in the thread where inane poll analysis is appropriate.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that the non-atheists are split on the issue.

I do find it a little surprising that 15 atheists want to keep "Under God" in the pledge. What's the rationale for that?

You know what that is absolute rubbish, please show me where you got this idea?
God is just the English word we use to mean the creator.

When used lowercase the definition is as follows: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

When used lowercase the definition is as follows: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

Which fits Peepleonia's definition nicely. The "God" being referred to is the personification of the creation force, or Big Bang.

Im my philosophy, I think it would be appropriate, for those taking the pledge too choose too say the line "under god". Is it that big of a deal? The pledge should be compulsory, but the line must be a choice.

Why exactly should anyone in a free country swear a compulsory loyalty oath?

I'm not picking on you - I really think there's something wrong with the way you process information. This isn't the first time in the thread you've denied having been answered when you clearly have.

I think I know what's wrong with his reading ability, it's the fact that he lives under a bridge and eats goats.

<for the reading impaired, no I am NOT saying he's homeless. There are other forum dwelling beings known for living under bridges>

Which fits Peepleonia's definition nicely. The "God" being referred to is the personification of the creation force, or Big Bang.

Then we should ask him if he would be ok with under Allah? What about the creator?

I bet both would be met with opposition by many who claim Under God isn't Christian.

Fact remains that the Knights of Columbus were a major force for the change. They wouldn't push for a generic meaning.....

I think it's the point in the thread where inane poll analysis is appropriate.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that the non-atheists are split on the issue.

I do find it a little surprising that 15 atheists want to keep "Under God" in the pledge. What's the rationale for that?

It's also important to note that non-atheist includes non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic folks who may compose most of the non-atheist votes for not having under God in the pledge.

Which fits Peepleonia's definition nicely. The "God" being referred to is the personification of the creation force, or Big Bang.

Peeple's definition of god is good, yes, but there's one problem: he attributes it with the word God, instead of what it's supposed to be attributed to.

Bottom line:

god = divine deity/being, very general term, could refer to almost any faith's deity

God = divine deity/being, very specifically, the "THE" form of god, 'THE GOD', singular, applies to only a few faiths.

Sorry for being Johnny Foreigner, but why exactly do you have to pledge alliegence (?sp) to the flag at all?

Sorry for being Johnny Foreigner, but why exactly do you have to pledge alliegence (?sp) to the flag at all?

Because the Flag demands it. You do not question the Flag. Flag is good. Flag has seen my faults and Flag has shown me how to overcome them. I love Flag.

Because the Flag demands it. You do not question the Flag. Flag is good. Flag has seen my faults and Flag has shown me how to overcome them. I love Flag.

Yes, we love Fath-- I mean, The Part--, I mean, The Flag.

I was unaware america was founded in 1954.

But then again, if we want to look on the principles america was founded on, we should look to the legal documents that founded it, shouldn't we? Surely if God was a principle the US was founded on, God would be mentioned.

*reads*

Well damn....

Last I checked, The Declaration of independance was littered with iterations refering to god and religion. Isn't the declaring of this nation free from England one of those documents which helped to establish our country ??? :confused:

As well "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" I belive is one of the oldest traditions of the Supreme court...

So what were the principles we were aruging were not apart of this country when it was being established ? cause I see plenty of evidence against you >.>

Should it be illgeal : No
Should it be there: Yes (if not for purely traditional reasons)

Last I checked, The Declaration of independance was littered with iterations refering to god and religion. Isn't the declaring of this nation free from England one of those documents which helped to establish our country ??? :confused:

As well "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" I belive is one of the oldest traditions of the Supreme court...

So what were the principles we were aruging were not apart of this country when it was being established ? cause I see plenty of evidence against you >.>

Should it be illgeal : No
Should it be there: Yes (if not for purely traditional reasons)

Tradition must be tossed aside if it's got no redeeming qualities other than being tradition - especially so if it makes a hipocrite of the nation.

Sorry for being Johnny Foreigner, but why exactly do you have to pledge alliegence (?sp) to the flag at all?

for the same reason there is a national anthum i presume...

Ahh and there my friend you are wrong. God should always be written with the capitol, this is correct English grammer.

As I say the word God is defined as the creator, so unless we specificaly say JHWV, or the God of Abraham, or the God of the Vikings, we mean simply the creator.
"God", capitalized (aside from the beginning of a sentence where it would otherwise be lowercase) refers specifically to Lord God, as in, the deity of Western monotheism (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). When refering to this specific god, it should be capitalized as it is a proper noun, one of the Lord's names.
"god", lowercase (aside from when it starts a sentence) is a general term, refering to any deity outside of the Lord, similar to the word "goddess". Goddess is never capitalized as a proper noun in English grammer.

If you would like some form of proof, go into Microsoft word, and type a sentence using the word "god" in it, such as "I am a god". It will not be capitalized. God is only capitalized when starting a sentence or refering to the Lord God.

Many thanks for your answer, but we have that one all sorted now.

Unless of course you can show me specifly where it says God means specificly the God of Abraham?

As opposed to God means the supreme being, or creator.
Only the Western monotheistic religions place a single god as the "supreme being" or "creator". If another religion did this, there would be no need for other gods, as one would have total control over everything.


This is basic English grammer. God, when used as a proper noun, refers only to one deity. When used as a standard noun, it can refer to anyone or anything, and should not be capitalized.

Don't believe us? Go ask your English teacher/professor. Or religious leader.
Sorry for being Johnny Foreigner, but why exactly do you have to pledge alliegence (?sp) to the flag at all?
good question.

Tradition must be tossed aside if it's got no redeeming qualities other than being tradition - especially so if it makes a hipocrite of the nation.

Seeing how the United States is among the most conservative religious western nations, I fail to see the hipocracy. The right of religion is protected, just not ignored.

I adhere to the age old thought, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"!

Infact I would say it does it honor, since it shows the world how important we hold religion, and how worthy the protections are to have them. If you ignore religion all together (unthinkable seeing how religions in genearl the popluation is) what justice are you doing to the belifs of the people (and essentially the nation)

remember, it dosn't say christian god, or jewish god, or muslim god, or hindu god.... just says god...

Seeing how the United States is among the most conservative religious western nations, I fail to see the hipocracy. The right of religion is protected, just not ignored.

I adhere to the age old thought, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"!
few sayings cause more problems than that. The world constantly changes. If you don't anticipate those changes, you are left behind.

As for being overall conservative and Christian (as that is what I assume you mean when you say "religious"), there are still many (and an increasing number) of people who are not either. The state cannot sponsor a religion. Just because we always have does not make it "okay" or "correct". Traditions can be wrong.

It's also important to note that non-atheist includes non-Judeo/Christian/Islamic folks who may compose most of the non-atheist votes for not having under God in the pledge.

Doubtful. Most of the theists on this forum seem to be fairly liberal Christians, with the occasional Muslim or Jew thrown in. I've seen maybe one Bahai, a handful of Hindus, and the occasional Neo-pagan, along with a rogue heno-theist and a very nice animist.

Then we should ask him if he would be ok with under Allah? What about the creator?

I bet both would be met with opposition by many who claim Under God isn't Christian.

Fact remains that the Knights of Columbus were a major force for the change. They wouldn't push for a generic meaning.....

The KoC? Probably not, given their membership demographics. You're right on that score.

Seeing how the United States is among the most conservative religious western nations, I fail to see the hipocracy. The right of religion is protected, just not ignored.

I adhere to the age old thought, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"!

Infact I would say it does it honor, since it shows the world how important we hold religion, and how worthy the protections are to have them. If you ignore religion all together (unthinkable seeing how religions in genearl the popluation is) what justice are you doing to the belifs of the people (and essentially the nation)

remember, it dosn't say christian god, or jewish god, or muslim god, or hindu god.... just says god...

The problem is it IS broke and it's broke from a true Christian point of view. It's amazing how "fundamentalists" are only fundamental about the things that they want. Try to find a place in the Bible where Jesus or Paul advocated the combining on religion and government. It simply doesn't exist. At the same time, Jesus did say to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's----Among other divisions of Church and State in the Bible. Any person who calls themselves "Christian" and wants to have the government support their beliefs needs to read the Bible and study history. Show one time in history where the church became governmentally powerful and it didn't harm Christianity. (or any other religion for that matter.

It is simply unChristian to support things like this or prayer in schools or any other religion in government.

few sayings cause more problems than that. The world constantly changes. If you don't anticipate those changes, you are left behind.

As for being overall conservative and Christian (as that is what I assume you mean when you say "religious"), there are still many (and an increasing number) of people who are not either. The state cannot sponsor a religion. Just because we always have does not make it "okay" or "correct". Traditions can be wrong.

If anything, I would argue the world changes (globalization) make the word "God" all that much more inclusive for the nation then in the past. In the past surely the term "God" refered to the christian God, but today, because we are a more tolerant generation, we know it includes so much more.

Traditions of coures can be wrong, yet I fail to see where this one falls in that category.

Infact I would say it does it honor, since it shows the world how important we hold religion, and how worthy the protections are to have them. If you ignore religion all together (unthinkable seeing how religions in genearl the popluation is) what justice are you doing to the belifs of the people (and essentially the nation)

remember, it dosn't say christian god, or jewish god, or muslim god, or hindu god.... just says god...
"We" don't all hold religion important. We are one nation out of many. Not all of us consider God to be important, let alone religion in general.

It also says "God", not "god". That narrows it down to Christian, Jewish, and Muslim.

If anything, I would argue the world changes (globalization) make the word "God" all that much more inclusive for the nation then in the past. In the past surely the term "God" refered to the christian God, but today, because we are a more tolerant generation, we know it includes so much more.

Traditions of coures can be wrong, yet I fail to see where this one falls in that category.
No. "God" refers solely to the Judeo-Islamo-Christian deity. No others. It is a proper noun that serves as one of that deity's many names.

Additionally, even if it was "god" and not "God", there is a significant (and growing) portion of the population that rejects even that idea.

The state cannot sponsor any religion. Period. Sponsoring 3, or 5, or even 50 religions is still sponsoring religion, and is still unconstitutional.

The problem is it IS broke and it's broke from a true Christian point of view. It's amazing how "fundamentalists" are only fundamental about the things that they want. Try to find a place in the Bible where Jesus or Paul advocated the combining on religion and government. It simply doesn't exist. At the same time, Jesus did say to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's----Among other divisions of Church and State in the Bible. Any person who calls themselves "Christian" and wants to have the government support their beliefs needs to read the Bible and study history. Show one time in history where the church became governmentally powerful and it didn't harm Christianity. (or any other religion for that matter.

It is simply unChristian to support things like this or prayer in schools or any other religion in government.


I again fail to see how you can corrolate this to government sponsored religion... what religion is being sponsored here ?? (other then the broad identification of religion as an important aspect of this nations identity)

I simply see this as a tribute to the ideals of the people who fought to make this nation a reality (not just including the founding fathers, but all the patriots who came here for the RIGHT to PRACTICE religion).

[And as far as Christianity is concerned, last I checked it was the duty of every good christian to spread the word of god... this helps keep the issue of religion in the public eye, so I would say its a pretty christian thing to do (if i were aruging from that point of view)..]

The problem is it IS broke and it's broke from a true Christian point of view. It's amazing how "fundamentalists" are only fundamental about the things that they want. Try to find a place in the Bible where Jesus or Paul advocated the combining on religion and government. It simply doesn't exist. At the same time, Jesus did say to give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's----Among other divisions of Church and State in the Bible. Any person who calls themselves "Christian" and wants to have the government support their beliefs needs to read the Bible and study history. Show one time in history where the church became governmentally powerful and it didn't harm Christianity. (or any other religion for that matter.

It is simply unChristian to support things like this or prayer in schools or any other religion in government.
You're Christian, correct? I was wondering, how is the pledge not idoltry? It worships the state which we claim is "under God"...yet it is still not the worship of God, nor has God ever stated that we are under him...

I again fail to see how you can corrolate this to government sponsored religion... what religion is being sponsored here ?? (other then the broad identification of religion as an important aspect of this nations identity) It is a national pledge, selected by the government. It refers to a deity (or, as you attempt to argue, many deities). Deities are inherently religious. The government has chosen to select something that promotes religion, which is a state sponsorship of religion. It doesn't have to be just one religion...the state is precluded from sponsoring any, be it 1 or 100.

I simply see this as a tribute to the ideals of the people who fought to make this nation a reality (not just including the founding fathers, but all the patriots who came here for the RIGHT to PRACTICE religion). The ones that wrote and voted for the bill of rights, including the first amendment?
Also, those people who came here to practice their religion were intolerant bigots, almost moreso than those who sent them out of the old world.

[And as far as Christianity is concerned, last I checked it was the duty of every good christian to spread the word of god... this helps keep the issue of religion in the public eye, so I would say its a pretty christian thing to do (if i were aruging from that point of view)..]

because our government was inherently designed to be a secular one.

and just a grammatical note, it should be parenthesis, then bracket, not bracket then parenthesis.

This discussion so far has focused on students rights...what about teachers rights?

Teachers are the spokemen for the state...if the state "strongly suggests" that students should say the pledge, it follows that teachers are required to, as to set a good example. It conflicts with my beliefs, yet I would still be forced to say it.

Same as students don't forfeit their rights at the door, neither do teachers.

"We" don't all hold religion important. We are one nation out of many. Not all of us consider God to be important, let alone religion in general.

It also says "God", not "god". That narrows it down to Christian, Jewish, and Muslim.


No. "God" refers solely to the Judeo-Islamo-Christian deity. No others. It is a proper noun that serves as one of that deity's many names.

Additionally, even if it was "god" and not "God", there is a significant (and growing) portion of the population that rejects even that idea.

The state cannot sponsor any religion. Period. Sponsoring 3, or 5, or even 50 religions is still sponsoring religion, and is still unconstitutional.


last i checked the exact wording was, no establishment of religion can be made... And I do not see this as being the case..(acknowledgement and establishment are two very different things) and clearly the supreme court dosn't either (or hasn't up until now). So until the supreme court judges it to be unconstitutional... welp.

And you should define "significant" because if we were looking at what the significant portions of the nation belive in ... I think God would be your qualifying answer [in whatever form he maybe].

While we dont ALL think religion is important.. we dont ALL also think there should be speed limits on the road ways. Yet they are there. We dont ALL have to think that way, we just have to MOSTLY think that way.

and just to be snide, a SIGNIFICANT (and growing) portion of the pouplation is hispanic.. probably among the more religious of ethnicities.. so I would say, religion in this country is in the future going to be stronger then you would like.

This discussion so far has focused on students rights...what about teachers rights?

Teachers are the spokemen for the state...if the state "strongly suggests" that students should say the pledge, it follows that teachers are required to, as to set a good example. It conflicts with my beliefs, yet I would still be forced to say it.

Same as students don't forfeit their rights at the door, neither do teachers.

Is there a law compelling teachers to recite the pledge ? If so, feel free to post it here.

Last I checked, The Declaration of independance was littered with iterations refering to god and religion. Isn't the declaring of this nation free from England one of those documents which helped to establish our country ??? :confused:


The DoI has two rather generic references which don't really endorse a particular religion. "The Laws of nature and natures God" "their Creator"

As well "God save the United States and this Honorable Court" I belive is one of the oldest traditions of the Supreme court...


So. Does the court rule by the laws of Leviticus? It's a case of tradition.


To what were the principles we were aruging were not apart of this country when it was being established ? cause I see plenty of evidence against you >.>

Should it be illgeal : No
Should it be there: Yes (if not for purely traditional reasons)

How long is tradition? Under God if 53 years old. In God we Trust is 90 years old. But that is another story. Personally I don't think its a grand idea to align money with God.....

Seeing how the United States is among the most conservative religious western nations, I fail to see the hipocracy. The right of religion is protected, just not ignored.


Re-read the establishment clause.

Christianities right to religion is not lessoned by the removal of "under God"

The fact it is there is an endorsement of Religion.

Are you ok with "under Allah"


I adhere to the age old thought, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"!


So we shouldn't have removed the lamp lighters? Retried horses as a main method of transportation?

Times change. Things hcange.


Infact I would say it does it honor, since it shows the world how important we hold religion, and how worthy the protections are to have them. If you ignore religion all together (unthinkable seeing how religions in genearl the popluation is) what justice are you doing to the belifs of the people (and essentially the nation)


That is why we have the establishment clause.

Under God is not about protecting Budism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.

remember, it dosn't say christian god, or jewish god, or muslim god, or hindu god.... just says god...

Actually it does. God vs god. God versus "their Creator"

The DoI has two rather generic references which don't really endorse a particular religion. "The Laws of nature and natures God" "their Creator".....

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Now I wonder what they meant by "Divine Providence" when declaring the elements which justify their declaration ?

And as you stated, the rather "generic reference" to religion, is present also in the pledge, unless of course you can show how God in these two cases are different (refereing to a "creator")


So. Does the court rule by the laws of Leviticus? It's a case of tradition......

You make my point exactly... and this is teh case for the pledge as well.. its a matter of tradition, not establishment of religion.


How long is tradition? Under God if 53 years old. In God we Trust is 90 years old. But that is another story. Personally I don't think its a grand idea to align money with God.....


Yes, the tradition of saying under god is 53 years old.. but the tradition of refering to god and honoring the importance of religion runs a bit longer then that.. (since the DOI).

I again fail to see how you can corrolate this to government sponsored religion... what religion is being sponsored here ?? (other then the broad identification of religion as an important aspect of this nations identity)

I simply see this as a tribute to the ideals of the people who fought to make this nation a reality (not just including the founding fathers, but all the patriots who came here for the RIGHT to PRACTICE religion).


OH NOOOOOOO :headbang: Not the myth of the Pilgrims and Religious Freedom!

You also realize many of the founders were diests right?


[And as far as Christianity is concerned, last I checked it was the duty of every good christian to spread the word of god... this helps keep the issue of religion in the public eye, so I would say its a pretty christian thing to do (if i were aruging from that point of view)..]

You can do whatever you want in private. In a public office, using public funds or resources? Nope. Violates the establishment clause.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Now I wonder what they meant by "Divine Providence" when declaring the elements which justify their declaration ?


Divine Providence is rather generic.

And as you stated, the rather "generic reference" to religion, is present also in the pledge, unless of course you can show how God in these two cases are different (refereing to a "creator")


The DoI is no longer at play here. The Consititution is and guess what. No reference to religion other then the goverment will not endorse or prevent.....


You make my point exactly... and this is teh case for the pledge as well.. its a matter of tradition, not establishment of religion.

The Supreme Court is a tad older then the Pledge.


Yes, the tradition of saying under god is 53 years old.. but the tradition of refering to god and honoring the importance of religion runs a bit longer then that.. (since the DOI).

Traditions change. The Soviets are gone so "Under God" is no longer needed.

The DoI does not honor God. By the words in play it could be Gaia or drudism for all you know.

The founders did not want a religious state.

Re-read the establishment clause.

Christianities right to religion is not lessoned by the removal of "under God"

The fact it is there is an endorsement of Religion.

Are you ok with "under Allah"


I dont see it as an endorsement.. only an acknoweldgement, and an acknowledgement does not an establishment make.

Establishment would be more like... state religion (Church of england ?)

I dont see it as an endorsement.. only an acknoweldgement, and an acknowledgement does not an establishment make.

Establishment would be more like... state religion (Church of england ?)

Are you ok with changing it to "Under Allah"

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest;12482570]

The DoI is no longer at play here. The Consititution is and guess what. No reference to religion other then the goverment will not endorse or prevent.....
QUOTE]

Quite wrong.. language is important here... the word your looking for is not endorse, its ESTABLISH. Quite different.

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest;12482570]

The DoI is no longer at play here. The Consititution is and guess what. No reference to religion other then the goverment will not endorse or prevent.....
QUOTE]

Quite wrong.. language is important here... the word your looking for is not endorse, its ESTABLISH. Quite different.

Actually I am very right. Endorsing one religion over others is an establishment of Religion.

Are you ok with changing it to "Under Allah"

It already says under Allah just by saying Under God... God = Allah .. And the point is not to identify the meaning of "God" here with a specific religion (which is my arugment), its not. Its simply refering to religion in general as an important aspect of this nations founding (refer to DOI for justification for our independence)

It already says under Allah just by saying Under God... God = Allah .. And the point is not to identify the meaning of "God" here with a specific religion (which is my arugment), its not. Its simply refering to religion in general as an important aspect of this nations founding (refer to DOI for justification for our independence)

Actually the meaning is in play. So you are ok with changing it to Allah?

Actually I am very right. Endorsing one religion over others is an establishment of Religion.

Given some of Thomas Jefferson's writings, he would most likely agree with you on that. He was quite firmly opposed to endorsing even one religious sect over another, and argued that atheists should have the same recognition as any other person with religious views.

[QUOTE=Gui de Lusignan;12482590]

Actually I am very right. Endorsing one religion over others is an establishment of Religion.

which religion is specifically being endorsed, in what manner is it practically being established (are people even compelled to say the word "God" ?), and does acknowledgement of any kind of any religion = endorsement ? Because if so, there are certain government bulidings that are going to have to be torn down

Actually the meaning is in play. So you are ok with changing it to Allah?

.... If the use of allah is indictative of this nations traditional and historical affliation to religion (as its socital importance and structure of belifs as well as our very founding) , and if the meaning of allah is used to encompass more then just one specific religion.. then yes i would have no problem with its use! Was that the answer you were searching for ?

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest;12482595]

which religion is specifically being endorsed, in what manner is it practically being established (are people even compelled to say the word "God" ?), and does acknowledgement of any kind of any religion = endorsement ? Because if so, there are certain government bulidings that are going to have to be torn down

Buildings would be modified not torn down. They didn't tear down the Alabama Supreme court now did they?

It would depend on the presentation.

The SCOTUS facade hardly endorses Christianity. It references all that have had influence on the laws of the land. For example Hamurabi, Napoleon...

.... If the use of allah is indictative of this nations traditional and historical affliation to religion (as its socital importance and structure of belifs as well as our very founding) , and if the meaning of allah is used to encompass more then just one specific religion.. then yes i would have no problem with its use! Was that the answer you were searching for ?

So is that a yes or a no?

Given some of Thomas Jefferson's writings, he would most likely agree with you on that. He was quite firmly opposed to endorsing even one religious sect over another, and argued that atheists should have the same recognition as any other person with religious views.

:)

Don't forget Madison.

Gui would probably be shocked by Washington and Adams' comments as well.

[QUOTE=Gui de Lusignan;12482636]

Buildings would be modified not torn down. They didn't tear down the Alabama Supreme court now did they?

It would depend on the presentation.

The SCOTUS facade hardly endorses Christianity. It references all that have had influence on the laws of the land. For example Hamurabi, Napoleon...

yet references quite specifically key figures in the christian and judiac religions... now why is it this acknowedgment seen as just that, and not an endorsement ---> establishment as you so connect them ? I think you play a dangerous game here of picking and choosing with no firm base from which to work with.

And accepting that said religious figures have been influencial on the laws which establish this nation.. then is it not more difficult to separate government and religion, since government in part has been based on religion ? This only serves to make the point that the term "God" makes reference to this relationship as an important aspect of our history.

:)

Don't forget Madison.

Gui would probably be shocked by Washington and Adams' comments as well.

And yet, I could show you a multitude of evidence showing these men, like most men of the time were religious men... a part of their life which in no small order influenced their thinking and actions (which helped to establish the nation) Again.. the term god draws reference to this fact and does it honor.. nothing more.

I woudln't be shocked.. but you might.

Let's just fix that quote.



yet references quite specifically key figures in the christian and judiac religions... now why is it this acknowedgment seen as just that, and not an endorsement ---> establishment as you so connect them ? I think you play a dangerous game here of picking and choosing with no firm base from which to work with.

Not at all. There is nothing wrong with a general acknowledgment as long as one is not chosen over the others.

Again it's all about the presentation.

For example Kentucky State Court house posting the 10 commandments was shown to be a violation and they were removed.

Austin goverment plaza had a statue of them. They were not removed as it was shown they were a promotional movie item (Cecil B. DeMilles 10 commandments). Statue not removed.


And accepting that said religious figures have been influencial on the laws which establish this nation.. then is it not more difficult to separate government and religion, since government in part has been based on religion ?


Not at all. Some things make sense. Murder for example. Religion may have influenced the laws but the fact people think it's a bad idea hardly endorses a religion.


This only serves to make the point that the term "God" makes reference to this relationship as an important aspect of our history.

Under god or under the creator makes a reference to religion.

Under God is a reference to the Christian God.

And yet, I could show you a multitude of evidence showing these men, like most men of the time were religious men... a part of their life which in no small order influenced their thinking and actions (which helped to establish the nation) Again.. the term god draws reference to this fact and does it honor.. nothing more.

I woudln't be shocked.. but you might.

Ok. Then how many were Diests?

Now show me what good Christian would argue this was not a Christian Nation as was said by Washington and Adams.

Nobody said Religion can't be practiced. Just the government has to be neutral on the subject.

Let's just fix that quote.


Not at all. There is nothing wrong with a general acknowledgment as long as one is not chosen over the others.

Again it's all about the presentation.

For example Kentucky State Court house posting the 10 commandments was shown to be a violation and they were removed.

Austin goverment plaza had a statue of them. They were not removed as it was shown they were a promotional movie item (Cecil B. DeMilles 10 commandments). Statue not removed.



Not at all. Some things make sense. Murder for example. Religion may have influenced the laws but the fact people think it's a bad idea hardly endorses a religion.



Under god or under the creator makes a reference to religion.

Under God is a reference to the Christian God.

Actually God references multiple religions... so which one specifically is being chosen over another ?

As well, reference back to the DoI ... youll see in its orignal text the word "God" is spelt as such, and so Natures god, and Natures God as you so like to put it, are quite different.. were they referencing just religion there ? or Christian Religion .. You can't have your cake and eat it too as they say.

I again fail to see how you can corrolate this to government sponsored religion... what religion is being sponsored here ?? (other then the broad identification of religion as an important aspect of this nations identity)

I simply see this as a tribute to the ideals of the people who fought to make this nation a reality (not just including the founding fathers, but all the patriots who came here for the RIGHT to PRACTICE religion).

[And as far as Christianity is concerned, last I checked it was the duty of every good christian to spread the word of god... this helps keep the issue of religion in the public eye, so I would say its a pretty christian thing to do (if i were aruging from that point of view)..]

Spread religion all you want, just don't use the government to do it. You ask at the top "Which religion" then at the bottom admit that it is Christianity that you wish to spread. point, set, match

A true Christian would separate religion from government.

There would be no argument here if "under God" had never been added. Then it seems that the argument was caused by the words. Last I knew God was a God of peace. As a God of peace, why would he want to cause argument? The logical solution is to remove that which caused the argument.

Spread religion all you want, just don't use the government to do it. You ask at the top "Which religion" then at the bottom admit that it is Christianity that you wish to spread. point, set, match

A true Christian would separate religion from government.

There would be no argument here if "under God" had never been added. Then it seems that the argument was caused by the words. Last I knew God was a God of peace. As a God of peace, why would he want to cause argument? The logical solution is to remove that which caused the argument.What do you expect? It's a crusader. :rolleyes:

Spread religion all you want, just don't use the government to do it. You ask at the top "Which religion" then at the bottom admit that it is Christianity that you wish to spread. point, set, match

A true Christian would separate religion from government.

There would be no argument here if "under God" had never been added. Then it seems that the argument was caused by the words. Last I knew God was a God of peace. As a God of peace, why would he want to cause argument? The logical solution is to remove that which caused the argument.

if you read my qoute.. as i knew some people wouldn't , i clearly put in "(if I were arguing that point of view)"... im not "admiting" anything.. Im stating, (as the person I was responding to wanted to know) the argument of a good christian would be as such... that is not the point of view im taking here.. clearly, or I would be contradiciting myself (which im not). Im simply saying the use of God in this cirumstance is referencing back to our history and as such is only an acknolwedgment of religion, not an endorsment or establishment of it.

Actually God references multiple religions... so which one specifically is being chosen over another ?

As well, reference back to the DoI ... youll see in its orignal text the word "God" is spelt as such, and so Natures god, and Natures God as you so like to put it, are quite different.. were they referencing just religion there ? or Christian Religion .. You can't have your cake and eat it too as they say.

Actually god references some religions. Others have gods.

God references Christianity.

In the argument at hand the DoI is no longer valid. The Constitution is at work here.

But to satisfy you. The DoI references are generic! There is no reference to Christianity.

Even it was declared to be Christianity, it predates the Constitution.

Under God is a reference to Christianity. Again Knights of Columbus would not have pushed for a generic reference.

What do you expect? It's a crusader. :rolleyes:

~_^ at last someone recognizes! Ironic that im not arguing the christian point of view... which I could do if I so chose :D ..


GOD WILLS IT!

if you read my qoute.. as i knew some people wouldn't , i clearly put in "(if I were arguing that point of view)"... im not "admiting" anything.. Im stating, (as the person I was responding to wanted to know) the argument of a good christian would be as such... that is not the point of view im taking here.. clearly, or I would be contradiciting myself (which im not). Im simply saying the use of God in this cirumstance is referencing back to our history and as such is only an acknolwedgment of religion, not an endorsment or establishment of it.

The use of "under God" here is in reference to the "Godless Communists", not a reference to any American tradition or belief. Since the communists are gone the perceived need for balance is moot. Therefore it has become extraneous. All it now serves to do is split the nation. The obvious solution is to remove it and reunite the nation.

Actually god references some religions. Others have gods.

God references Christianity.

In the argument at hand the DoI is no longer valid. The Constitution is at work here.

But to satisfy you. The DoI references are generic! There is no reference to Christianity.

Even it was declared to be Christianity, it predates the Constitution.

Under God is a reference to Christianity. Again Knights of Columbus would not have pushed for a generic reference.

So you conceed then that in the DoI is referencing the Christian God.. even if this is the case, the fact that it predates the constitution is no way relevant, because my only argument all along was that the use of "God" in the pledge of allegance was honoring the role religion has played in our nations history. The fact that the founding fathers used God as a justification for becoming independant (and ultimately forming the union) shows the importance religion has played on how this country was formed. So we technically are a nation under God, as it was God and divine providence that the founding fathers so carefully sought to cite, as the very reason they could form a union.

The use of "under God" here is in reference to the "Godless Communists", not a reference to any American tradition or belief. Since the communists are gone the perceived need for balance is moot. Therefore it has become extraneous. All it now serves to do is split the nation. The obvious solution is to remove it and reunite the nation.

actulaly it only served to DIFFERENTIATE us from the godless communists (because we are nation of whom religion played an important role in our establishment)... the fact that they are gone dosn't change the ladder. And I fail to see how removing it would unite a nation would still (despite some claims here) largely identifies itself to religion.

So you conceed then that in the DoI is referencing the Christian God.. even if this is the case,


No I don't. Find a Refernce from Jefferson as to that being his intent.


the fact that it predates the constitution is no way relevant, because my only argument all along was that the use of "God" in the pledge of allegance was honoring the role religion has played in our nations history.


It is relevent because the Constitution is in play here. Not the DoI.

The pledge has NOTHING to do with honoring Religion. It's about honoring the Christian God (again Knights of Columbus).


The fact that the founding fathers used God as a justification for becoming independant (and ultimately forming the union) shows the importance religion has played on how this country was formed. So we technically are a nation under God, as it was God and divine providence that the founding fathers so carefully sought to cite, as the very reason they could form a union.

Actually it was not wanting to pay taxes to England for things like Frontier defense. The crackdown on some smuggling (Hancock) that was the force for a new Union.

actulaly it only served to DIFFERENTIATE us from the godless communists (because we are nation of whom religion played an important role in our establishment)... the fact that they are gone dosn't change the ladder. And I fail to see how removing it would unite a nation would still (despite some claims here) largely identifies itself to religion.

Actually he is right and you are wrong.

If you were right then this would have been done with the Constitution.

actually it should be illegal.

Illegal to say "under God" in the Pledge? NO!

Granted, people shouldn't be FORCED to say it, but it should not be outlawed? ("Mr. So-and-so, you are hereby charged with the crime of saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. How do you plead?", etc.)

Making it ILLEGAL to say "under God" is a violation of freedom of speech, and of religion.

If YOU don't want to say it, fine, but DON'T TELL ME I CAN'T SAY IT.

how’s about you get rid of the pledge of allegiance like the rest of the world has (though there’s bound to be some exceptions)

What are you talking about? You mean no other nations in the world HAVE Pledges of Allegiance? :confused:

Come on, there are many far more important problems in the US than whether or not your Pledge of Allegiance mentions some made up dude in it.

God is NOT a "made-up dude". I challenge you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He does not exist. Until you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that He does not exist, I choose to assume that He DOES.

The Founders would have frowned upon it anyway- it's violating freedom of religion. Though atheists don't really have a religion.

Well they sure are religious in their efforts to remove all vestiges of, and references to, "God" from American society. I wonder why they would do THAT? Maybe it's because they don't want to admit He exists because they don't want to give account to Him?

That's why I'm an atheist. I see no evidence to support a God and I believe there are more important things to worry about that some deity who watches you everywhere like a pedo. Besides, most religions revolve around some sort of ancient myth, which would be impossible to actually happen.

I see no evidence of the NON-existence of God. Can you prove, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He does not exist? And when you stand before Him to give an account of your life, are you going to tell Him THAT? ("But, God, You don't understand. You see, it has been scientifically proven that You don't exist, You didn't create anything, and we humans evolved from monkeys, and I know because I learned it in college!")
...

Why should saying it be illegal?

That's what I'm wondering.

See my reply to Arthais101 above.

Separation of Church and State though people are NOT OBLIGATED to even say the pledge.

Exactly; people are NOT OBLIGATED to even say the pledge, so therefore why should it be illegal?

actulaly it only served to DIFFERENTIATE us from the godless communists (because we are nation of whom religion played an important role in our establishment)... the fact that they are gone dosn't change the ladder. And I fail to see how removing it would unite a nation would still (despite some claims here) largely identifies itself to religion.

Religion had no role in the establishment of the USA whatsoever. It had no role in the Revolution. The one thing that did have a role in that was the Americans get pissed off at the British. God had nothing to do with it.

actulaly it only served to DIFFERENTIATE us from the godless communists (because we are nation of whom religion played an important role in our establishment)... the fact that they are gone dosn't change the ladder. And I fail to see how removing it would unite a nation would still (despite some claims here) largely identifies itself to religion.

Nobody is against personal identification with religion. The whole point is this was debated 230 years ago and it was decided that government and religion don't mix. It makes no difference what happened before that or what the personally beliefs of the founders were. That is all totally moot. What the question is--Did those who added "under God" as a balance to communism follow the ideals of the founders view on government or not. The answer is obviously NO. If someone wants to amend the constitution, Go for it. Even though that proposal might get 51% that's not enough to remove the first amendment.

And, would you really want the ideals of the government having hands off religion removed? You do know that other religions are growing in the US faster than Christian. Someday something else might be the majority religion. Hope they don't take revenge.

I see no evidence of the NON-existence of God. Can you prove, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He does not exist? And when you stand before Him to give an account of your life, are you going to tell Him THAT? ("But, God, You don't understand. You see, it has been scientifically proven that You don't exist!")

Tomayto, tomahto.

No I don't. Find a Refernce from Jefferson as to that being his intent.



It is relevent because the Constitution is in play here. Not the DoI.

The pledge has NOTHING to do with honoring Religion. It's about honoring the Christian God (again Knights of Columbus).



Actually it was not wanting to pay taxes to England for things like Frontier defense. The crackdown on some smuggling (Hancock) that was the force for a new Union.


Yet they chose to invoke God (and their rights under him) as justification for breaking away. Not taxes... (which was only listed as a grievance)...

Are you arguing the DoI has no importance to formation of this country ? Because as history tells it... this was the turning point where the colonies sought freedom from the empire. Even if the DoI has no legal power, it is a significant marker in this history of this country.

And I dont need to find references of Jefferson to his intention, because the words he wrong in the Declaration are clear as day. The invokation of god and religion at this point as the thing which let the country become independant is prevelant enough to show how religion played a role in this countries formation. The Declaration was not just a peice of paper that said "Screw you" .. becuase it served to be the basic building block which would help the country form a legitimate argument to the EUropean nations to eventually recognize it as a seperate state. Without this recognition this country wouldn't be where it is today. The Pledge highlights the role of god and religion to this respect.

To this note, the constitution plays no role here what so ever.

Well since it does not really mention whose God it is... it is not an establishment of religion.



Actually it does for the same reason as you posted.

Alright, let's see if we can follow the logic train shall we?

The establishment clause prohibits the government from expressly or implicitly declaring any religious belief to be true.

Likewise, it also prohibits the government from expressly or implicitly declaring any religious belief to be false.

The content of the pledge is federal law. The words "one nation, under God" are in the pledge due to federal law.

The federal government has stated we are a nation under God. Likewise, this must mean that the federal government states there is such a being as God. Otherwise, what are we under? Therefore, since federal law states that our nation is "under God" it is a recognition by the federal government, that God exists.

We have in this thread come to the conclusion that God means, in general, the creator diety. The supreme being.

Therefore, federal law states that a supreme creator being (refered to as God) exists.

Many belief systems, I have noted some, including Greek, Egyptian, Norse, Shinto, some sects of Hinduism, Animism, ancestral worship, Voodoon, and Atheism, to the extent Atheism can be described as a belief structure (and it can) do not contain the concept of God. Which is to say, they do not contain the concept of a singular, supreme, creator diety.

So the federal government has stated that there is such a thing as a supreme creator diety which is defined as God. Multiple belief structure state that there is no such thing as a supreme creator diety which is defined as God.

Therefore, the federal government, in stating that God exists, implicitly states that every religion that believes that God does not exist, is wrong.

If those religion is wrong, then their beliefs are false.

now refer back to what I said at the start of this thread.

Are you arguing the DoI has no importance to formation of this country ?

Morally, historically, culturally? Yes.

legally, none what so ever. And we are talking about LAW here.

Even if the DoI has no legal power

Good, so you admit that the declaration has no legal power and is thus irrelevant in the discussion of American law.

I really see no need to continue with the rest of what you say as you've already admitted it's irrelevant.

actulaly it only served to DIFFERENTIATE us from the godless communists (because we are nation of whom religion played an important role in our establishment)... the fact that they are gone dosn't change the ladder. And I fail to see how removing it would unite a nation would still (despite some claims here) largely identifies itself to religion.


Oh and I did forget one thing.

You argue tradition.

You do realize the pledge was written without Under God.

If you argue tradition, then it dictates the traditional version should be restored.

Even in the matter of simple age, the original version is 9 years older.

Religion had no role in the establishment of the USA whatsoever. It had no role in the Revolution. The one thing that did have a role in that was the Americans get pissed off at the British. God had nothing to do with it.

Wrong; religion DID have a role in the Revolution. You see, the reason why the colonists revolted (besides taxation without representation) was because our founding fathers wanted the right to worship God apart from the dictates of the State, and the King of Great Britain (George III, IIRC) was not allowing them that right.

When Patrick Henry cried "Give me liberty or give me death!", he has just finished witnessing a street preacher being beaten by British troops for preaching without a license.

Yet they chose to invoke God (and their rights under him) as justification for breaking away. Not taxes... (which was only listed as a grievance)...

Are you arguing the DoI has no importance to formation of this country ? Because as history tells it... this was the turning point where the colonies sought freedom from the empire. Even if the DoI has no legal power, it is a significant marker in this history of this country.

And I dont need to find references of Jefferson to his intention, because the words he wrong in the Declaration are clear as day. The invokation of god and religion at this point as the thing which let the country become independant is prevelant enough to show how religion played a role in this countries formation. The Declaration was not just a peice of paper that said "Screw you" .. becuase it served to be the basic building block which would help the country form a legitimate argument to the EUropean nations to eventually recognize it as a seperate state. Without this recognition this country wouldn't be where it is today. The Pledge highlights the role of god and religion to this respect.

To this note, the constitution plays no role here what so ever.

:D Then you don't know what you are talking about. It would mean less cases for the Supreme Court.

Jefferson made no reference to the Christian God as his motivation for forming a union. His views outweigh what you think he intended.

Again, the Constitution and not the DoI is why there is even an argument.

Alright, let's see if we can follow the logic train shall we?

The establishment clause prohibits the government from expressly or implicitly declaring any religious belief to be true.
.

wrong..

It can pass no law establishing religion. The use of the word God is not establishing a religion (state or otherwise) it is acknowleding religion exists. It would be for the Supreme court to decide otherwise.

:D Then you don't know what you are talking about. It would mean less cases for the Supreme Court.

Jefferson made no reference to the Christian God as his motivation for forming a union. His views outweigh what you think he intended.

Again, the Constitution and not the DoI is why there is even an argument.

Oh and I might add Jefferson had influence on the Constitution. Where are the God references?

Wrong; religion DID have a role in the Revolution. You see, the reason why the colonists revolted (besides taxation without representation) was because our founding fathers wanted the right to worship God apart from the dictates of the State, and the King of Great Britain (George III, IIRC) was not allowing them that right.

When Patrick Henry cried "Give me liberty or give me death!", he has just finished witnessing a street preacher being beaten by British troops for preaching without a license.

Have never heard that story about Patrick Henry before ... one wonders where you came up with that bit of information

Being that his famous speech in which he cried that was in the middle of a multy day session in the middle of the day right after the Jamaica petition.

Seems rather made up to me, but I could be wrong.

wrong..

It can pass no law establishing religion.

220 odd years of precident would disagree with you.


The use of the word God is not establishing a religion (state or otherwise) it is acknowleding religion exists.

It acknowledges the validity of a specific religious belief, likewise invalidating the validity of any religion that does NOT have this belief.

It would be for the Supreme court to decide otherwise.

Nonsense. Any federal court may deal with a constitutional matter. Constitutional issues are questions of federal law, federal questions are well within the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts.

A federal court can very well decide that the pledge violates the constitution, and as such it would be illegal in that circuit.

The supreme court may choose to uphold that decision, making it national law, reverse that decision, or take no action, which would lleave it valid in that circuit.

And, in fact, the 9th circuit decided exactly in the mannor in which I described it. So a federal court has already reached that decision in that regard.

:D Then you don't know what you are talking about. It would mean less cases for the Supreme Court.

Jefferson made no reference to the Christian God as his motivation for forming a union. His views outweigh what you think he intended.

Again, the Constitution and not the DoI is why there is even an argument.

... it was not his motivation.... it was his justification. Is it so hard to come to terms with.. thats whats written. There is no denying what is in black and white.

I make no assumption on what he intended. Neither do I feel this is an issue for the constitution because it makes no effort to establish a religion. It compells no one to say it, and only references what role religion has played in the past. You cant deny religion has played a role becuase it is there for all to see. From the 10 commandments being an element in our laws to divine providence as justification for being free from england. These are the simple facts.

Oh and I might add Jefferson had influence on the Constitution. Where are the God references?

There is, in the entire constitution, exactly one.

At the very top.

"The Year of Our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Eighty Nine"

Of course, this was colloquialism, and carried about as much weight as "god bless you" does now when someone sneezes.

I make no assumption on what he intended. Neither do I feel this is an issue for the constitution because it makes no effort to establish a religion. It compells no one to say it, and only references what role religion has played in the past.

And the 1st amendment has been interpreted to place a FAR higher bar on the government than merely preventing it from establishing a church like England did.

So screaming "IT ISN'T ESTABLISHING A RELIGION" really gets you nowhere. If you want to argue constitutional law, argue it from the perspective of interpretations we have today.

220 odd years of precident would disagree with you.
.

I argue the use of god in this pledge is nothing more then an acknowledgment.. not establishement.. so, how do you see it is establishing religion, and how is it different then the court opening every preceeding with "god save the US and this court".... Becuase both (as far as I see it) are the same.

And the 1st amendment has been interpreted to place a FAR higher bar on the government than merely preventing it from establishing a church like England did.

So screaming "IT ISN'T ESTABLISHING A RELIGION" really gets you nowhere. If you want to argue constitutional law, argue it from the perspective of interpretations we have today.

Yet you make no effort to show how it does establish religion.. So screaming "ITS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT" really dosn't get you much farther.

when the court sees fit to strike the word GOD from its very halls.... then maybe ill hold your arugment to a higher standard. till then, that boat just dont float!

I argue the use of god in this pledge is nothing more then an acknowledgment.. not establishement.. so, how do you see it is establishing religion, and how is it different then the court opening every preceeding with "god save the US and this court".... Becuase both (as far as I see it) are the same.

I don't see it as establishing a religion. However as I have noted the 1st amendment has been interpreted as far more restrictive than merely preventing the government from forming a church.

It also prevents the government from codifying into law any system that would declare any religious belief as right, or wrong. Saying "under God" codifies, into law, a belief of God. Many religions do not have a belief in God. Ergo it codifies into law the statement that God exists, and by implication all religions that do not have a concept of God are wrong.

As for how is it different? I do not believe it to be any different, and frankly, neither is permissable.

Yet you make no effort to show how it does establish religion.. So screaming "ITS IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT" really dosn't get you much farther.

Do you even read what I type?

lemme spell it out for you again.

And the 1st amendment has been interpreted to place a FAR higher bar on the government than merely preventing it from establishing a church.

So let me do this slowly.

The
First
Amendment
Does
More
Than
Merely
Prohibiting
A
Government
From
Establishing
A
Religion

Got it?

when the court sees fit to strike the word GOD from its very halls.... then maybe ill hold your arugment to a higher standard. till then, that boat just dont float!


I was unaware the word "god" was required, by federal law, to be there.

The word God IS required by federal law to be in the pledge.

When you begin to see the difference between those two, maybe I'll hold your legal analysis to a higher standard. Till then, learn what you're talking about because this conversation is obviously out of your league.

... it was not his motivation.... it was his justification. Is it so hard to come to terms with.. thats whats written. There is no denying what is in black and white.

I make no assumption on what he intended. Neither do I feel this is an issue for the constitution because it makes no effort to establish a religion. It compells no one to say it, and only references what role religion has played in the past. You cant deny religion has played a role becuase it is there for all to see. From the 10 commandments being an element in our laws to divine providence as justification for being free from england. These are the simple facts.

:D

Sorry Lad no matter how many times you want to say it. It's not true.

The Knights of Columbus wouldn't push for a generic reference let alone talk about any other religion.

Religions only role was the fact some of the people practiced it.

But I will let Madison comment on your "traditions":

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

I argue the use of god in this pledge is nothing more then an acknowledgment.. not establishement.. so, how do you see it is establishing religion, and how is it different then the court opening every preceeding with "god save the US and this court".... Becuase both (as far as I see it) are the same.

So what about changing all references to Allah since it's the same thing.

Now, let's walk through this, one more time.

If a supreme creator diety, which we call God exists, this would mean every religion that believes there is no supreme creator diety would be wrong. Yes or no?

The words "under God" in the pledge are there as a matter of federal law. Yes or no?

If federal law places the words "under God" in the pledge, and God, as we have shown here, is defined as a supreme creator diety, this would mean that the federal government recognizes the existance of a supreme creator diety. Yes or no?

If the government states that a supreme creator diety exists, it likewise implictly states that every religion that believes there is no supreme creator diety, is wrong. yes or no?

Ergo, the words "under God" in the pledge, as a matter of law, likewise states that every religion that does not believe in the concept of God is wrong. Yes or no?

As part of our heritage, i say let it stay. To often things that are part of our past are being erased simply cause it pissed off some douche bag with a god complex (excuse the pun).

Personaly, I lead a nation renowned for it's athiesm and im damn well proud of my own. The way I see it, I cary around a small trinket from the caman islands for luck, and that basicly is just as viable a belief as god.

a.k.a., in my view, a shell has as much importance as some idiots lord and savior.

and yet, I still think under god should stay as a testiment for what we came from. To deny the enormous impact religion had on everything from our legal code to our nation's formation would be sophmoric. Even if you believe as I that the bible is a load of bs, you can apreciate it's historic value as literature and a book of moral codes. We owe a great deal of history to religion, both good and overwhelmingly bad, leaving small pieces of culture intact as nods to this fact in no way effects my beliefs, or hinders my rights.

If you complain, then obviously you just love bitching way to much, and should go find some emos to cry with.

Do you even read what I type?

lemme spell it out for you again.

And the 1st amendment has been interpreted to place a FAR higher bar on the government than merely preventing it from establishing a church.

So let me do this slowly.

The
First
Amendment
Does
More
Than
Merely
Prohibiting
A
Government
From
Establishing
A
Religion

Got it?




I was unaware the word "god" was required, by federal law, to be there.

The word God IS required by federal law to be in the pledge.

When you begin to see the difference between those two, maybe I'll hold your legal analysis to a higher standard. Till then, learn what you're talking about because this conversation is obviously out of your league.


And yet it has been held that "In God We Trust" was a constitutional law concerning US currency... so are those so many years of presidence so clear cut as you describe ?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19322.html

I think neither you nor myself have the legal vision to identify if this is or isn't such a violation, and to sit there and suggest your superior knowledge on the subject.. is to me laugable. There are arguments for and against.. and I would say yours is no stronger then mine... but im sure time will tell which is superior once its brought up to the supreme court ~_^

(btw, there is no federal law compelling anyone to actually recite the pledge)

So what about changing all references to Allah since it's the same thing.

I actually answered that question about a page back... feel free to find it ~.^v but its been fun. I always enjoy aruging this topic... never gets old for me i guess. Nice debating :'D

I think neither you nor myself have the legal vision to identify if this is or isn't such a violation, and to sit there and suggest your superior knowledge on the subject.. is to me laugable.

I'm an attorney. Are you?

but im sure time will tell which is superior once its brought up to the supreme court ~_^

The 9th circuit court of appeals has already ruled based on my reasoning. That ruling has not been overturned on the merits.

(btw, there is no federal law compelling anyone to actually recite the pledge)

I never said there was, did I?

And yet it has been held that "In God We Trust" was a constitutional law concerning US currency... so are those so many years of presidence so clear cut as you describe ?

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/193/story_19322.html

That was the 9th circuit court of appeals. THE VERY SAME COURT that said the pledge was unconstitutional.

In fact, if I'm right....at least 2 of the 3 were the same judges. In other words, we're not talking about currency, we're talking about pledge, and the same judges who ruled in your case already ruled the pledge was unconstitutional.

Kinda sucks to be you when the case you cite as an example of your proposition turn out to be the very same judges who declared the pledge unconstitutional, huh?

What you just tried to do is argue that because the 9th circuit court of appeals held that "in god we trust" on our currency is constitutional, that "one nation, under God" in our pledge must be constitution, totally inspite of the fact that the EXACT SAME JUDGES, in the EXACT SAME COURT, ruled, in a case with THE EXACT SAME PLAINTIFF that the pledge was in fact unconstitutional not 2 years prior.

Seeing how the United States is among the most conservative religious western nations, I fail to see the hipocracy. The right of religion is protected, just not ignored.

I adhere to the age old thought, "if it aint broke, dont fix it"!

And I hold that the pledge is broken.

Infact I would say it does it honor, since it shows the world how important we hold religion, and how worthy the protections are to have them. If you ignore religion all together (unthinkable seeing how religions in genearl the popluation is) what justice are you doing to the belifs of the people (and essentially the nation)

remember, it dosn't say christian god, or jewish god, or muslim god, or hindu god.... just says god...

That's one of the problems, it doesn't say god, or even better gods, or best of all leave the line out entirely, it says God, capital fucking G. And unless you've been completely ignoring the past few PAGES of this thread you would understand that there is a difference.

Christianity loves castration.

It is far more manlier to be Islamic and far more logical to be Atheist.

I actually answered that question about a page back... feel free to find it ~.^v but its been fun. I always enjoy aruging this topic... never gets old for me i guess. Nice debating :'D

Likewise. I have work to do so I will not be around to reply for awhile.....

I see no evidence of the NON-existence of God. Can you prove, scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that He does not exist?

I will prove scientifically and beyond a shadow of a doubt the non-existence of the Christian's god as soon as you do the same for your choice of the following: Cthulu, Zeus, unicorns, Bigfoot, or the Loc Nes monster. The problem is, while a positive CAN be proven a negative never can.

Man, have there been some amazing arguments made in order to justify away a clear violation of the First Amendment.

I'm not going to re-hash them all as they have more than ably been dealt with by Arthais101 and others.

I do wish to make a couple of points.

The statute that added "under God" to the Pledge violates the First Amendment.

A school that leads children in saying the Pledge with the phrase "under God" violates the First Amendment.

The primary excuses that those who would defend this violation rely upon are worthless.

Even if the Pledge or "under God" is "denominationally neutral" and "its observance on the part of the students is voluntary" there is still a First Amendment violation.

See, e.g., Engel v. Vitale (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=370&page=430#430), 370 U.S. 421, 430-32 (1962):

Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially prescribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such individuals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain. But the purposes underlying the Establishment Clause go much further than that. Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion. The history of governmentally established religion, both in England and in this country, showed that whenever government had allied itself with one particular form of religion, the inevitable result had been that it had incurred the hatred, disrespect and even contempt of those who held contrary beliefs. That same history showed that many people had lost their respect for any religion that had relied upon the support of government to spread its faith. The Establishment Clause thus stands as an expression of principle on the part of the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its "unhallowed perversion" by a civil magistrate. Another purpose of the Establishment Clause rested upon an awareness of the historical fact that governmentally established religions and religious persecutions go hand in hand.

See also Wallace v. Jaffree (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=472&invol=38#f51), 472 U.S. 38, 60-61 (1985):

Moreover, this Court has noted that "[w]hen the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain." Id., at 431. This comment has special force in the public-school context where attendance is mandatory. Justice Frankfurter acknowledged this reality in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=333&page=227#227), 333 U.S., at 227 (concurring opinion):

"That a child is offered an alternative may reduce the constraint; it does not eliminate the operation of influence by the school in matters sacred to conscience and outside the school's domain. The law of imitation operates, and non-conformity is not an outstanding characteristic of children."

See also Abington School District v. Schempp (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=374&page=290#290), 374 U.S., at 290 (BRENNAN, J., concurring); cf. Marsh v. Chambers (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=463&invol=783#792), 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983) (distinguishing between adults not susceptible to "religious indoctrination" and children subject to "peer pressure"). Further, this Court has observed:

"That [Boards of Education] are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes." West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=319&page=637#637), 319 U.S., at 637 .

Now, let's walk through this, one more time.

If a supreme creator diety, which we call God exists, this would mean every religion that believes there is no supreme creator diety would be wrong. Yes or no?

The words "under God" in the pledge are there as a matter of federal law. Yes or no?

If federal law places the words "under God" in the pledge, and God, as we have shown here, is defined as a supreme creator diety, this would mean that the federal government recognizes the existance of a supreme creator diety. Yes or no?

If the government states that a supreme creator diety exists, it likewise implictly states that every religion that believes there is no supreme creator diety, is wrong. yes or no?

Ergo, the words "under God" in the pledge, as a matter of law, likewise states that every religion that does not believe in the concept of God is wrong. Yes or no?

Nicely put.

I'd just add the following: Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38 (1985) (emphasis added):

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

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

As always, you fucking rock.
*bows*

It was not even written in the original. It was added in the 1950s by Congress.

Same with the "In God We Trust", Both were added in 1956, when we was crazy basterdz! :sniper:

Christianity loves castration.

It is far more manlier to be Islamic and far more logical to be Atheist.

I like you!!!!!

:)

Excellent post, seriously. Sigworthy. *bows*

Arguments about the wording of the pledge are of secondary importance to the sheer audacity of forcing an individual to pledge allegiance to a nation in the first place. The world has far too much blind patriotism as it is.

So Cat-Tribe, why haven't they ruled it Unconstitutional yet? You would think that if it was unconstitutional (which it isn't) it would have been struck down by now.

BAH!!! It does not matter. Its voluntary to say it so this should not even be an issue when we have more pressing matters to deal with.

So Cat-Tribe, why haven't they ruled it Unconstitutional yet? You would think that if it was unconstitutional (which it isn't) it would have been struck down by now.

BAH!!! It does not matter. Its voluntary to say it so this should not even be an issue when we have more pressing matters to deal with.

Probably because the Supreme Court can't just make random decisions. Until a trial is actually brought up about the pledge all the way to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds, it will stand.

So Cat-Tribe, why haven't they ruled it Unconstitutional yet?

The 9th circuit already did

You would think that if it was unconstitutional (which it isn't)

The 9th circuit would disagree, considering it ruled the pledge unconstitutional

it would have been struck down by now.

It already was in the 9th circuit.

More to point you betray a fundamental failure to understand how our legal system works. A judge can't just look at the pledge, go "yeah, that looks unconstitutional" and strike it. Someone has to bring the claim FIRST. Someone has to argue it in front of a court, someone has to have standing to litigate that issue.

Which is exactly what happened. Someone went to court over the pledge, he WON in the 9th circuit.

The case was dismissed at the supreme court level due to lack of standing, which basically means the supreme court considered that he didn't have the standing to bring that claim.

None of which changes that the 9th circuit HAS in fact ruled the pledge unconstitutional

Probably because the Supreme Court can't just make random decisions. Until a trial is actually brought up about the pledge all the way to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds, it will stand.

I'd again like to point out, the supreme court is NOT the only court that can decide constitutional matters. ANY federal court may make a ruling on the constitution, the supreme court is merely the final say. They are not the ony court that can make constitutional rulings by a long shot.

And the 9th circuit court of appeals DID make a ruling on it, and found it unconstitutional, it got tossed at the supreme court level on a procedural matter, but the ruling itself was never overturned.

So someone DID bring it all the way to the supreme court, after having WON in the 9th circuit. SCOTUS didn't make a ruling on the merits though, so we have no idea what their thought on the matter was. It was dismissed for lack of standing.

Arguments about the wording of the pledge are of secondary importance to the sheer audacity of forcing an individual to pledge allegiance to a nation in the first place. The world has far too much blind patriotism as it is.

actually it's been ruled that forcing someone to recite it is unconstitutional, so that's not really the issue here at all. Nobody is forced to pledge it. The question is whether the phrase "under God" can be considered unconstitutional

I'd again like to point out, the supreme court is NOT the only court that can decide constitutional matters. ANY federal court may make a ruling on the constitution, the supreme court is merely the final say. They are not the ony court that can make constitutional rulings by a long shot.

And the 9th circuit court of appeals DID make a ruling on it, and found it unconstitutional, it got tossed at the supreme court level on a procedural matter, but the ruling itself was never overturned.

So someone DID bring it all the way to the supreme court, after having WON in the 9th circuit. SCOTUS didn't make a ruling on the merits though, so we have no idea what their thought on the matter was. It was dismissed for lack of standing.

My bad.

Jesus Christ.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/neodarkheart/title.jpg

Note to where the red line is. This is what you were referring to when you said what you said that's being underlined in blue.

The red line shows, quite clearly, both times he referred to "God" as being a title, it was at the beginning of a sentence, hence, he had to capitalize god regardless of the topic at hand or whether or not it was a proper noun.

I feel so sorry for you that you have the audacity to be so wrong, and look so stupid, yet not even realize it in the slightest.


Bwahahahah and still you are wrong. That is not what I meant.

Hey Corny, careful...this kind of legal education doesn't come cheap...I think you're racking up quite a debt here...hope it's sinking in!

doesnt it make sense to have it in the pledge since we came here for freedom from religious persecution??? just a thought.

Probably because the Supreme Court can't just make random decisions. Until a trial is actually brought up about the pledge all the way to the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds, it will stand.

It has several times. In each instant, they did not rule it Unconstitutional even with Under God there.

ya know, I'm really really far behind....but something tells me that since cat tribe is here, there will literally be nothing to say.

Its nice having him around, as rare as it may be :)

It has several times. In each instant, they did not rule it Unconstitutional even with Under God there.

Because the supreme court (or any other court for that matter) can not go beyond the scope of the issue at hand. Please find me one case, where someone argued, in front of the supreme court, specifically that "under God" was unconstitutional and the supreme court ruled that it was not.

Do find me one, after all it must have happened "several times" as you say.

Because it hasn't. Multiple cases hve been brought to the court arguing that the pledge should not be COMPULSARY, and the court has found that it is unconstitutional to require it. But when the question in front of them is whether or not the pledge should be compulsary, they are only allowed to rule on THAT issue.

So go ahead, show me when this issue, specifically, has been brought in front of the supreme court and the supreme court ruled it constitutional.

You say there are several? Find one.

The 9th circuit already did

Notice I did not say the Appeals Court? I said the SUPREME COURT! The 9th is not the Supreme Court

The 9th circuit would disagree, considering it ruled the pledge unconstitutional

Read above.

It already was in the 9th circuit.

Read above

Notice I did not say the Appeals Court? I said the SUPREME COURT! The 9th is not the Supreme Court

No, in fact, you said "they". You asked why haven't "they" ruled it unconstitutional yet. And since you did not define your parameters at all, it can only be concluded that "they" means "a judicial body capable of ruling it unconstitutional".

Considering how you've shown yourself to have a total lack of sophistication in legal terminology, I can't help it if you are so vague as to have your meaning obscured. If you wanted to say the supreme court, you should have said so.

Which the 9th circuit most certainly is.

The supreme court neither upheld nor overturned that ruling.

I'm still waiting for an example of one of the "several" times the supreme court has addressed this issue and ruled the phrase constitutional

Find anything yet there corny?

No? Not surprised, you're not gonna. You know why?

Because if the supreme court HAD already ruled that the phrase "under God" was constitutional, this would have been binding precident on the 9th circuit, which would have rendered them unable to declare it was unconstitutional.

Had the supreme court ever actually ruled that way, the 9th circuit would have been bound to follow that ruling until such time as the supreme court overturned their prior ruling.

But SCOTUS never ruled that. SCOTUS never laid down that precident. If they had the 9th circuit would have been bound to uphold it, but SCOTUS never has, so the 9th circuit was free to rule as they wished.

You're not going to find a single case where SCOTUS ruled the phrase constitutional. Nor are you going to find a single case where SCOTUS has ruled the phrase unconstitutional. Why not? Because no case has ever been brought to SCOTUS on this issue by someone with standing to bring it.

So the answer to your question "why hasn't SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional yet?" is answered extremely simply. They have never had the opportunity to. That issue has never been brought to SCOTUS by someone with standing, rendering SCOTUS, as a matter of law, unable to rule on this issue.

I agree with Morganatron here.

Yes, it's much easier to just agree with the opinion that is unsupported by Constitutional law, full stop.

Addressing the issues that have been brought up to refute this opinion... actual court rulings, hierarchy of the courts etc... would be entirely too much work.

Don't you usually flee by this point?

Edit: Ah, I see you have. Right on cue.

Hey Corny, careful...this kind of legal education doesn't come cheap...I think you're racking up quite a debt here...hope it's sinking in!

seriously, I should be charging.

Still waiting for one of those several times SCOTUS has addressed this....

seriously, I should be charging.

Still waiting for one of those several times SCOTUS has addressed this....

Don't hold your breath for Corny to admit he saw those posts at all, even when you bring them to his attention again.

Don't hold your breath for Corny to even admit he saw those posts at all, even when you bring them to his attention again.

I'm sure he's downtown helping his father write a paper about his girlfriend.

Or something.

I'm sure he's downtown helping his father write a paper about his girlfriend.

Or something.

Or maybe he's only an expert in Military law.

...

Or maybe he's only an expert in Military law.

...

so if i say a pledge of allegance while in Iraq shooting a british soldier in the head, and my boss says it's ok, I don't have to go to jail, right?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Nowhere in there does it say that the government cannot use the word or name 'god', they just can't say "You, the people, will convert to Mormanism or die painful deaths."

so if i say a pledge of allegance while in Iraq shooting a british soldier in the head, and my boss says it's ok, I don't have to go to jail, right?

I don't know, we'll have to ask Corny when he comes back! /hijack

Edit: it's probably okay as long as you're not gay though.

Im my philosophy, I think it would be appropriate, for those taking the pledge too choose too say the line "under god". Is it that big of a deal? The pledge should be compulsory, but the line must be a choice.

Exactly. Why are we even having this arguement. It is your choice whether or not to say "under God". There is no 'Pledge Police' that will arrest you for not saying it.

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution, not any other offcial legal document actually states that. That doctrine is found in Thomas jefferson's personal letters. If you read them, he does not want the govern ment to be dominated by a state church, similar to the cathloic church in europe in the middle ages; but neither does he want the Government to make any law reguarding the practice of religion

The constitution protects the right that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment (meaning the institution or institutions of, noun) of religion, which is happening consistantly more and more. also, God can mean just abouit anything to any one. To my Muslim friends, they take it as allah. to my atheist friends, they take it as human reason, or conscience, or ethics. to my buddist friends, God is a right mind set and harmony. to my Jewish friends, God is the Old Testament deity. To my Christian friends, It is the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spiri. to my Hindu friends, God is Brahman, and is partially allo of us. it really is open to interpretation.

In short many people interpret the "God" in the pledge as what ever higher authority or power that you live under, whether that be reason, Jesus, Brahman, or conscience.

Ergo, I think that the phrase Under God should be left in the pledge.

:cool:

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution, not any other offcial legal document actually states that. That doctrine is found in Thomas jefferson's personal letters. If you read them, he does not want the govern ment to be dominated by a state church, similar to the cathloic church in europe in the middle ages; but neither does he want the Government to make any law reguarding the practice of religion

The constitution protects the right that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment (meaning the institution or institutions of, noun) of religion, which is happening consistantly more and more. also, God can mean just abouit anything to any one. To my Muslim friends, they take it as allah. to my atheist friends, they take it as human reason, or conscience, or ethics. to my buddist friends, God is a right mind set and harmony. to my Jewish friends, God is the Old Testament deity. To my Christian friends, It is the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spiri. to my Hindu friends, God is Brahman, and is partially allo of us. it really is open to interpretation.

In short many people interpret the "God" in the pledge as what ever higher authority or power that you live under, whether that be reason, Jesus, Brahman, or conscience.

Ergo, I think that the phrase Under God should be left in the pledge.

:cool:

Well said.

Contrary to popular belief, the constitution, not any other offcial legal document actually states that. That doctrine is found in Thomas jefferson's personal letters. If you read them, he does not want the govern ment to be dominated by a state church, similar to the cathloic church in europe in the middle ages; but neither does he want the Government to make any law reguarding the practice of religion

The constitution protects the right that Congress shall not make any law respecting the establishment (meaning the institution or institutions of, noun) of religion, which is happening consistantly more and more. also, God can mean just abouit anything to any one. To my Muslim friends, they take it as allah. to my atheist friends, they take it as human reason, or conscience, or ethics. to my buddist friends, God is a right mind set and harmony. to my Jewish friends, God is the Old Testament deity. To my Christian friends, It is the trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spiri. to my Hindu friends, God is Brahman, and is partially allo of us. it really is open to interpretation.

In short many people interpret the "God" in the pledge as what ever higher authority or power that you live under, whether that be reason, Jesus, Brahman, or conscience.

Ergo, I think that the phrase Under God should be left in the pledge.

:cool:


The idea that "God" can be considered equal in definition to "human reason" is absurd. God is clearly meant to be God.

Likewise, as mentioned before, if you're going to discuss the constitution you must include modern interpretation of the constitution. Those interpretations are law, and to discuss what the 1st amendment says you must include what it has been held to say.

Exactly. Why are we even having this arguement. It is your choice whether or not to say "under God". There is no 'Pledge Police' that will arrest you for not saying it.

because it's still unconstitution even if they're not compelled, and when the government does something against the constitution they are doing something illegal.

I don't know about you, but my government doing something illegal tends to be a big deal for me.

I saw a way earlier post for this saying something along the lines should it be illegal no, should it be there, no. Well to me it should be illegal. No I'm not atheist but no I'm also not christian. For one the under god part was added latter by congress and is not even a part of the original pledge. Secondly despite it being something mild it is closed minded when saying under god. It refers obviously to the christian god which not everybody beliefs in rather they are atheist or simply another religion. Its imposing a religious idea when being made to say it and assuming you belief this rather or not you actually do.

Well said.

Not really. That particular argument has been refuted a number of times in this thread...selective reading on your part if you missed it.

Nice to see you back...now are you going to actually deal with the points Arthais brought up?

The idea that "God" can be considered equal in definition to "human reason" is absurd. God is clearly meant to be God.

Likewise, as mentioned before, if you're going to discuss the constitution you must include modern interpretation of the constitution. Those interpretations are law, and to discuss what the 1st amendment says you must include what it has been held to say.

so, we are required to understand things the way we are taught? as far as I can find, no where does it specifically refer to the Christian deity. You can choose to interpret the phrase in that light, if you so choose, but that is not required.

Also, please explain how God can not refer to human reason. If there is no God, then, the highest power is human reason, if you read your classical philosophers. By reason, utilizing sociological undestandings, human government can exist. If the world is randomly thrown together by chance, then nature is the highest external power, but since we can tame and subdue, though albeit poorly, nature through reason, then reason is supreme. Therefor, Reason can be considered God.

because it's still unconstitution even if they're not compelled, and when the government does something against the constitution they are doing something illegal.

I don't know about you, but my government doing something illegal tends to be a big deal for me.

The matter of the Pledge's constitutionality simmered for decades below the public eye. In 1992, the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided the first challenge to the constitutionality of the words "under God," ruling in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21 that the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge did not violate the Establishment Clause.

And if my memory serves me right, the Third Circuit Court has also ruled that the phrase Under God was also constitutional.

On top of that In the same 1962 case, the Court admitted that the "God save this honorable court" invocation uttered at the beginning of each Court session was a "prayer." However, the Court also ruled that "A religion is not established in the usual sense merely by letting those who choose to do so say the prayer that the public school teacher leads."

So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.

And if my memory serves me right, the Third Circuit Court has also ruled that the phrase Under God was also constitutional.

You state that the supreme court has ruled on this issue and when I ask you to demonstrate it you give me appeals court cases?

Yes, the 7th circuit said that. The 9th circuit disagreed. You said, specifically, the SUPREME COURT has dealt with this issue, I asked you to show me one time.



So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.

On an unrelated matter.

You fail, again. YOu claimed SCOTUS had dealt with the issue, I challenged you to back it up. You want to claim that SCOTUS did it, you show me a supreme court ruling, not the 7th circuit.

If you want to pull out ruling from the circuit courts, fine. You want to point out the 7th circuit ruled it constitutional in 1992, I point out, once again, the 9th circuit ruled it unconstitutional, in 2005.

So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.[/QUOTE]

Establishment of religion refers to an institution, not a religious affiliation. That is not really a matter of interpretation. a phrase clearly is not a worshiping, or meeting religious body, or organization.

Also, please explain how God can not refer to human reason. If there is no God, then, the highest power is human reason,

Exactly, if there is no god than the highest power is human reason. This does not mean that god = human reason. It merely means there is no god.

Exactly, if there is no god than the highest power is human reason. This does not mean that god = human reason. It merely means there is no god.


then God would cease to be a person, and be an idea. God really is a term that refers to anything higher than we are. You agree that neither you nor I are the ultimate ulthority in the universe. In which case that ultimate authority is the collective body of Human reason, which is that higher power and ergo is God.

I saw a way earlier post for this saying something along the lines should it be illegal no, should it be there, no. Well to me it should be illegal. No I'm not atheist but no I'm also not christian. For one the under god part was added latter by congress and is not even a part of the original pledge.

Neither are half the words in the Pledge.

So really, it is up to interpretation whether or not the phrase Under God is an establishment of religion or not. If ya listen to the Supreme Court, it isn't.

Establishment of religion refers to an institution, not a religious affiliation. That is not really a matter of interpretation. a phrase clearly is not a worshiping, or meeting religious body, or organization.

You are indeed correct. However, people here do not see it that way.

You are indeed correct. However, people here do not see it that way.

That would be because the people you are referring to actually have the legal training to explain why it isn't seen that way, IN LAW.

So far, all you've brought to the table is opinion. And poorly backed up, at that.

You are indeed correct. However, people here do not see it that way.

Yeah, I guess us folks who believe that the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State are going against the proper interpretation of the first amendment as the Supreme Court has articulated it.

then God would cease to be a person, and be an idea. God really is a term that refers to anything higher than we are. You agree that neither you nor I are the ultimate ulthority in the universe. In which case that ultimate authority is the collective body of Human reason, which is that higher power and ergo is God.

Nonsense. God (capital G) has a very specific, very literal definition, we've been over this in the last...33 or so pages.

"God" does not simply mean "the highest authority, whatever it may be". This is nonsensical, and an entirely incorrect definition.

Even if that WERE true "human reason" is not, in and of itself, an authority on, or over, anything.

You are indeed correct. However, people here do not see it that way.

Are you seriously going to continue to ONLY reply to the people who agree with you? Interesting debate tactic there.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court. They have the Final Word. Until then, it is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules that it is.

Are you seriously going to continue to ONLY reply to the people who agree with you? Interesting debate tactic there.

Sorry are you talking to me? I only respond to posters who are polite. Be more polite and I MIGHT respond.

Yeah, I guess us folks who believe that the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State are going against the proper interpretation of the first amendment as the Supreme Court has articulated it.
yeah, you really need to watch out for that.

interestingly, the most recent opposition to the pledge i have heard, was from bishops and the like who don't want too much religion in politics in case they lose tax-exempt status.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court. They have the Final Word. Until then, it is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules that it is.

Um, no it isn't. It is unconstitution in parts of this country. As I have pointed out, the Supreme Court is not the only arbiter of constitutionality, it is merely the final one.

Other courts are empowered to make a decision based on constitutionality, and one has done so, ruling that it is unconstitutional. While they may have the final word, they do not have the only one. It has been held as unconstitutional in parts of this country.

Nonsense. God (capital G) has a very specific, very literal definition, we've been over this in the last...33 or so pages.

"God" does not simply mean "the highest authority, whatever it may be". This is nonsensical, and an entirely incorrect definition.

Even if that WERE true "human reason" is not, in and of itself, an authority on, or over, anything.

Yeah, I've gotta go with Arth on this one. Cinematography has a weird line of reasoning.

Sorry are you talking to me? I only respond to posters who are polite. Be more polite and I MIGHT respond.

Yeah Nees, stop using big words he doesn't understand, and arguments that are over his head, he can't respond to them.

Erm, I mean, be more polite

yeah, you really need to watch out for that.

interestingly, the most recent opposition to the pledge i have heard, was from bishops and the like who don't want too much religion in politics in case they lose tax-exempt status.

In Szanth, they have no tax-exempt status. :D

Hopefully the US will soon follow suit.

Sorry are you talking to me? I only respond to posters who are polite. Be more polite and I MIGHT respond.

Oh please. That's your cop-out? "People who don't agree with me are rude, and I don't talk to rude people, waaaaaa".

Arthais has repeatedly rebutted your claims, and you have repeatedly ignored those rebuttals.

Intellectual dishonesty...not thin skin. You've yet to either admit you were wrong about SCOTUS, or further back up your claim with some evidence.