Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on September 14, 2005, 11:41:48 PM
-
linky (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-09-14T200859Z_01_YUE472449_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-RIGHTS-PLEDGE-DC.XML&archived=False)
In the Wednesday decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton said: "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."
In effect, the decision reopens the way for Newdow and others to argue the merits of the case before higher courts. The Supreme Court did not decide on that when it ruled Newdow did not have standing to bring the case.
How can they say the pledge of alegance is unconstitutional? Isn't the pledge in it's self an affirmation of the constitution?
-
I know nobody can relate... But I did all the book reports, homework assignments, and laps around the track that were assigned to me... but I never repeated a single thing anyone told me as if it were mantra. Let alone repeat it over and over every single day, day in and day out for twelve years.
And I love my country. Go figure.
-
Originally posted by rpm
How can they say the pledge of alegance is unconstitutional? Isn't the pledge in it's self an affirmation of the constitution?
(Paraphrasing) Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...
There are some who believe that the "under God" phrase is establishing religion.
A more tolerant view is to see the phrase in a larger context and realise that many of the founding fathers did have a religious context to their thoughts and reciting "one nation under God" pays homage not to the God but to the concepts of those founders.
-
Apparently according to that Newdow guy it is forcing God down his throat and his weak mind cant handle the stress.
Apparently when cogress added "Under God" to the pledge in 1954 they made a state religion.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(Paraphrasing) Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...
nope.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The Myth of the separation of church and state (http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html)
-
an?
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Apparently according to that Newdow guy it is forcing God down his throat and his weak mind cant handle the stress.
Apparently when cogress added "Under God" to the pledge in 1954 they made a state religion.
Which religion? Cristian, Jewish,Budda,Muslam,Hindu, American indian?
Seems to me by ruling it unconstitutional they are also violating the "Free exercise" portion of it too.
I remember when I was in school they didnt make you say it. It was a choice to recite the pledge. And if you didnt want to recite it you didnt have to. But you did have to sit quietly while everyone else did.
Seems the fairest way to me.
But of course that would never be good enough for Newdow.
Cant someone just put him out of his and our misery?
-
Originally posted by Nash
an?
Yes. AN
In other words we cant have a holy american empire based on one solitary religion
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Apparently according to that Newdow guy it is forcing God down his throat and his weak mind cant handle the stress.
Apparently when cogress added "Under God" to the pledge in 1954 they made a state religion.
Did the Congress also decide that this must be recited at public schools?
-
I dont think so, they never FORCED us to say it. If you didnt want to say it you didnt have to. All you had to do was sit quiet for a minute(fascism rears its ugly head!!!!!1111one) Second if you feel that strongly about it. Then you could just as easily said. "Under: (insert your favorite diety,sports team,great pumpkin, krusty the clown, etc.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which religion? Cristian, Jewish,Budda,Muslam,Hindu, American indian?
Hmm... the Congress added "under God" to the pledge as a result of a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. As the KOC are Catholic, what "god" do you think they we're referring to?
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
I dont think so, they never FORCED us to say it. If you didnt want to say it you didnt have to. All you had to do was sit quiet for a minute(fascism rears its ugly head!!!!!1111one) Second if you feel that strongly about it. Then you could just as easily said. "Under: (insert your favorite diety,sports team,great pumpkin, krusty the clown, etc.
True enough, but when it comes to stuff like this, most kids just do what the rest of the class is doing.
I've stated it before and I'll state it again... I think the Pledge of Allegience lacks any meaning at all. It's trite. Most people simply say the words and don't even pause to think about what they mean.
-
my only thoughts on this (well ok not my ONLY thoughts cause everyone here knows i'm opinionated) is that imagine what it's going to cost the federal govt when the ACLU wins this law suit and we have to reprint all our money.
In addition.....keep in mind this involves (somehow) the 9th circuit court of appeals.....the most overturned court in US history.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Apparently according to that Newdow guy it is forcing God down his throat and his weak mind cant handle the stress.
Apparently when cogress added "Under God" to the pledge in 1954 they made a state religion.
And how would you feel if it was changed to under Allah?
-
He's a District Court judge. It'll go to the 9th again and then the SC if they push it that far.
As for the 9th.... what Guns said.
-
Buddhists don't believe in God (IIRC).
LOL, for those pointing fingers at the guy for bringing suit as being too sensitive, you guys sure are being sensitive by the added phrase in '54 being removed from the Pledge.
Sandman's right though, it is trite.
Nash is right, don't need to say a pledge of allegience to be a patriot/love one's country.
If the country's going to a hell in a handbasket, it won't be because "Under God" was removed from the Pledge.
-
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892
-------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923
---------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924
---------------------------------------------------------
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for traditional values.. I say we go back to the 1892 version.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmm... the Congress added "under God" to the pledge as a result of a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. As the KOC are Catholic, what "god" do you think they we're referring to?
My point is "god" is inclusive to a great many religions.
Not just one.
Had they said Jehova or Mohammad... or Budda (forSaburoS sake) or something along those lines it would be an entirely another story.
God is not religion specific and as such does not violate the constitution if we go by its original intent
-
the solution is to get rid of public schools.
lazs
-
...but not to all religions.
For that matter, how many countries are there that force a pledge of allegiance at all?
Furthermore, you southerners ought to be opposed to the Pledge on principle. After all, "indivisibility" is a direct jab at the war between the states and all that.
Some other history points:
The "hand on heart" came in only in the early forties. Before that, the more traditional outstretched arm (sieg...) was used.
"Under God" is differentiation from the Godless commies; in other words, it was brought in as part of a wider program of persecution for political beliefs.
Anyway, the point is, religious belief is something the state has no business dictating. I'm sorry, if you want a state religion, there are plenty of countries in the world that do that. Many of us came here to escape that crap (and that doesn't make us all atheists, either). Forcing children to affirm the existence of God is a pretty clear-cut case. We don't only have atheists here; we've got polytheists and people whose beliefs don't even countenance the notion of God. Why persecute them?
This reminds me of a story my professor told me of growing up in Louisville. Her First-grade teacher refused to teach her unless she went to church like everyone else. Rather than explain to the teacher and the school board just what exactly Judaism was, her parents took her to the Unitarians.
-
Funny, when I was in elementary school, we WERE forced to recite it. Anyone who had religious or other objections was required to have a parent present a note.
The original poster's quote is pretty clear. The ruling speaksof the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God
If you're religious, you're scratching your head because at some level, you're wondering "Why would anyone not want to affirm God?"
...and that's exactly why you're blind to the conflict. A PUBLIC SCHOOL is a government institution. If the school is requiring (as MY school did) students to recite the pledge, then they are, with this 1954 version, requiring the children to affirm allegiance to a religion.
How sanguine would you be if the text said "Under Allah" instead? Why not just sit quietly while everyone pledges to allah around you? Knowing this group, I'm certain that there are a bunch of you that would have a big problem with that. Well, I'm not a christian, and for me "Under god" is just as bad as "under allah" would be to you.
-
If your not religious, how about just not saying the "under God" part, and not forcing Your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?
As for me, I never took the "under God" part as being religion forced upon me, but as part of a pledge of loyalty to a Nation.
Because of the ACLU , and entities like them, this Nation is becoming the Land of the Three, instead of the Land of the Free.
If you don't want your kids to say the Pledge of Alliegence, then homeschool.
It's that simple.
Instead, these boneheads are forcing thier beliefs ( or lack of , depending on how you look at it ) on everyone else, while tying up the courts and wasting public money.
-
Flit, explain why christians putting "under god" into the pledge is NOT "forcing your beliefs" on those of us who are not Christian? This is a pretty serious double standard.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
True enough, but when it comes to stuff like this, most kids just do what the rest of the class is doing.
I've stated it before and I'll state it again... I think the Pledge of Allegience lacks any meaning at all. It's trite. Most people simply say the words and don't even pause to think about what they mean.
Sandy is right, It didnt mean much to me but back then I had an even more fanitical love for this country then I do now.
Is it true for all kids? Prolly not all, but I bet most just do it cause they have to.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the solution is to get rid of public schools.
lazs
Spot on Laz, or at least give them something to compete against.
-
my 2 cents is this
The anti religous folks fight all this stuff no matter how small, for the same reason the hand gun folks fight anti handgun laws no matter how small....
they do not want to set a precedent that it should be acceptable to have it (religion) or not have them (guns)
so they file suits and fight the laws, always every time, to keep a precedent form being set.
-
It's wrong for the same reason that it would be wrong if the line went "under no god" .
"Under god" was just a pc line inserted to earn votes for policians.
-
I don't think the "under god" part of the pledge is a big deal, and I was an atheist when in school. It didnt bother me then or now.
I guess I am agnostic now. The organized religion types I think may have it wrong, but I am not sure there is not some kind of god like thing.
Still that said, I am ALL about separation of church and state, because I don't want to live under a theocracy of any kind. I will just save my energy fog bigger more important fights over things that have no in place for years and harmless.
__________________
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Flit, explain why christians putting "under god" into the pledge is NOT "forcing your beliefs" on those of us who are not Christian? This is a pretty serious double standard.
Read the first line of my post
-
If you're religious, how about just saying the "under God" part, and not forcing your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?
-
Originally posted by Flit
If your not religious, how about just not saying the "under God" part, and not forcing Your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?
As for me, I never took the "under God" part as being religion forced upon me, but as part of a pledge of loyalty to a Nation.
Because of the ACLU , and entities like them, this Nation is becoming the Land of the Three, instead of the Land of the Free.
If you don't want your kids to say the Pledge of Alliegence, then homeschool.
It's that simple.
Instead, these boneheads are forcing thier beliefs ( or lack of , depending on how you look at it ) on everyone else, while tying up the courts and wasting public money.
Only because other "boneheads" are forcing their beliefs on others. Careful with how you paint things.
Edit- If you want your kids to have religion, then go to the religious school of your choice, or homeschool. It's that simple.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If you're religious, how about just saying the "under God" part, and not forcing your beliefs down everyone else's throat ?
I do, and I don't
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Only because other "boneheads" are forcing their beliefs on others. Careful with how you paint things.
Edit- If you want your kids to have religion, then go to the religious school of your choice, or homeschool. It's that simple.
Thanks, you made my point
-
Originally posted by Flit
I do, and I don't
By suggesting that the non-christians need to change what they do and you don't, sure sounds like you're operating squarely in the middle of the 'shoving down throat' zone, no less so than anyone who asks that the pledge not be mandated in public schools because it violates their religious beliefs.
Are you maliciously not getting it? Or do you seriously not see the similarity?
-
Originally posted by Flit
Thanks, you made my point
No, you made my point. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
By suggesting that the non-christians need to change what they do and you don't, sure sounds like you're operating squarely in the middle of the 'shoving down throat' zone, no less so than anyone who asks that the pledge not be mandated in public schools because it violates their religious beliefs.
Are you maliciously not getting it? Or do you seriously not see the similarity?
Nope, not at all-I'm suggesting that that we all have a choice.
You can choose to say "under God", or you can choose not too.
Thats the beauty of living in this country.
And the pledge, IMHO, does not affirm ANY religion, it is a catch-all to cover All religions.
BTW, I'm agnostic , I don't know who's turning the crank, I just hope he don't stop. :aok
-
How does it encompass all religions? Buddhism, atheism, all polytheist religions... these are not covered by 'under god' for obvious reasons.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
My point is "god" is inclusive to a great many religions.
Not just one.
Had they said Jehova or Mohammad... or Budda (forSaburoS sake) or something along those lines it would be an entirely another story.
God is not religion specific and as such does not violate the constitution if we go by its original intent
I agree
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
How does it encompass all religions? Buddhism, atheism, all polytheist religions... these are not covered by 'under god' for obvious reasons.
I reckon those are the ones who can leave "under God " out
When it was put in the Pledge in 1954, this Nation was overwhelmingly Christian, and was put in as a counter to communism (i.e. "godless countrys").
I think that the only ones who complain about it are Nitpickers who will complain about anything they don't understand.
I say we put it to a nation wide vote, and see what happens.:lol
-
Originally posted by Flit
I say we put it to a nation wide vote, and see what happens.:lol
LOL is right.
The measure of a democracy is not how well it serves the majority, it is how well it protects the minority.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Edit- If you want your kids to have religion, then go to the religious school of your choice, or homeschool. It's that simple.
I do. Now can I get my taxes back that support all the heathens in public school?
-
Originally posted by Flit
I reckon those are the ones who can leave "under God " out
When it was put in the Pledge in 1954, this Nation was overwhelmingly Christian, and was put in as a counter to communism (i.e. "godless countrys").
I think that the only ones who complain about it are Nitpickers who will complain about anything they don't understand.
I say we put it to a nation wide vote, and see what happens.:lol
Well, I can relate to this because our national anthem starts with God of nations, so I refuse to sing it. So I'm "left out".
Why does under god have to be there anyway? If it was added in that easily I'm sure it could be removed that easily. Nitpickers? Who are the freaking nitpickers who got it put in there then?
-
I actually do agree with Sandy here:
I've stated it before and I'll state it again... I think the Pledge of Allegience lacks any meaning at all. It's trite. Most people simply say the words and don't even pause to think about what they mean.
The Pledge is so over stated by kids, so repeated that it loses any meaning.
That's not an excuse to get rid of "Under God" though. God can be anything. Any higher belief you want, or even:
Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of all children.
No one is saying that it needs to be a christian god, or muslim god, or even a god anyone has thought of before.
-
The correct answer is:
Originally posted by midnight Target
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
October 11, 1892
I'm all for traditional values.. I say we go back to the 1892 version.
-
In 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 the American people demonstrated enough concern about the actual words in the Pledge to make some necessary changes. Today there may be a tendency among many Americans to recite "by rote" with little thought for the words themselves. Before continuing with our tour, let's examine these 31 words a little more thoroughly.
I Pledge Allegiance
I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)
to the flag
to the emblem that stands for and represents
of the United States
all 50 states, each of them individual, and individually represented on the flag
of America
yet formed into a UNION of one Nation.
and to the Republic
And I also pledge my loyalty to the Government that is itself a Republic, a form of government where the PEOPLE are sovereign,
for which it stands,
this government also being represented by the Flag to which I promise loyalty.
one Nation under God,
These 50 individual states are united as a single Republic under the Divine providence of God, "our most powerful resource" (according to the words of President Eisenhower)
Indivisible,
and can not be separated. (This part of the original version of the pledge was written just 50 years after the beginning of the Civil War and demonstrates the unity sought in the years after that divisive period in our history)
with Liberty
The people of this Nation being afforded the freedom to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness",
and Justice
And each person entitled to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper law and principle,
for All.
And these principles afforded to EVERY AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, or any other criteria. Just as the flag represents 50 individual states that can not be divided or separated, this Nation represents millions of people who can not be separated or divided.
Thus it is that when you Pledge Allegiance to the United States Flag, You:
*Promise your loyalty to the Flag itself.
*Promise your loyalty to your own and the other 49 States.
*Promise your loyalty to the Government that unites us all,
Recognizing that we are ONE Nation under God,
That we can not or should not be divided or alone,
And understanding the right to Liberty and Justice belongs to ALL of us.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
As for the beginning part of what I copied:
In 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 the American people demonstrated enough concern about the actual words in the Pledge to make some necessary changes.
maybe they will add 2006 to that list of years?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Well, I can relate to this because our national anthem starts with God of nations, so I refuse to sing it. So I'm "left out".
Why does under god have to be there anyway? If it was added in that easily I'm sure it could be removed that easily. Nitpickers? Who are the freaking nitpickers who got it put in there then?
So you have the choice to sing it or not.
And God does'nt have to be there as far as I'm concerned.
-
Originally posted by Fury
In 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 the American people demonstrated enough concern about the actual words in the Pledge to make some necessary changes. Today there may be a tendency among many Americans to recite "by rote" with little thought for the words themselves. Before continuing with our tour, let's examine these 31 words a little more thoroughly.
I Pledge Allegiance
I Promise to be faithful and true (Promise my loyalty)
to the flag
to the emblem that stands for and represents
of the United States
all 50 states, each of them individual, and individually represented on the flag
of America
yet formed into a UNION of one Nation.
and to the Republic
And I also pledge my loyalty to the Government that is itself a Republic, a form of government where the PEOPLE are sovereign,
for which it stands,
this government also being represented by the Flag to which I promise loyalty.
one Nation under God,
These 50 individual states are united as a single Republic under the Divine providence of God, "our most powerful resource" (according to the words of President Eisenhower)
Indivisible,
and can not be separated. (This part of the original version of the pledge was written just 50 years after the beginning of the Civil War and demonstrates the unity sought in the years after that divisive period in our history)
with Liberty
The people of this Nation being afforded the freedom to pursue "life, liberty, and happiness",
and Justice
And each person entitled to be treated justly, fairly, and according to proper law and principle,
for All.
And these principles afforded to EVERY AMERICAN, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, or any other criteria. Just as the flag represents 50 individual states that can not be divided or separated, this Nation represents millions of people who can not be separated or divided.
Thus it is that when you Pledge Allegiance to the United States Flag, You:
*Promise your loyalty to the Flag itself.
*Promise your loyalty to your own and the other 49 States.
*Promise your loyalty to the Government that unites us all,
Recognizing that we are ONE Nation under God,
That we can not or should not be divided or alone,
And understanding the right to Liberty and Justice belongs to ALL of us.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html
As for the beginning part of what I copied:
In 1892, 1923, 1924 and 1954 the American people demonstrated enough concern about the actual words in the Pledge to make some necessary changes.
maybe they will add 2006 to that list of years?
Good post, Thanks
-
Now let's put this in proper perspective:
If schools required all kids to say , maybe, "The Lords Prayer",
Then That would be different.
Or required all kids to kneel and bow toward the east ,
That would be different.
Or go to "confession" in school,
That would be different.
But the Pledge is not a prayer, it's a oath of loyalty to this country. And I have no problem with That being reinforced in public schools.
-
Originally posted by A_Clown
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
My point is "god" is inclusive to a great many religions.
Not just one.
Had they said Jehova or Mohammad... or Budda (forSaburoS sake) or something along those lines it would be an entirely another story.
God is not religion specific and as such does not violate the constitution if we go by its original intent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree
See and thats part of the problem. People, and the courts try to twist the constitution away from its original intent whenever it suits them. They dont go by the way it was intended when it was written but by the way they want it to be intended now.
Sorry it doesnt work that way. Nor should it.
People keep mentioning a "separation of church and state"
Well sorry but thats not in the consitution..anywhere.
And it wasnt ever the intent to keep god out of government. But rather to keep the government out of god.
Meaning to no have "a" nantional church which could dictate any specific religion as being the only legal religion
If it were we woudnt see "In god we trust", "in the year of our lord" "endowed by our creator" Senate would never have been allowed to open with prayer as they have always done. If the founding fathers didnt want god in government then why did they pray openly in official meetings?
You would never have seen chaplins of any type in the armed forces
You would never see the president sworn into office over a bible Nor would you have ever had anyone swearing "to tell the truth the whole truth so help you god" in any court.
Why were these things ever there? Because the founding fathers who wrote the constitution wanted them there. They indended for them to be there.
They never intended for god, or any refrence to god to be removed from government.
Sorry but like it or not the naysayers are so wrong here that ifbeing right about it were a planet in our solar system. they would be in a galaxy so far away its light has yet to have reached us.
-
Is it just me?
Or does anyone else find it fascinating that a country that fought tooth and nail to break away from the theocracy of Britain, wants to become one?
What goes around, comes around. To everything, turn, turn turn. Next thing ya know, folks are gonna be walking around with feathered hair and a big-assed comb sticking out of their back pocket.
-
You guys are right, these changes made since 1892 must have been necessary. With that in mind, I think it's about time to update it.
I suggest we update it to be 'under Allah'. As you know, Allah means 'God', so it should be fine for everyone, because they can choose to make it to whichever incarnation of Allah they want.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
And to the republic, for which it stands
One nation, under Allah,
with liberty and justice for all.
-
Relax, it's just you.
The overwhelming vast majority of Americans have no intention of letting this become a theocracy.
What confuses you, possibly, is the concept that "under God" in the pledge, which is probably only recited by schoolkids in 90% of the utterances, makes the US a theocracy, anything like a theocracy or even starts us down the road to a theocracy.
You may return to your alert bunker. All is well.
-
amen.
-
Baby steps, Toad.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You guys are right, these changes made since 1892 must have been necessary. With that in mind, I think it's about time to update it.
I suggest we update it to be 'under Allah'. As you know, Allah means 'God', so it should be fine for everyone, because they can choose to make it to whichever incarnation of Allah they want.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
And to the republic, for which it stands
One nation, under Allah,
with liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to say that, if your Muslim.
Just remember your taking a oath to a Nation, not a God
-
OMG! YOUR RIGHT NASH!
We're sliding down the slippery slope! We should have stuck with the way the founders intended this nation to be!
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
Little did our founders realize that someday, someone would say "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. If the had, they'd have surely been amazed as the following shows.
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men.
The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war.
Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
We've got to get a handle on this!
-
If my boss forced me to make a daily oath to him, I'd resent it.
I work because I love my job.
If my girlfriend forced me to take a daily oath to her, I'd resent it. I hang out with her because I love to.
If my country forced me to say good things about it, I would have considerably less good things to say about it.
I just cannot understand this fixation with an "oath."
"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."
Screw that. I learn how to navigate and tie knots. In so doing, I appreciate what I am afforded. Don't make me say it, and don't attribute it to God. Or I'm gone.
-
But not everyone is like you.
Some people WANT to do that stuff.
Oath to the boss/company? Isn't that the Japanese corporate model?
-
Some people "WANT" to do that stuff?
Good for them. Have atter.
Some people want to play chess. Some want to debate. It's all good. Make an "Oath" club and let these folks wear their vocal chords out silly during lunch.
-
Unless I miss my guess you are a "loner" type, not a "joiner".
Some people like the Boy Scouts and their oath too.
Some folks are real religious and makes "oaths" to their God.
Some folks like to join clubs.
It may not be what you like or I like but I don't think less of them for it.
YMMV.
-
Exactly Toad:
"YMMV"
I think that's great. Everyone's mileage varies.
I don't put my mileage on you, and you sure as hell aint putting your mileage on me.
Freedom is great, huh?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Is it just me?
Or does anyone else find it fascinating that a country that fought tooth and nail to break away from the theocracy of Britain, wants to become one?
Noooo
Britain had but one legal religion
"The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom From religion, but freedom OF religion."
Last time I checked we didnt have one sole legal religion and we arent imprisoning or torturing anyone for not practicing religion.
-
Sure bud.
-
Your concern for our freedom is touching and surely appreciated.
It's simply amazing we made it this past 229 years without your help but we really do appreciate it.
I'm sure the very religious guys that founded this country appreciate it too.
The ones that opened their Declaration with "the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" and closed it with "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."
The ones that hired a Chaplain for the Senate at the very first Senate session.
And the ones that put "In God We Trust" on our coins during the Civil War.
If they had only had you to warn them of the danger. Sigh. Perhaps they could have avoided those "baby steps" that have led us so far down the road to religious tyranny.
Hey, did you ever stop to think that "freedom" works in a lot of different directions?
Imagine this... schoolkids free to pray out loud at the beginning of class if they so choose while others kids might choose to remain silent. Gosh... choice and freedom for both!
Kinda like the way the pledge would be... free to say it or not say it... your choice of freedom.
Just like people are free to say "you ****ing *******" on the subway and others are free to ignore it.
Freedom is a funny thing. You can be free to say something and free to just not say that same thing. Imagine.
Interesting how some folks think they themselves should be able to say anything they like but that some speech should be prohibited in others.
Now there's a "baby step" that would worry me.
-
Wow... snark meter off the charts.
It comes down to this. I wont make you say nuthin', and you don't make me say nuthin'. We don't make nobody else say nuthin'.
We can say whatever it is our little hearts desire... But nobody is making us say anything.
It is sooooooooo simple.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Is it just me?
Or does anyone else find it fascinating that a country that fought tooth and nail to break away from the theocracy of Britain, wants to become one?
What goes around, comes around. To everything, turn, turn turn. Next thing ya know, folks are gonna be walking around with feathered hair and a big-assed comb sticking out of their back pocket.
No, it's not just you.
-
It's so simple that that is the way it already is.
Even in Newdow's district the pledge is voluntary.
AFIK, there isn't a single public school district in the nation that is forcing little Billy to say the pledge or a prayer.
So, as you can see, Little Billy can say whatever it is his little heart desires... But nobody is making Little Billy say anything at all.
Stand down, valiant warrior; the nation is safe for one more day.
-
Listen to you.
World's apologist, excuser, look thattawayer.
No matter what the issue. No matter what it is.
In real life? I walk around people like you. Forgive me, but tick tock... I can't be arsed.
-
In real life I ignore people like you too.
Chicken Little gets so boring so fast.
-
Works for me.
-
Always does when your high dudgeon is calmed by the obvious fact.
Nobody is forced to say the pledge or pray in school. So it's all a tempest in a teapot. You finally realized the situation has always been the way you think it should be.
I wont make you say nuthin', and you don't make me say nuthin'. We don't make nobody else say nuthin'.
Dudgeon destroyed. Don Nashiote rides off with Sancho in search of another threatening windmill.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nobody is forced to say the pledge or pray in school.
Bull**** they don't. They never once told us it was optional. We were expected to participate, and like good little children we did just that.
Of course, it's been a long LONG time since I attended elementary school. Maybe things have changed.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Always does when your high dudgeon is calmed by the obvious fact.
Incredible. You are the don quixote here. Have always been.
Me? I'm telling you that it's a joke, a fraud, and inhumane.
So there.
-
Yeah, I was forced to say the pledge every day before I even began to understand it.
If my parents wanted me to do that, they would have made me Baptist...
Seriously, forced oaths are not valid in any case. If they're "voluntary", why expose those who don't say it to ridicule over what is a personal issue?
You can have your gun all you want, but that doesn't mean we're gonna let you shoot unarmed people at random.
-
When I was in school, we were forced to say it as well. THAT'S part of the problem.
-
First, for the "they forced ME to say it crowd", please reference a public school district now that forces anyone to pledge or pray.
Yeah, when we were kids, it was the norm. It isn't now.
I'm open to enlightenment though... show me a public school district where you are currently punished for not pledging or praying.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Listen to you.
World's apologist, excuser, look thattawayer.
No matter what the issue. No matter what it is.
Originally posted by Nash
Incredible. You are the don quixote here. Have always been.
Make up your mind.
Perhaps you haven't read Don Quixote?
I'm not the one mistaking windmills for giants.
Watch out for that theocracy!!!!!!! Yah... right....
You are a child of the universe,
no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you,
no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God,
whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations,
in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world.
Be cheerful.
Strive to be happy.
-
You guys know that this has nothing to do with "God" or state sponsored religon or anything..It's about the US hating ACLU and the left over fricken hippies that are just trying to destroy this country one stab at a time.
And alot of you guys are falling for it.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
You guys know that this has nothing to do with "God" or state sponsored religon or anything..It's about the US hating ACLU and the left over fricken hippies that are just trying to destroy this country one stab at a time.
And alot of you guys are falling for it.
When they start passing out koolaid, be sure you don't drink it.
-
The ACLU defends your liberties and rights, whether you want them or not. They don't have to be popular to be effective.
-
some people would like to have their children say the pledge and even say prayers at school... they think it would be good for the kids and...
Nash...Who cares what you (the student) wants anyway? In that case...you are a minor and not paying for your schooling... your parents are.. Your wishes are of no importance as a student.
And that is the dilema... the money for public inductrinization (schools) is being extorted out of all of us but we have no choice in the school... it is one factory with one agenda... we may not want our children taught about gay lifestyles or even condoms (I don't care myself but some do) we may not want to have to compete with other parents for clothes and accessories for our children... we may or may not want them to wear uniforms...
We may want them to have a school that teaches more shop or less shop...
Point is we get no choice for our money. The religious get nothing. Not even a minute for silent prayer or...sleep if you are an athiest...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The ACLU defends your liberties and rights, whether you want them or not. They don't have to be popular to be effective.
No the ACLU takes rights from people and gives them to others.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
No the ACLU takes rights from people and gives them to others.
Please elaborate.... mabye in another thread.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Please elaborate.... mabye in another thread.
Will do, give me some time to do my research, and I'll get back to you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think that's great. Everyone's mileage varies.
In the rest of the world that uses the metric system... is it Kilometrige?
-
Originally posted by Toad
First, for the "they forced ME to say it crowd", please reference a public school district now that forces anyone to pledge or pray.
Hehe... this always cracks me up. I'm sure all the teachers across the Country say "OK children, it's time to voluntarily stand and say whatever part of the Pledge of Allegience you want to say."
lol
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe... this always cracks me up. I'm sure all the teachers across the Country say "OK children, it's time to voluntarily stand and say whatever part of the Pledge of Allegience you want to say."
lol
This always cracks me up.... folks proclaiming children are "forced" to pray or pledge but being unable to cite single public school instance.
Further, folks insinuating that if parents don't want their children to pledge or pray and instruct them not to do so that the kids are powerless robots in the presence of their peers.
The Madison, WI school district is the example. Schools were instructed to preface every Pledge or anthem offering with a disclaimer that students are free not to stand or participate.
But I'm sure that's still just too oppressive... or something.
-
Anyone who is a real American would not have a problem being compelled by law to voluntarily recite a loyalty oath.
That's a joke, son...
-
Originally posted by Toad
First, for the "they forced ME to say it crowd", please reference a public school district now that forces anyone to pledge or pray.
Yeah, when we were kids, it was the norm. It isn't now.
I'm open to enlightenment though... show me a public school district where you are currently punished for not pledging or praying.
Virginia (story) (http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=19&newsid=10962) and Virginia law (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-202)
and
California (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=89465313405+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)
-
I thought the Virginia (story) was about Santa Clause.
-
I bet if I go digging, I could find similar statutes in most states. They're there... just a matter of time before they're challenged in court.
-
This always cracks me up.... folks proclaiming children are "forced" to pray or pledge but being unable to cite single public school instance.
Further, folks insinuating that if parents don't want their children to pledge or pray and instruct them not to do so that the kids are powerless robots in the presence of their peers.
And fortunately, school [particularly, but not limited to, Jr. High and above] is an entirely non-coercive environment socially where those who differ from the group at a particularly vulnerable and confusing time of life are respected by their peers and accepted. I can remember two or three kids in my high school class [actually I can remember examples back to grade school] who were significantly different. The hell they went through as the rest worked to build their self-esteem was really intense. A dozen or so who were somewhat less different worked real hard to stay in the shadows. Shameful to look back on today, but was a “kill or be killed” environment at that age and few are strong enough to stand up for their beliefs or stand up and defend others who differ (myself included at the time) with the group consensus. Why force an unnecessary choice as part of public policy?
And, without the overblown early 20th century fear of dark skinned Mediterranean Catholics, anarchists, Jews and socialists we wouldn’t have it in the first place; and without old Uncle Joe (Stalin or McCarthy) the whole god angle wouldn’t have been put in place. Kind of hard for me to really get behind coercive, band aid, superficial reactions to fear as great American traditions. And these are coercive for “right thinking” or they wouldn’t have become required in the first place. That’s why they are there. Think right or pay the consequences. Get with the program.
Charon
-
Sandman,
From your "Virginia Law" link:
During such Pledge of Allegiance, students shall stand and recite the Pledge while facing the flag with their right hands over their hearts or in an appropriate salute if in uniform; however, no student shall be compelled to recite the Pledge if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical or other grounds to his participating in this exercise.
Students who are thus exempt from reciting the Pledge shall remain quietly standing or sitting at their desks while others recite the Pledge and shall make no display that disrupts or distracts others who are reciting the Pledge. School boards shall provide appropriate accommodations for students who are unable to comply with the procedures described herein due to disability.
From the Northern California ACLU website FAQ's:
Q. Do California schools have to conduct Pledge of Allegiance ceremonies?
A. Californias Education Code requires public elementary and secondary schools to conduct daily patriotic exercises, although schools may substitute other patriotic exercises for the Pledge of Allegiance. Local school boards are expected to adopt regulations on patriotic exercises.
Q. May students refuse to participate?
A. Yes. Until 1943, public schools expelled schoolchildren for refusing to salute the flag and even prosecuted their parents for truancy. The victims were primarily Jehovahs Witnesses, whose faith forbids them from pledging allegiance to secular symbols. Then, during World War II, the image of schoolchildren pledging with a stiff-arm salute was reminiscent of Nazi youth and the United States Supreme Court ruled that compulsory flag salute violated the First Amendment. The right to free speech includes liberty to refrain from reciting words that do not reflect ones beliefs. Therefore, if students disagree with some of the statements in the Pledge, they may refuse to participate.
Q. Do students have to stand during the Pledge?
A. No. Standing during the Pledge is itself a participation in the exercise and an affirmation of belief. The school may not compel a student to engage in this symbolic act.
Q. Can schools require students to leave the classroom if they refuse to take part?
A. No. Provided that students who decline to participate are quiet and do not engage in disruption, schools may not exclude them from the classroom.
Q. May students be barred from school activities for refusing to participate in the Pledge ceremony?
A. No. School authorities may not punish students for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Unless you can show me otherwise, I still haven't seen a public school district where you are currently punished for not pledging or praying.
Nice try though.
-
Think about it. The parent has to actually present a note to the school, or else the kid is in trouble for not reciting the pledge. What kind of message does that send to you?
Tell me, how would you like it if the school required that you provide a note for your child to be allowed to say a prayer before eating their meal in the cafeteria?
-
I didnt say the pledge through my 6th and 7th grade years, and I didnt need no stinking letter.
-
Virginia:
if he, his parent or legal guardian objects on religious, philosophical or other grounds to his participating in this exercise
California:
Therefore, if students disagree with some of the statements in the Pledge, they may refuse to participate.
Obviously, I missed the part about having "to actually present a note to the school".
Can you show me that part? Thanks.
-
That's how it was at the schools I attended, if it's not like that there, then great. There certainly was a stigma attached by the teachers to those who chose not to participate.
-
I think this thread is talking about "now".
Sandman posted two links purporting to show that the pledge is required now. However, it just isn't required and you don't need a note.
I agree; way back when it was often required and you may have had to have a note to abstain.
It simply isn't that way now. However, perhaps someone can show me that there is a place that is still that way?
-
Originally posted by Toad
It simply isn't that way now. However, perhaps someone can show me that there is a place that is still that way?
Guantanamo Bay Re-Education Center
-
Originally posted by Toad
I think this thread is talking about "now".
Sandman posted two links purporting to show that the pledge is required now. However, it just isn't required and you don't need a note.
I agree; way back when it was often required and you may have had to have a note to abstain.
It simply isn't that way now. However, perhaps someone can show me that there is a place that is still that way?
I haven't found the statute in California code for the excemption. I didn't catch the one in Virginia law.
I did notice that Virginia attempted to pass a bill this year that required the schools to notifiy parents if a child did not participate in the pledge.
-
Ok quick vote how many of you attended school in the last decade?
ahh I see :rofl
So the rest of you geezers. We know you had it tough in yer one room school houses on the prairie.
Indian Attacks, walking both ways uphill 12 miles in blizzards, quill pens,corporal punishment,being forced under the threat of death to recite the pledge and say those 2 hoorible words. and all that jazz you guys like to talk about when you corner us whippersnappers.
Now in modern times, the leveled out the hills, since we dont live in the ice age no more blizzards, Henry Ford made mas production of the auto a reality meaning we could ride to school in a/c comfort. We have ballpoints, pcs, they couldnt spank us no more. And we have an option to sit, or stand and say the pledge. To even replace those 2 horrible words with whatever we choose.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Ok quick vote how many of you attended school in the last decade?
.... We have ballpoints, pcs, they couldnt spank us no more. And we have an option to sit, or stand and say the pledge. To even replace those 2 horrible words with whatever we choose.
Back in the olden days the teacher learnt us a double negative ain't good grammar.
-
Originally posted by Nash
If my boss forced me to make a daily oath to him, I'd resent it.
I work because I love my job.
If my girlfriend forced me to take a daily oath to her, I'd resent it. I hang out with her because I love to.
If my country forced me to say good things about it, I would have considerably less good things to say about it.
I just cannot understand this fixation with an "oath."
"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."
Screw that. I learn how to navigate and tie knots. In so doing, I appreciate what I am afforded. Don't make me say it, and don't attribute it to God. Or I'm gone.
So you are basically selfish, and don't see the need or desire
to part of something larger than yourself. If someone else does,
even in another country, why belittle that desire?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Virginia (story) (http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=19&newsid=10962) and Virginia law (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+22.1-202)
and
California (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=89465313405+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)
Thats cool, I graduated from Loudoun Valley High School, which, obviously, is in Loudoun Co. VA
And this guy is a perfect example of a "Nitpicker"wasting public money.
He's been filing lawsuits for years,He ain't won yet.
And yep, ya Hav'ta say the Pledge, unless you don't want to.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Rino
So you are basically selfish, and don't see the need or desire
to part of something larger than yourself. If someone else does,
even in another country, why belittle that desire?
Hope for his sake he never gets married. They tend to have you say a pledge during that ceremony also Only they call it Vows. Which is basically the same thing.
-
Now in modern times, the leveled out the hills, since we dont live in the ice age no more blizzards, Henry Ford made mas production of the auto a reality meaning we could ride to school in a/c comfort. We have ballpoints, pcs, they couldnt spank us no more. And we have an option to sit, or stand and say the pledge. To even replace those 2 horrible words with whatever we choose
LOL. Owned me there. It's probably even cool to not say the pledge as a protest over Iraq or to substiture Satan for god. Hell, the kids saying the pledge are probably the losers today. Have to think about my opinion now -- may have to support it just for the irony:aok
Charon
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I haven't found the statute in California code for the excemption. I didn't catch the one in Virginia law.
I didn't either. But the Northern California ACLU seems to think it's there.
Good enough for me.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
If you want your kids to have religion, then go to the religious school of your choice, or homeschool. It's that simple.
Fine, but then don't force me to support liberal teaching, atheistic public schools with my tax dollars.
See? Its not that simple.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
Fine, but then don't force me to support liberal teaching, atheistic public schools with my tax dollars.
See? Its not that simple.
It's certainly not as simple as "liberal teaching, atheistic public schools".
-
It's all about peer pressure.
-
Yeah, if we could just get totally rid of this pledge thing, kids would never experience "peer pressure" and life perfectly adjusted lives forever after.
It's the most serious and grave "peer pressure" thing a kid faces while growing up.
-
Toad,
For the record and by themselves:
1) I don't care if our money says "In God We Trust". As I see it, religion is based on faith as is paper money and coins. I can see the connection and the reasons behind it.
2) I don't care if the Pledge has "Under God" or doesn't have it. I don't care if their is a pledge or not. Like Sandman has said, it is trite.
3) "In the Year of our Lord" I also don't find offensive. This is based on the Gregorian Calendar which I think was the result of the Catholic Church.
Now by themselves they really are meaningless in the big picture. No one is going to convert one way or the other nor is religion being "forced" down our throats.
Kind of like Christmas being a non-secular holiday for those of us not Christian.
HOWEVER, The above examples are used many times by those that wish to force (Christian based) prayer, Christian Icons (Ten Commandments statue) in court, and creationism (include ID as well) into tax funded, government run public schools.
After that, what's next on the slippery slope that the Christian right want to force on the public school system?
That folks, falls under "Establishing Religion". I don't want to waste my tax dollars in that way. There are private funded schools for that. For religion, practice it in your places of worship, at home, whatever. Just don't force it on those that don't share your same religious views.
How would you feel if the Christians were a minority and all of a sudden the non-Christians started whining about how unfair it was that the Church doctrine of teaching Creationism was wrong and started pushing for forcing Evolution Theory on the Church?
I see both sides of the coin and wouldn't want the mixing of govt and church.
FWIW, I never saw private prayer looked down upon or stopped for those students that prayed before an important test or before their meal. It was an individual thing, as it should be.
If the Christian right stop trying to force their religion on us, I'll not worry about the "Under God", "In God We Trust", "In the Year of our Lord".
Deal?
I hold the "Separation of Church and State" (Sorry DREDIOCK, it's a semantics thing) as a very strong positive of our government and our way of life. I'll fight tooth and nail the intrusion of the govt into our churches as well, out of respect and my sense of duty as an American citizen. It's all part of "protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States".
The above IMHO.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
HOWEVER, The above examples are used many times by those that wish to force (Christian based) prayer, Christian Icons (Ten Commandments statue) in court, and creationism (include ID as well) into tax funded, government run public schools.
After that, what's next on the slippery slope that the Christian right want to force on the public school system?
Except that isn't really happening.
Like the pledge, show me where anyone is forced to pray in a public school.
Show me where Christian Icons are being forced in courts. It was tried in Alabama but was defeated in the courts.
Creationism? Yep, there's folks trying to get that taught in some schools. Not much success, AFAIK.
You won't stop folks from trying to do things they believe in, Christian right, Muslim, Cannabis supporters, Agricultural benefits, welfare.. whatever.
The point is there hasn't been, and imo, won't be much success by the Christian right. But they make a good bugaboo for the left as the ACLU or something else does for the right.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
That folks, falls under "Establishing Religion". I don't want to waste my tax dollars in that way. There are private funded schools for that. For religion, practice it in your places of worship, at home, whatever. Just don't force it on those that don't share your same religious views.
I hold the "Separation of Church and State" (Sorry DREDIOCK, it's a semantics thing) as a very strong positive of our government and our way of life. I'll fight tooth and nail the intrusion of the govt into our churches as well, out of respect and my sense of duty as an American citizen. It's all part of "protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States".
The above IMHO.
Its " An establishment of religion" Not "establishing religion".
Its meaning is there is to be no national church such as "The Church of England" as being the only "legal" religion
There is no "separation of church and state" Its not there.
Nowhere in the consitution does it say that
where we get that phrase from is from a statement made by Jefferson and is commonly misinterpreted.
Where it comes from and what it actually means is this.
"The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church.
Contrary to what you probably beleive I am hardly what anyone would call religious. Couldnt tell you the last time I was in a church and I dont like nor do I feel comfortble going into one.
I dont feel the need or the desire to go into a room with a group of people and pray and/or talk about god.
I am spiritual to an extent. But not religious
What I do beleive though is that the consitution should be gone by its original intent and not twisted to what we want it to mean to suit our momentary desires which seems to be becomming more and more commonplace.
Like it or not. agree with it or not but this country its govermental system and its laws were founded largly on religious beleifs.
If the government were telling us. "This (insert specific religion here) is the only legal religion and this is the one you must go by and follow." I would agree. But they are not.
And that was what the original intent of that ammendment was.
If the original intention of the founding fathers and writers of the consitution were to keep god out of government entirely. All these things I mentioned before. "in god we trust" "The Ten commandments" "In the year of our lord" prayer before official meetings. The hiring of a congrsional chaplin. Swearing into office over a bible, Swearing over a bible in the courtrooms. and almost countless other things Would never ever have been allowed in the first place.
But they were. So we can only conclude that keeping god or religion entirely out of goverment was never ever the intent of the first ammendment or the writers therof.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Flit, explain why christians putting "under god" into the pledge is NOT "forcing your beliefs" on those of us who are not Christian? This is a pretty serious double standard.
LOLOLOL Where does the pledge indicate that the God mentioned is that of the Christians? The way it is phrased, the term God is completely nebulous, as it should be.
Let's extend the court's logic a bit further.
Since every coin and bill issued by the Federal government contains the phrase, "In God we Trust"; isn't it, by simple extension, unconstitutional for students to bring money into public schools?
Read that judge's opinion and you will see that this decision is not only constitutionally flawed, but devoid of anything resembling simple logic.
Besides, it has been reported that the man who filed the suit shopped around looking for a district where he would have a sympathetic judge...
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
LOLOLOL Where does the pledge indicate that the God mentioned is that of the Christians? The way it is phrased, the term God is completely nebulous, as it should be.
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
that you are going to hell? :D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
you dont bath?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
It means you believe in UFOs and paranormal activity...
Oh yeah, I'm curious, what constitutes your family, if I may ask?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
noipe.. ain't gonna hit it.
ain't.
gonna.
hit.
it.
-
A bunch of amusing responses, y'all are funny guys!
Widewing, an atheist is someone who does not believe that 'God' exists. In regards to my family, I've got a beautiful wife and two sons. Your point?
-
Do you believe in the Saucer Monkeys from Mars then?
-
Originally posted by Widewing
LOLOLOL Where does the pledge indicate that the God mentioned is that of the Christians? The way it is phrased, the term God is completely nebulous, as it should be.
My regards,
Widewing
I'm sorry but this nebulous god leaves out all of us multideist Druids and Hindus as well as all worshipers of Vacha the wonder pig and her litter of 12.
Regards
:aok
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, "lolololol" right back atcha. My family and I are atheist. Do you understand what that means?
Yup, it means that you and your family have an unshakable faith that nothing exist's beyond this world we see in front of us.
So why should YOU faith have precedence over mine, because lets not mince words, atheism is as much a faith as any other.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
A bunch of amusing responses, y'all are funny guys!
Widewing, an atheist is someone who does not believe that 'God' exists. In regards to my family, I've got a beautiful wife and two sons. Your point?
Thanks, but I'm aware of what an atheist is.
My problem with atheists is the logic they use to support their claim that God doesn't exist. Of course, they actually have less evidence that there is no God than people who do believe in God have. Fervent believers almost always have had some experience that reinforces their faith. It may be a spiritual experience or an actual physical experience. Atheists have no experiences. They base their faith on trying to prove a negative, that something does not exist simply because they haven't seen it.
Have you seen George Washington? No, but I'll wager you believe he existed. To have that belief, you must put your faith in the someone else's experience. Isn't that essentially the same as the various faiths? Believers are, at a bare minmum, trusting in someone else's experiences. To that, they add their own experiences and form the basis of their faith.
Do you believe in spirituality? Do you believe that there are things beyond the comprehension of humans?
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Widewing, an atheist is someone who does not believe that 'God' exists.
Chairboy, someone who does not believe that 'God' exists is an agnostic.
An Atheist is a believer... a believer in the non-existance of God.
An Agnostic is a non-believer.
-
Whoa! Time to stop this little spiritual intervention in its tracks before y'all get too much of that old time religion.
For a bunch of people professing how reasonable you are and how accepted non-christians are in this country of ours, you sure seem to descend on this poor lil' atheist like a flock of vultures.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Chairboy, someone who does not believe that 'God' exists is an agnostic.
An Atheist is a believer... a believer in the non-existance of God.
An Agnostic is a non-believer.
You might want to freshen up on your english:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist
The agnostic doesn't profess to know whether there is or isn't a God. The atheist believes there is no diety.
-
No we are saying you got a faith just like we do. In fact you are one of the bible pounder types of your faith.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
So why should YOU faith have precedence over mine, because lets not mince words, atheism is as much a faith as any other.
I don't think that anyone is aguing that it should be changed to "under no god". That would be just as wrong as the current line of "under god".
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
No we are saying you got a faith just like we do. In fact you are one of the bible pounder types of your faith.
Are you getting enough oxygen?
I don't sit here talking about how stupid I may or may not think your religion is, why the sudden attack on my beliefs?
This is a thread about religion in public school. c'mon.
-
Indeed I am.
I believe you placed a "kick me" sign on yourself with your " do you know what a (insert anything in here) is?" question
I woulda found something to roast anyone with in any context in that sort of way.From Amoebas to Zoastrans Like you think I am stupid and dont know what (insert anything is in here)means. And to justify and prolong my amusement, I give whatever reason comes to my head.
and *zing!* You admit those are your beliefs!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Except that isn't really happening.
Like the pledge, show me where anyone is forced to pray in a public school.
Show me where Christian Icons are being forced in courts. It was tried in Alabama but was defeated in the courts.
Creationism? Yep, there's folks trying to get that taught in some schools. Not much success, AFAIK.
You won't stop folks from trying to do things they believe in, Christian right, Muslim, Cannabis supporters, Agricultural benefits, welfare.. whatever.
The point is there hasn't been, and imo, won't be much success by the Christian right. But they make a good bugaboo for the left as the ACLU or something else does for the right.
Re-read what I actually said. Show me how by those that wish to force (Christian based) prayer, Christian Icons (Ten Commandments statue) in court, and creationism (include ID as well) into tax funded, government run public schools.
as meaning that it is being practised now?
I don't see other groups trying to force as policy their views on our US tax funded, govt-run public schools.
-
DREDIOCK,
"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
In short, I find the first part very much showing how our founding fathers wanted to not promote religion as political policy.
Had they wanted they could have easily not include that part of it and remove all doubt that they were in favor of the govt promoting religion. Our founding fathers were not that much aware of other religions in the world let alone what influence they might play in American life. They only had Christianity in mind as they didn't want a Church influence as had been the practice in France and Especially England.
Again, I'll state that we're talking semantics when I state "Separation of Church and State".
So we can only conclude that keeping god or religion entirely out of goverment was never ever the intent of the first ammendment or the writers therof.
No, YOU can conclude that, some others may conclude that, but still some others, and I do not.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Snip-
An Atheist is a believer... a believer in the non-existance of God.
An Agnostic is a non-believer.
An Atheist believes that there is no supreme being and there never has been divine intervention, nor will there ever be.
No heaven or hell.
An Agnostic believes that a supreme being probably exists, but that supreme being does not have direct influence over our lives.
IIRC
-
I just wish people would quit sueing for stupid crap. who freaking cares? get this stupid crap out of our legal system, get it off of our media! damnit i wanna watch flipper and don't really give a crap about politics. I wanna watch my TV, play on my PC, and not be bothered with stupid crap! I don't wanna pay for the stupid crap that always seems to appear...
"God shouldn't be in the pledge of allegiance"
"I got fat from eating *insert fast food company*"
"I spilt hot coffee on myself without a warning"
ALL STUPID LAWSUITES! PACK ALL OF YOUR CRAP UP AND GO HOME! SHEESH!
Lets spend all of those tax dollars paying those judges and lawyers prosocuting those child molesters, murderers, and rapists! what's left over could build new prisions to house these new offenders!
Better yet! lets just shoot em all and be done with it! give those tax dollars back!
-
Originally posted by Widewing
Thanks, but I'm aware of what an atheist is.
My problem with atheists is the logic they use to support their claim that God doesn't exist. Of course, they actually have less evidence that there is no God than people who do believe in God have. Fervent believers almost always have had some experience that reinforces their faith. It may be a spiritual experience or an actual physical experience. Atheists have no experiences. They base their faith on trying to prove a negative, that something does not exist simply because they haven't seen it.
Have you seen George Washington? No, but I'll wager you believe he existed. To have that belief, you must put your faith in the someone else's experience. Isn't that essentially the same as the various faiths? Believers are, at a bare minmum, trusting in someone else's experiences. To that, they add their own experiences and form the basis of their faith.
Do you believe in spirituality? Do you believe that there are things beyond the comprehension of humans?
My regards,
Widewing
The burdon of proof lies with those that say something does exist, not the other way around.
So prove to me that God exists.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
DREDIOCK,
No, YOU can conclude that, some others may conclude that, but still some others, and I do not.
and YOU would be wrong.
"In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.
Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national " religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out ONE religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support. "
"
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people"
"Another Thanksgiving Day Proclamation
Congress set November 28, 1782, as a day of thanksgiving on which Americans were "to testify their gratitude to God for his goodness, by a cheerful obedience to his laws, and by promoting, each in his station, and by his influence, the practice of true and undefiled religion, which is the great foundation of public prosperity and national happiness."
Source Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html)
I can go on,and on and on and on
-
How is the pledge "trite?" Trite is a term best applied in the arts or academia. It is not mainstream vocabulary and I believe it is a disservice to school children to not learn the pledge and everything it stands for. Imo saying the pledge is part of confirmimg we are in the United States of America, the only place on Earth where there is freedom.
I'm apalled the 9th Court judges feel the way they do about the pledge. My question is, do these judges take any kind of oath/pledge whatsoever, and if they do, what is it?
Les
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
and YOU would be wrong.
No, I am not wrong. I do not come to the same conclusion as you. We interpret the issue differently. So your earlier statement of "We can ONLY conclude..." is false. The fact that I and some others do not interpret it the same as you proves me right. Had you stated instead "I can only conclude...." then you and I would not be having this further discussion. Like I said, it's about symantics.
We can go around in circles if you wish.
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
"Snip~Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."
~snip
Many Americans were disappointed that the Constitution did not contain a bill of rights that would explicitly enumerate the rights of American citizens and enable courts and public opinion to protect these rights from an oppressive government. Supporters of a bill of rights permitted the Constitution to be adopted with the understanding that the first Congress under the new government would attempt to add a bill of rights.
James Madison took the lead in steering such a bill through the First Federal Congress, which convened in the spring of 1789. The Virginia Ratifying Convention and Madison's constituents, among whom were large numbers of Baptists who wanted freedom of religion secured, expected him to push for a bill of rights. On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support. "
~snip
I can go on,and on and on and on
I added bold to the part of interest that I see.
The funny thing about political and religious arguments is that no one will really slap their forehead in a moment of epifany and proclaim "My goodness, he's right!" We have our beliefs that are deeply ingrained to our core. No matter what I say, or what you say will change our minds.
You have your way of thinking and it is the best way....for you, but not for me.
Do you believe you're right, of course, but so do I in my beliefs.
Yes, I know you can continue ad nauseum. I will not.
So can we call you the Energizer DREDIOCK? ;D
Respectfully Sir, I turn the thread over to you for the last word.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
How is the pledge "trite?" Trite is a term best applied in the arts or academia. It is not mainstream vocabulary and I believe it is a disservice to school children to not learn the pledge and everything it stands for. Imo saying the pledge is part of confirmimg we are in the United States of America, the only place on Earth where there is freedom.
I'm apalled the 9th Court judges feel the way they do about the pledge. My question is, do these judges take any kind of oath/pledge whatsoever, and if they do, what is it?
Les
Ask a group of ten year olds what the pledge really means. Do they even understand what the words in them mean?
Many spies have taken pledges, lying through their teeth.
I'd rather our patriotism be judged by actions rather than words.
I feel that way for most everything. Actions speak louder than words.
Believing that a pledge will somehow turn the unpatriotic into patriots is false security.
Continued discussion in this matter is fruitless. I strongly believe what I do. Tired of hearing the same old arguments as no one really changes. I won't, you wont, "they" won't ;)
I will withdraw from this thread, Sir.
-
I didn't think I was THAT tough. But thanks anyway.
Les:cool:
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
I don't see other groups trying to force as policy their views on our US tax funded, govt-run public schools.
Come now, surely you jest.
Other "special interest" groups don't try to force as policy their views?
On the one hand "homosexuality is OK" MUST be taught because the schools much teach a diversity of views on human sexuality.
On the other hand "intelligent designe" MUST NOT be taught because there can be no diversity taught. about the origin of the species.
Yah, you're right. ;)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Re-read what I actually said. Show me how as meaning that it is being practised now?
So if it's not happening now... what's the big deal?
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
The burdon of proof lies with those that say something does exist, not the other way around.
So prove to me that God exists.
You've missed the entire point....
No one cannot prove God doesn't exist. In fact, you have zero evidence to support an opinion that there's no God, no evidence, none, zippo.
The whole point is that one must employ faulty logic to dismiss something simply because one has not actually seen it.
We can certainly establish that the limits of your knowledge and understanding is absolutely finite. Therefore, just because something falls outside your (or my) limited understanding, that does not mean that it does not exist. To argue that the universe is limited to your (or my) limited comprehension is illogical and foolish.
If I could prove God exists by pointing to him and saying, "there he is", then there would be no need for faith.
As it is written; "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".
My regards,
Widewing
-
atheists show a huge amount of faith in thier belief.
lazs
-
No more than christians.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Chairboy, someone who does not believe that 'God' exists is an agnostic.
An Atheist is a believer... a believer in the non-existance of God.
An Agnostic is a non-believer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chairboy
You might want to freshen up on your english:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist
The agnostic doesn't profess to know whether there is or isn't a God. The atheist believes there is no diety.
So your saying I am wrong by saying an Atheist is a beliver in the non existance of God and say instead, " The atheist believes there is no diety."
Check...
And your saying I am wrong by saying an Agnostic is a non-beliver in the existance of God and say instead, "The agnostic doesn't profess to know whether there is or isn't a God."
Check...
I guess I was way off base. :huh
-
You might want to re-read the agnostic definition. You really pooched it.
-
From Dictionary.com,
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
If one is skeptical about the existance of God and thinks it is impossible to know whether there is a God, is this person a non-believer or a believer in the answer to the question of the existance of God? An Atheist and a God Believer are not skeptical.
I got the definition spot on.
-
First, I was educated as a christian. After some eye opening experiences as a youth I found I was obliged to become an atheist.
Tiring in my old age of the target pasted on my back that true atheism necessarily implies I modified my position a tad and adopted agnosticisim.
This allows me to use far less bandwidth in my replies to papist, anglican and other sundry religious fanatics that happily post long and involved verses of script and impassioned arguments of fuzzy logic resplendent with footnoted articles of faith and reason.
"Really? How very exciting for you... but surely you won't mind terribly if I require tangible proof?"
-
Originally posted by Widewing
No one cannot prove God doesn't exist.
My regards,
Widewing
Now that bears repeating
-
Let me get this right, do you guys really think we're gonna settle the millenia old questions as to whether or not God exists?
Or is this just going to turn into some sort of good ol' boy circle-, uh, "talk" where you all spend time congratulating yourselves on how great you are and how dumb the atheist is?
I suspect the latter, but if the former, then you have pretty high opinions of yourselves and the medium.
With respect.
-
Chair, the normal course of events in the athiest/religious debate usually ends with the athiest annoyed and the religionist smugly holding (in his mind) the 'moral high ground'.
So much more effective to just head it all off at the pass with a polite but insistent request for proof of concept.
Something so basic that even a churchgoing CEO would require it before vesting shareholder intrest in any product.
Bear in mind that being an agnostic also implies respect for the religionists views, it's not in the vested intrest of agnostics to disbelieve anything. One man's religion is anothers belly laugh... the diffrence between a god and an illusionist is venue and time stamp.
Proof.
Simple; really.
-
I don't think you're dumb Chairboy. Anyone who likes rockets and builds them, or has a brother or close relative who does or did in the past has a love or respect for science.
Rocket science leaves no room for mistakes. So cut some slack yourself. We ain't talking about science here. Just everyday life.:)
Take it easy.
Les
-
Liberals:
Please ship me all your offending unconsitutional, god tainted American money immediately.
Thank you!