One more run at the pledge of allegience. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Halx · 03-24-2004, 12:09 PM

I thought we were through this..

Quote:

WASHINGTON - A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God.

Michael Newdow, who challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his daughter, said the court has no choice but to keep it out of public schools.

"It's indoctrinating children," he said. "The government is supposed to stay out of religion."

But some justices said they were not sure if the words were intended to unite the country, or express religion.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

The subject of Newdow's right to bring the lawsuit had dominated the beginning of arguments in the landmark case to decide if the classroom salute in public schools violates the Constitution's ban on government-established religion.

Terence Cassidy, attorney for a suburban Sacramento school district where Newdow's 9-year-old daughter attends classes, noted to justices that the girl's mother opposed the lawsuit. "The ultimate decision-making authority is with the mother," he said.

The mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge. "I object to his inclusion of our daughter" in the case, she said earlier Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America" show. She said she worries that her daughter will be "the child who is remembered as the little girl who changed the Pledge of Allegiance."

Newdow had sued the school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies. But justices could dodge the issue altogether if they decide that Newdow needed the mother's consent, because she has primary custody.

Rehnquist said that the issues raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do with domestic relations." And, Justice David H. Souter said that Newdow could argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing."

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, the Bush administration lawyer arguing for the school district, said that the mother was concerned that her daughter had been "thrust into the vortex of this constitutional case."

He said the Pledge of Allegiance should be upheld as a "ceremonial, patriotic exercise."

A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God. Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll.

Dozens of people camped outside the court on a cold night, bundled in layers and blankets, to be among the first in line to hear the historic case. "I just wanted to have a story to tell my grandkids," said Aron Wolgel, a junior from American University.

More than 100 supporters of the pledge began the day reciting the pledge and emphasizing the words "under God." Some supporters of the California father, outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents. They carried signs with slogans like "Democracy Not Theocracy."

God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in 1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students.

Newdow compared the controversy to the issue of segregation in schools, which the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.

"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" Newdow, a 50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court, asked before the argument.

The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase "under God" should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.

Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.

Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.

I'm inclined to agree that it is unconstitutional. Does anyone know if you can refuse to put your hand on the bible when vowing in court?

Holo · 03-24-2004, 12:29 PM

The can choose to "affirm" (4th paragraph from bottom) rather than swear on the bible. I'd rather, however, swear on a bible than have the original meaning of testimony. I would hate to be a Bailiff in those days.

fnaqzna · 03-24-2004, 12:40 PM

"Under god" whatever... IMHO, the Pledge of Allegiance is trite and meaningless.

It's a vow. It should make you tremble in your shoes when you say it.

Maybe the veterans around here can recall what they felt like when they said this, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Both times I did it, my legs shook and my heart pounded. I knew what it meant to say the words.

The pledge... kids say it every day without truly understanding the weight of the words they are using. IMHO, they shouldn't be saying it at all, "under God" or otherwise.

2kids1headache · 03-24-2004, 12:51 PM

I'm halfway with fnaqzna on this one. I don't believe we should do away with the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do believe that the meaning of the pledge should be hammered home before it's taught to students. It's a pledge to stand behind your nation, come what may, and should be respected.

I'm angered by just about every government usage of the word "God". I think religion is a monumental joke, and I get upset when I hear the government including it in anything that they do. It makes me feel very much that my elected officials don't give two shits about what I think.

Holo · 03-24-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fnaqzna
"Under god" whatever... IMHO, the Pledge of Allegiance is trite and meaningless.

It's a vow. It should make you tremble in your shoes when you say it.

Maybe the veterans around here can recall what they felt like when they said this, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Both times I did it, my legs shook and my heart pounded. I knew what it meant to say the words.

The pledge... kids say it every day without truly understanding the weight of the words they are using. IMHO, they shouldn't be saying it at all, "under God" or otherwise.

Agreed. As a kid I found it annoying as hell to stand up and say it every morning, and I always fell silent when "under god" came around. My dad was a federal police officer and loved this country, including my freedom to believe what I wanted. My parents weren't hippies or commies, just regular people that let me believe in what I wanted to. The pledge was boring and it made me feel more ostracized being an atheist.

Averett · 03-24-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 2kids1headache
I'm angered by just about every government usage of the word "God". I think religion is a monumental joke, and I get upset when I hear the government including it in anything that they do. It makes me feel very much that my elected officials don't give two shits about what I think.

I agree. I think it's a joke when courts are made to take down the 10 commandments from their walls, but then you have to swear on a Bible. The hell? It makes no sense.

Then during presidential speaches. "And God bless America." What about seperation of church and state you idiot?

I do believe in some higher power or powers although I'm not sure what. But I think it's insane to say one thing (seperation of church and state) but then do another (and god bless america)

Cynthetiq · 03-24-2004, 01:23 PM

IMHO it should be >insert diety here< so that everyone is happy.

I can say god, you can say allah, yet another can say mother earth, another can say nothing.

then all the kids that chose whatever is hated du jour can get beaten up on the playground.

World's King · 03-24-2004, 01:28 PM

God?

Who is this God you speak of?

ChrisJericho · 03-24-2004, 01:34 PM

There's no reason why "Under God" should be in the pledge. Pledging alleigance to gods does not belong in public schools.

dy156 · 03-24-2004, 01:34 PM

I'm a Christian.
However;
Personally, I'm very much in favor of the seperation of church and state. Though very patriotic, I don't want the government getting involved with or in any religion. I'm very glad the establishment clause is there. There are not only political reasons for this, but Biblical reasons as well. See Romans 13, for example, or the famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" spoken by none other than Jesus Christ himself.
However;
If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd vote to remand the case back to the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals, and tell them that the pledge of allegience is not a violation of the establishment clause, both because of prior court precedent and because of the original framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intent.

I'm not running for office, even though that sounds like a classic fence straddling politician answer. I've given considerable thought to it, and that's my conclusion.

(edit: oh, yeah, I wonder if any news stories on this will talk about how in the Supreme Court building, above the justices, is a big picture of Moses and the ten Commandments?)

sixate · 03-24-2004, 01:36 PM

You know, I used to not give a shit about this stupid stuff, but religion and government are supposed to be separate.

It's absolutely unconstitutional. And anyone who can read would say the same thing.

I wish I had to go to court now just so I could refuse to put my hand on that... uhm. Well, I'll keep my opinion of that book to myself.

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 01:37 PM

I think most of what the A.C.L.U. does is a total waste of time.

Yes, I understand the principle of what their organization stands for but I'm basing my opinion on their actions.

Fighting boyscouts,Christmas manger scenes and the word God.

give me a fucking break and get over yourselves

grumpyolddude · 03-24-2004, 01:49 PM

Hmmmmm.... one nation, under Grumpy Old Dude?....

Weellll, I grew up saying it "under God", and have trouble leaving it out anymore. But, as simply a matter of consistency, the reference should be removed.... equal protection and all that stuff.

I do object, though, to the notion that the Constitution guarantees that we be protected from all religious references. The concept is FREEDOM OF RELIGION , NOT freedom from religion. And, by speaking "under God", we are not promoting any particular faith, therefore, no relief is neccessary.

Cynthetiq · 03-24-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sixate
You know, I used to not give a shit about this stupid stuff, but religion and government are supposed to be separate.

It's absolutely unconstitutional. And anyone who can read would say the same thing.

I've gone over the US Constitution with a fine tooth comb and a search button, I don't find anything about the separation of church and state. Freedom of religious expression yes, but not separation of church and state.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendments

Quote:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=35420

Exploding the myth
of church-state separation
New WND blockbuster ultimate expose
of judicial hijacking of First Amendment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 4, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In Texas, a U.S. District judge decreed that any student uttering the word "Jesus" at his school's graduation would be arrested and locked up. "And make no mistake," announced Judge Samuel B. Kent, "the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court."

In Missouri, when fourth-grader Raymond Raines bowed his head in prayer before his lunch in the cafeteria of Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, his teacher allegedly ordered him out of his seat, in full view of other students present, and sent him to the principal’s office. After his third such prayer "offense," little Raymond was segregated from his classmates, ridiculed for his religious beliefs, and given one week's detention.

In New York, kindergartner Kayla Broadus recited the familiar and beloved prayer – "God is great, God is good. Thank you, God, for my food" – while holding hands with two students seated next to her at her snack table at her Saratoga Springs school early last year. But she was silenced and scolded by her teacher, who reported the infraction to the school’s lawyer, Gregg T. Johnson, who concluded that Kayla’s behavior was indeed a violation of the "separation of church and state."
"The constitutional separation of church and state" – a reference to the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights – is a phrase Americans hear literally every day from the news media, from legal organizations, from politicians and pundits, and especially from zealous attorneys and judges.

"Separation of church and state" was used by the ACLU to demand that a banner proclaiming "God bless America," erected outside a school shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to honor the 3,000 murdered Americans, must be taken down.

"Separation of church and state" was used to deny a little, handicapped girl the right to read her Bible on the bus on the long trip to school.

"Separation of church and state" was used to take Justice Roy Moore's 10 Commandments monument out of the Alabama Judicial Building, and it is being used right now to challenge the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The phrase is repeated so often and with such assurance, one would think it is the keystone phrase of the U.S. Constitution.

And yet – the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment, nor in any other founding document for that matter.

In fact, the entire "constitutional separation of church and state" is a recent fabrication of activist judges who have ignored the Constitution's clear meaning.

Indeed, says U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in the stunning November issue of WND's Whistleblower magazine, "There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' [between church and state]."

Titled "THE MYTH OF CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION," this special edition, says WND Editor Joseph Farah, is "a definitive, once-and-for-all, legal and historical refutation of the fiction that the Constitution was intended to prohibit or infringe on freedom of religious expression – whether at home, church, school, or in the public square."

"It's a myth," said Farah, "and this issue of Whistleblower slam-dunks the case proving that's all it is."

Starting with the famous 1801 letter written by the Baptists of Danbury, Conn., to newly elected President Thomas Jefferson – and Jefferson's brief response, in which he coined the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to assure his constituents that the new Constitution would not establish a national church or otherwise infringe on their religious liberties – this special Whistleblower edition attacks the church-state issue from every conceivable angle.

Contents include:

An overview of the church-state debate by Joseph Farah

"How courts invented church-state 'wall of separation'" by David Barton, showing how, after 150 years of honoring the Founding Fathers' intent, activist judges took a radical new direction.

"Where it all started" – allowing readers to read the actual letters between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson

"The war on Christianity in public schools," a jaw-dropping excerpt from David Limbaugh's best-selling new blockbuster, "Persecution." In this exclusive and in-depth (8,000-word) article, Limbaugh shows how a decades-long legal assault on religious expression in America has paved the way for outright persecution of Christians.

"Rehnquist: U.S. not founded on church-state separation," a dazzling opinion in which the U.S. Supreme Court's current chief justice, William Rehnquist, makes it crystal clear how the high court ignored history, legal precedent and the constitutional framers' clear intent in its landmark decision banning prayer from public school.

"Separation of atheism and state" by Bob Just, showing how citizens can reconnect America with her Judeo-Christian roots by going on the offensive

"What you can do" by David Kupelian, with more ways Americans can bring God and country back together again
These and many other articles make the November Whistleblower the most devastating journalistic expose yet of the fraudulent "separation of church and state."

"You will positively cheer when you read this issue," said Farah. "It is the silver bullet people have been waiting for, that will finally shoot down this insidious charade that has been destroying every last vestige of our Christian heritage from America. Maybe this edition of Whistleblower will finally help turn things around."

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 02:10 PM

Thanks for posting that Cythetiq.
I'm not really religious but I get sick of all the whiners saying they're being repressed by religion in the United States.
At the risk of sounding like an uneducated redneck:
THEN MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE !

The Constitution was based on Christian principles.
That's a fact.
The 10 commandments are religious based.
That's a fact.

I find it ignorant how so many people dismiss principles, values or morals that were originated by Christians as invalid or inferior.

Please, You're blinded by some kind of idiotic hate.
It's ridiculous and funny how the left wing liberals always go off if you mention God. I'll post a link to a hillarious article about that soon.

Two words for everyone else.

God

Jesus

lurkette · 03-24-2004, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
Thanks for posting that Cythetiq.
I'm not really religious but I get sick of all the whiners saying they're being repressed by religion in the United States.
At the risk of sounding like an uneducated redneck:
THEN MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE

Um...that runs completely, 100% counter to the intentions of the founding fathers. At least you KNOW you sound like an uneducated redneck

Quote:

The Constitution was based on Christian principles.
That's a fact.

Bullpucky. Most of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and masses of people who came here in the first place were escaping religious repression in other countries. It wasn't just that they were not free to practice thier religion, it was that religion was established by the state, and religious dissent was considered political dissent.

Quote:

The 10 commandments are religious based.
That's a fact.

Nobody's disputing that - in fact, that's the reason why they are being challenged as displays on public property.

Quote:

I find it ignorant how so many people dismiss principles, values or morals that were originated by Christians as invalid or inferior.

Nobody's dismissing the principles themselves as invalid. I think you're kind of missing the point of the argument in your rush to climb up on your high horse.

Quote:

Two words for everyone else.

God

Jesus

Er.....ok. And this is relevant how?

sixate · 03-24-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
I've gone over the US Constitution with a fine tooth comb and a search button, I don't find anything about the separation of church and state.

Can you please explain the meaning of this:

Quote:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Cynthetiq · 03-24-2004, 02:34 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion = they cannot create laws that specify any religion.

that is not the same thing as "separation of church and state."

in this argument, "Under God" IMHO expresses a specific religion, but in the cases of the boy bowing his head before eating his lunch at the cafeteria, it does not apply.

03-24-2004, 02:37 PM

I don't care for the PofA anyways. Not that it states "Under God" but "One Nation under God". Like the rest of the nations aren't if we are?
Oh, this is a whole other topic, don't get me started.

Politicians always have to find something that's unconstitutional. This proves the blatant, everchanging views of right and wrong, making the definition of right and wrong all screwed up and lost and that right and wrong is just an opinion.

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 03:10 PM

I can't find that article.

It was a joke about moving.
If you can't take a joke......you know the rest.

The Constitution wasn't based on Religious principles ?

Oh....says you........so it must be correct.
This link is a religious site but displays some good intelligent facts on why you are wrong.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/herit17.htm

I don't have the time nor do I feel the need for quote and retort.
That's a tactic usually used by people I find that I rarely respect.

ta ta

Surfer · 03-24-2004, 03:14 PM

P.S.

About the ten commandments.

Yeah...they're bad and should be removed.

uhm..because they're religious based

so...

uhm.....

therefore they're bad

the content doesn't matter

but.......No one is dismissing anything here.......

naaaa......

and the laws of our land weren't based on or from these 10 commandments either or religious morals

naaaaaa

cuz thats religion !

I'm done with this thread too

filtherton · 03-24-2004, 03:39 PM

As you may be aware, democracy is inherently not christian. God doesn't put things up for a vote. God doesn't care if there exists a supermajority in favor of wealth as a means of salvation. The church's structure is not democratic unless the church is progressive. To claim that america was founded on christian values ignores the fact that god is at best a benevolent dictator, not a president elected by the term.

America is NOT a christian nation. America pretends to be christian, but you only need to see a single homeless person to know that christianity in america is a matter of convenience rather than conviction.

The ten commandments have no place hanging in any public building aside from a museum. "Under god" in the pledge is wrong too. We are one nation, but we are not under god.

Peryn · 03-24-2004, 03:41 PM

Maybe the phrase should be in there, maybe it shouldn't. I personally say leave it.

But i do have one question this brought up that i never understood. from the original story :

Quote:

A California atheist told the Supreme Court Wednesday that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are unconstitutional and offensive to people who don't believe there is a God

How is something that means nothing to you offensive? If you are an atheist and (as far i i understand) dont believe in god, why are you offended by the name being mentioned? I dont believe in the BoogieMan, but im not offended by kids that do...

Also, if we changed capital "G" - God, into lower case "g" - god, would the phrase then still be "offensive"? If you call him Allah, he his still your god. If you call him Christ, he is still your god. If you believe there is one higher power, but dont think christianity has it right, you still believe in god. Christians tend to refer to God as a name for the power. But if you use it a a position or title, rather than a name, it seems to me that you have now changed the meaning dramatically. No longer does it say we are a christian country, but that we are a religious country.

I dunno, maybe these are the ramblings of a madman, but it seems to me people are getting there panties in a bunch over something that really isn't a big deal.

FaderMonkey · 03-24-2004, 05:01 PM

I don't believe in God. I do believe in freedom of religious expression. If I student wants to pray in school, I don't have a problem with that. If a student wants to read a bible on the bus trip home, I don't have a problem with that. But, I don't agree with "under God," being in the pledge. I also wouldn't agree with a teacher (at a public school) having their class pray. Those are examples of government endorsing a form of religion, and IMHO, that is wrong. That's my two cents.

nothingx · 03-24-2004, 05:01 PM

Quote:

How is something that means nothing to you offensive? If you are an atheist and (as far i i understand) dont believe in god, why are you offended by the name being mentioned? I dont believe in the BoogieMan, but im not offended by kids that do...

Good question. To me, its offensive, because its demeaning to the whole thing. If you really don't believe in god, but do believe in this country, then swearing alligance to this country on something you don't believe in is meaningless. Its like swearing your love for your significant other on a stale pizza crust you found under the couch. Gee, thanks, you love me that much?

On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, I think this is a moot point. I mean, who the hell cares? No one is forcing you to say that part of the pledge... if you don't mean it, then don't say it.

/shrug

iamnormal · 03-24-2004, 06:18 PM

Where are the people talking about money being unconstitutional? Have a problem with the pledge and you should have a problem with In God We Trust.

Aletheia · 03-24-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
I've gone over the US Constitution with a fine tooth comb and a search button, I don't find anything about the separation of church and state. Freedom of religious expression yes, but not separation of church and state.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendments

Thank you for saying that. People tend to overlook the fact that "seperation of church and state" is an interpretation of the first amendment, not word for word in the first amendment itself.

meepa · 03-24-2004, 08:03 PM

I've heard this debate many times, and just about every case, someone always says, "Get over yourself" or something to that effect (usually because atheists, or anyone else offended by the "Under God" part is a minority). The other thing is always the bit about founding fathers being Christian.

Well I want to comment on both of these real quick.

1) "Get over yourself"... Let me direct you to James Madison's "Federalist Papers" which consistantly warn against the "Tyranny of the majority". Just because it is a democracy does not mean the popular opinion can overwhelm the minority by mob-rule.

2) Christian nation blah blah: As mentioned earlier, many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christian. And even if they were, that's a retarded argument, because, for example, they were also slaveholders (ie not infallible).

But besides this fact, if I recall correctly, the pledge of allegience was created until after the Civil War (as a reminder to children to not start another one). When it was created, the "under god" part was nowhere to be found in it (GEE I WONDER WHY!?). Yet during the Cold War, it was inserted during a frenzy of religious patriotism because Communism was Atheist. And naturally the American logic was... "Well shit, communism is bad... ATHEISM IS BAD! QUICK! MAKE EVERYTHING MORE CHRISTIAN!!! WE WILL DEFEAT THOSE GODLESS RUSKIES!!"

So really, the pledge of allegience has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the country, and even if it did, the God part wasn't put in until mid-20th century.

I rest my case.

*gavel gavel*

yournamehere · 03-24-2004, 08:04 PM

The whole reasoning behind the separation of church and state was to prevent the church from controlling the government. If you paid attention in history class, you realize how powerful the church used to be in Europe, and if you read the newspapers, you know how powerful another church is in the middle east.

That being said, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the majority of its citizens still believe in those principles. For this reason, I am in favor of leaving the phrase "under God" in the POA. I also respect the right of anyone not liking the phrase to not say it. But we can't please everyone - just because it offends a small minority of people is no reason to take away something most people want. My biggest gripe about that phrase is that everyone says it as if there's a comma before it - There's not - It's:"One nation under God," not "One nation, under God."

A statue of the ten commandments at a courthouse, however, is different - it is a blatant display of religious laws on the very grounds where our secular laws are practiced and tested. IMO, that is an inappropriate placement of religious doctrine.

filtherton · 03-24-2004, 09:10 PM

This country was founded on deist principals. No matter how hard you squint, you can't make deist be judeo christian. This country was also founded on slavery and genocide, maybe they should get a shout out too. I propose the line be amended: One nation under god, made possible by genocide, and supplemented by the institutional subjugation and forced labor of minorities, with liberty and justice for all.
Guess that last part doesn't really fit. Maybe we could just get rid of it. Well, as long as we're shooting for accuracy, right fellas?

I know we all would love to be experts in constitutional law, but i was under the impression that it was the court's job to interpret it. That's one of the real foundations of this country.
I'm sure we'd all love literal interpretations though.

I know that all of you pro-gun literal interpretationists are members of well regulated militias.

According to the first amendment we should all be protected when we yell fire in a crowded theater.

The 6th:

Quote:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I guess if you want to get literal up in this mofo, then even the "unlawful combatants" at gitmo have the right to a speedy, public trial.

8th amendment:

Quote:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Is setting a prohibitively expensive bail on purpose amount to excess? I dunno, but it happens all the time.

The 10th:

Quote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people

Heh, yeah, okay.

The point is that the constitution in action is different from the constitution on paper. This is not a new or inherently bad phenomena. Any argument about what it actually says that ignores how it actually works in the real world is irrelevant.

P.S.
In god we trust on money is not only violation of the separation, it is also bullshit. Unless of course the money is referring to itself when it uses the word god.

Jew · 03-24-2004, 09:34 PM

People aren't perfect.
To claim that this countrys constitution wasn't founded on religious morals because most of the founding fathers were deists is just flat out incorrect. To say that good moral laws are invalid because some of the signers owned slaves is ridiculous.

Also, I've seen twice now people making false claims with nothing to back up what they say about the religious affiliations of our founding fathers.

One person posted a website that offered proof that these people did in fact have religious based philosophies.
To my recollection people were even more fanatical about religion in those days than they are now.
Hence; The witch burnings, etc.

Anyway here is some more proof and research that shows the founders did in fact have religious connections.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm

I love the way people just blurt out claims that the founding fathers were mostly deists and expect this to be taken as the truth.
No, they weren't.
You are wrong.

Then they make claims that if some people break their own moral code that it invalidates the law.

Please, I'm much more intelligent than to believe that.

ok ?

thanks

filtherton · 03-24-2004, 09:57 PM

I hope you can see the difference between the phrase "religious morals" and the phrase "christian morals". One is inclusive and the other is not. Nobody's claiming that religion didn't play a part in the formation of america, just that christianity can't pretend to take all of the credit.

Besides, even if you are convinced that the ffs were all purebreed christians, you still can't claim that under god is constitutional based on current interpretations.
The argument that "under god" should be there because this country was founded on such and such values is ethnocentrism hidden behind a selective appeal for historical accuracy.
This plea for accuracy is selective because nobody who uses it ever wants to mention all the shitty things that were necessary for our country to develop as it did.
If we want to be accurate we should acknowledge the good and the bad. If we want to be constitutional we should not acknowledge any god in official pledges.

I'm not sure where it was said that broken moral codes are equated with invalidated laws.

btw, what do you think about "under god" in the pledge? We know you're intelligent, perhaps you could spare us the feigned outrage and give us the intelligent view on the matter.

thanks

btw, i hope that username wasn't created for the sole purpose of posting that message. Or maybe you're the march 24th version of surfer.

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-24-2004, 10:04 PM

The pledge gives no specific mention to religion, so it is no endorsement. All it does is call mention to God the creator. If you people have read the Declaration of Independence its the same God (non-denomination/non-affiliated) that is the creator of man, the same God who endowed us with all our rights.

Thomas Jefferson- "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? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

ANNUIT COEPTIS

tricks · 03-24-2004, 10:45 PM

Just switch it back to the original and everyone should be happy. No more mention of God and you can still be patriotic and true to your country.

Religion in these issues is fine with many as long as it's the popular, main stream J/C type.

If a teacher in a public school started pushing Buddism or Druidism or somthing "out there" but not patently offensive, many of the "under God" crowd would be up in arms because it doesn't conform to their beliefs.

Tophat665 · 03-25-2004, 04:44 AM

Yes, the "wall of separation" between church and state is a matter of interpretation, but it seems to me it was the interpretation at least some of the writers had in mind. TJ, f'rinstance, wrote thus to the Baptist Congregation of Danbury:
<blockquote><i>Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.</i></blockquote>
So Jefferson both repected a God, and wanted to keep him out of the actual practice of the gov't. I see no contradiction there. And that's where "Wall of Separation" comes from. Not the constitution, not legal proceedings. From one of the authors explaining it afterwards. Doesn't come much clearer than that.

shakran · 03-25-2004, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cynthetiq
IMHO it should be >insert diety here< so that everyone is happy.

IMHO it should be reverted back to the original pledge that was around before Congress dicked with it and added the "under god" part.

filtherton · 03-25-2004, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
The pledge gives no specific mention to religion, so it is no endorsement. All it does is call mention to God the creator. If you people have read the Declaration of Independence its the same God (non-denomination/non-affiliated) that is the creator of man, the same God who endowed us with all our rights.

I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that mentioning god is not a reference to religion if you don't point out a specific denomination. Sounds a little far fetched to me. God is a vital part of many religions, mentioning a god is mentioning those religions. Mentioning a god is also an exclusion of any religion that is not specifically monotheistic.

The_wall · 03-25-2004, 09:38 AM

The pledge itself is rediculous. Kids should have to recite the bill of rights or something, that would make more sense.

balderdash111 · 03-25-2004, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Surfer
P.S.

About the ten commandments.

Yeah...they're bad and should be removed.

uhm..because they're religious based

so...

uhm.....

therefore they're bad

the content doesn't matter

but.......No one is dismissing anything here.......

naaaa......

and the laws of our land weren't based on or from these 10 commandments either or religious morals

naaaaaa

cuz thats religion !

I'm done with this thread too

Too bad you're done, b/c I have to ask what you are trying to say here.

A) Nobody is saying the 10 commandments are "bad." They are saying that they should not be posted in public buildings as a purported symbol of this country's Christian foundations.

(PS: yes, the Supreme Court also has the 10 commandments in it, but they are shown alongside many other ancient sources of laws (non Judeo-Christian). It's all about context)

B) I am completely lost between "so...." and the first "naaaaaa"

C) The laws of the United States are definitely not based on the 10 commandments. Observe:

Here are the commandments (these seem to be a modernised and simplified version of the text, but the points are the same). Italicised text is my commentary on how they tie into US laws.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me

Well, that's directly counter to the establishment clause, so clearly US laws aren't based on this.

2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol

Ditto.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God

Hmmm... this isn't in our laws either, so still nothing.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy

Nope

Edit: come to think of it, some states had (and still have) so-called "blue laws" which prohibit sale of alcohol on Sundays, so maybe this one counts after all. I will revise below.

5. Honor your father and your mother

If by "honor" you mean "don't hit, kill or otherwise injure" then you have a winner. But otherwise no.

6. You shall not murder

Ah, here's one! Murder is prohibited in the 10 commandments and by law.

7. You shall not commit adultery

Score this a "maybe." I think adultery used to be illegal in some states, and it's still grounds for divorce everywhere.

8. You shall not steal

Yup.

9. You shall not give false testimony

Another "maybe." I think the original text refers to "false witness," but we'll go with testimony here. If we're talking about lying to police or lying in court, then we have a match. Otherwise, it's not illegal to lie.

10. You shall not covet

At first, I was going to give a generous "maybe" on the theory that "covet" might have originally meant something like "steal." But since stealing is already covered, as is adultery (the original is about coveting your nieghbor's wife and property), this can only really be about wanting to take things. No laws prevent that.

So, all in all, the 10 Commandments don't do all that well. Even counting the maybes, you only get 4 out of 10.

Edit: Make that 5 out of 10, if you count the blue laws.

And what of the 5 that count - are they inherently religious principles? Murder? Stealing? Lying to authorities? Adultery comes close, but I dare say the Judeo-Christian doesn't have a monopoly on that concept. The only one I see as arguably directly tied to the 10 commandments is the one about keeping the seventh day holy.

Edited to reflect the blue laws -- see above.

Redlemon · 03-25-2004, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by balderdash111
C) The laws of the United States are definitely not based on the 10 commandments.

So, all in all, the 10 Commandments don't do all that well. Even counting the maybes, you only get 4 out of 10.

Interesting work; I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone do this analysis before.

03-24-2004, 12:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
Holo A Real American	The can choose to "affirm" (4th paragraph from bottom) rather than swear on the bible. I'd rather, however, swear on a bible than have the original meaning of testimony. I would hate to be a Bailiff in those days. __________________ I happen to like the words "fuck", "cock", "pussy", "tits", "cunt", "twat", "shit" and even "bitch". As long as I am not using them to describe you, don't go telling me whether or not I can/should use them...that is, if you want me to continue refraining from using them to describe you. ~Prince Last edited by Holo; 03-24-2004 at 12:34 PM..

03-24-2004, 01:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	IMHO it should be >insert diety here< so that everyone is happy. I can say god, you can say allah, yet another can say mother earth, another can say nothing. then all the kids that chose whatever is hated du jour can get beaten up on the playground. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-24-2004, 01:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	God? Who is this God you speak of? __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

03-24-2004, 01:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
ChrisJericho eat more fruit Location: Seattle	There's no reason why "Under God" should be in the pledge. Pledging alleigance to gods does not belong in public schools. __________________ "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows us that faith proves nothing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

03-24-2004, 01:34 PM	#10 (permalink)
dy156 cookie Location: in the backwoods	I'm a Christian. However; Personally, I'm very much in favor of the seperation of church and state. Though very patriotic, I don't want the government getting involved with or in any religion. I'm very glad the establishment clause is there. There are not only political reasons for this, but Biblical reasons as well. See Romans 13, for example, or the famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" spoken by none other than Jesus Christ himself. However; If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd vote to remand the case back to the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals, and tell them that the pledge of allegience is not a violation of the establishment clause, both because of prior court precedent and because of the original framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intent. I'm not running for office, even though that sounds like a classic fence straddling politician answer. I've given considerable thought to it, and that's my conclusion. (edit: oh, yeah, I wonder if any news stories on this will talk about how in the Supreme Court building, above the justices, is a big picture of Moses and the ten Commandments?) Last edited by dy156; 03-24-2004 at 01:37 PM..

03-24-2004, 12:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
fnaqzna Meat Popsicle Location: Left Coast	"Under god" whatever... IMHO, the Pledge of Allegiance is trite and meaningless. It's a vow. It should make you tremble in your shoes when you say it. Maybe the veterans around here can recall what they felt like when they said this, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. Both times I did it, my legs shook and my heart pounded. I knew what it meant to say the words. The pledge... kids say it every day without truly understanding the weight of the words they are using. IMHO, they shouldn't be saying it at all, "under God" or otherwise.

03-24-2004, 12:51 PM	#4 (permalink)
2kids1headache Loser	I'm halfway with fnaqzna on this one. I don't believe we should do away with the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do believe that the meaning of the pledge should be hammered home before it's taught to students. It's a pledge to stand behind your nation, come what may, and should be respected. I'm angered by just about every government usage of the word "God". I think religion is a monumental joke, and I get upset when I hear the government including it in anything that they do. It makes me feel very much that my elected officials don't give two shits about what I think.

03-24-2004, 01:36 PM	#11 (permalink)
sixate Registered User Location: Somewhere in Ohio	You know, I used to not give a shit about this stupid stuff, but religion and government are supposed to be separate. It's absolutely unconstitutional. And anyone who can read would say the same thing. I wish I had to go to court now just so I could refuse to put my hand on that... uhm. Well, I'll keep my opinion of that book to myself.

03-24-2004, 01:37 PM	#12 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	I think most of what the A.C.L.U. does is a total waste of time. Yes, I understand the principle of what their organization stands for but I'm basing my opinion on their actions. Fighting boyscouts,Christmas manger scenes and the word God. give me a fucking break and get over yourselves

03-24-2004, 01:49 PM	#13 (permalink)
grumpyolddude Deliberately unfocused Location: Amazon.com and CDBaby	Hmmmmm.... one nation, under Grumpy Old Dude?.... Weellll, I grew up saying it "under God", and have trouble leaving it out anymore. But, as simply a matter of consistency, the reference should be removed.... equal protection and all that stuff. I do object, though, to the notion that the Constitution guarantees that we be protected from all religious references. The concept is FREEDOM OF RELIGION , NOT freedom from religion. And, by speaking "under God", we are not promoting any particular faith, therefore, no relief is neccessary. __________________ "Regret can be a harder pill to swallow than failure .With failure you at least know you gave it a chance..." David Howard

03-24-2004, 02:10 PM	#15 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	Thanks for posting that Cythetiq. I'm not really religious but I get sick of all the whiners saying they're being repressed by religion in the United States. At the risk of sounding like an uneducated redneck: THEN MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE ! The Constitution was based on Christian principles. That's a fact. The 10 commandments are religious based. That's a fact. I find it ignorant how so many people dismiss principles, values or morals that were originated by Christians as invalid or inferior. Please, You're blinded by some kind of idiotic hate. It's ridiculous and funny how the left wing liberals always go off if you mention God. I'll post a link to a hillarious article about that soon. Two words for everyone else. God Jesus

03-24-2004, 02:34 PM	#18 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion = they cannot create laws that specify any religion. that is not the same thing as "separation of church and state." in this argument, "Under God" IMHO expresses a specific religion, but in the cases of the boy bowing his head before eating his lunch at the cafeteria, it does not apply. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

03-24-2004, 02:37 PM	#19 (permalink)
:::OshnSoul::: Guest	I don't care for the PofA anyways. Not that it states "Under God" but "One Nation under God". Like the rest of the nations aren't if we are? Oh, this is a whole other topic, don't get me started. Politicians always have to find something that's unconstitutional. This proves the blatant, everchanging views of right and wrong, making the definition of right and wrong all screwed up and lost and that right and wrong is just an opinion.

03-24-2004, 03:10 PM	#20 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	I can't find that article. It was a joke about moving. If you can't take a joke......you know the rest. The Constitution wasn't based on Religious principles ? Oh....says you........so it must be correct. This link is a religious site but displays some good intelligent facts on why you are wrong. http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/herit17.htm I don't have the time nor do I feel the need for quote and retort. That's a tactic usually used by people I find that I rarely respect. ta ta

03-24-2004, 03:14 PM	#21 (permalink)
Surfer Banned	P.S. About the ten commandments. Yeah...they're bad and should be removed. uhm..because they're religious based so... uhm..... therefore they're bad the content doesn't matter but.......No one is dismissing anything here....... naaaa...... and the laws of our land weren't based on or from these 10 commandments either or religious morals naaaaaa cuz thats religion ! I'm done with this thread too Last edited by Surfer; 03-24-2004 at 03:17 PM..

03-24-2004, 03:39 PM	#22 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	As you may be aware, democracy is inherently not christian. God doesn't put things up for a vote. God doesn't care if there exists a supermajority in favor of wealth as a means of salvation. The church's structure is not democratic unless the church is progressive. To claim that america was founded on christian values ignores the fact that god is at best a benevolent dictator, not a president elected by the term. America is NOT a christian nation. America pretends to be christian, but you only need to see a single homeless person to know that christianity in america is a matter of convenience rather than conviction. The ten commandments have no place hanging in any public building aside from a museum. "Under god" in the pledge is wrong too. We are one nation, but we are not under god.

03-24-2004, 05:01 PM	#24 (permalink)
FaderMonkey Psycho Location: Orlando, FL	I don't believe in God. I do believe in freedom of religious expression. If I student wants to pray in school, I don't have a problem with that. If a student wants to read a bible on the bus trip home, I don't have a problem with that. But, I don't agree with "under God," being in the pledge. I also wouldn't agree with a teacher (at a public school) having their class pray. Those are examples of government endorsing a form of religion, and IMHO, that is wrong. That's my two cents.

03-24-2004, 06:18 PM	#26 (permalink)
iamnormal Addict Location: In the id	Where are the people talking about money being unconstitutional? Have a problem with the pledge and you should have a problem with In God We Trust.

03-24-2004, 08:03 PM	#28 (permalink)
meepa Insane	I've heard this debate many times, and just about every case, someone always says, "Get over yourself" or something to that effect (usually because atheists, or anyone else offended by the "Under God" part is a minority). The other thing is always the bit about founding fathers being Christian. Well I want to comment on both of these real quick. 1) "Get over yourself"... Let me direct you to James Madison's "Federalist Papers" which consistantly warn against the "Tyranny of the majority". Just because it is a democracy does not mean the popular opinion can overwhelm the minority by mob-rule. 2) Christian nation blah blah: As mentioned earlier, many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christian. And even if they were, that's a retarded argument, because, for example, they were also slaveholders (ie not infallible). But besides this fact, if I recall correctly, the pledge of allegience was created until after the Civil War (as a reminder to children to not start another one). When it was created, the "under god" part was nowhere to be found in it (GEE I WONDER WHY!?). Yet during the Cold War, it was inserted during a frenzy of religious patriotism because Communism was Atheist. And naturally the American logic was... "Well shit, communism is bad... ATHEISM IS BAD! QUICK! MAKE EVERYTHING MORE CHRISTIAN!!! WE WILL DEFEAT THOSE GODLESS RUSKIES!!" So really, the pledge of allegience has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the country, and even if it did, the God part wasn't put in until mid-20th century. I rest my case. gavel gavel

03-24-2004, 08:04 PM	#29 (permalink)
yournamehere Invisible Location: tentative, at best	The whole reasoning behind the separation of church and state was to prevent the church from controlling the government. If you paid attention in history class, you realize how powerful the church used to be in Europe, and if you read the newspapers, you know how powerful another church is in the middle east. That being said, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the majority of its citizens still believe in those principles. For this reason, I am in favor of leaving the phrase "under God" in the POA. I also respect the right of anyone not liking the phrase to not say it. But we can't please everyone - just because it offends a small minority of people is no reason to take away something most people want. My biggest gripe about that phrase is that everyone says it as if there's a comma before it - There's not - It's:"One nation under God," not "One nation, under God." A statue of the ten commandments at a courthouse, however, is different - it is a blatant display of religious laws on the very grounds where our secular laws are practiced and tested. IMO, that is an inappropriate placement of religious doctrine. __________________ If you want to avoid 95% of internet spelling errors: "If your ridiculous pants are too loose, you're definitely going to lose them. Tell your two loser friends over there that they're going to lose theirs, too." It won't hurt your fashion sense, either. Last edited by yournamehere; 03-24-2004 at 08:31 PM..

03-24-2004, 09:34 PM	#31 (permalink)
Jew Banned	People aren't perfect. To claim that this countrys constitution wasn't founded on religious morals because most of the founding fathers were deists is just flat out incorrect. To say that good moral laws are invalid because some of the signers owned slaves is ridiculous. Also, I've seen twice now people making false claims with nothing to back up what they say about the religious affiliations of our founding fathers. One person posted a website that offered proof that these people did in fact have religious based philosophies. To my recollection people were even more fanatical about religion in those days than they are now. Hence; The witch burnings, etc. Anyway here is some more proof and research that shows the founders did in fact have religious connections. http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm I love the way people just blurt out claims that the founding fathers were mostly deists and expect this to be taken as the truth. No, they weren't. You are wrong. Then they make claims that if some people break their own moral code that it invalidates the law. Please, I'm much more intelligent than to believe that. ok ? thanks

03-24-2004, 09:57 PM	#32 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I hope you can see the difference between the phrase "religious morals" and the phrase "christian morals". One is inclusive and the other is not. Nobody's claiming that religion didn't play a part in the formation of america, just that christianity can't pretend to take all of the credit. Besides, even if you are convinced that the ffs were all purebreed christians, you still can't claim that under god is constitutional based on current interpretations. The argument that "under god" should be there because this country was founded on such and such values is ethnocentrism hidden behind a selective appeal for historical accuracy. This plea for accuracy is selective because nobody who uses it ever wants to mention all the shitty things that were necessary for our country to develop as it did. If we want to be accurate we should acknowledge the good and the bad. If we want to be constitutional we should not acknowledge any god in official pledges. I'm not sure where it was said that broken moral codes are equated with invalidated laws. btw, what do you think about "under god" in the pledge? We know you're intelligent, perhaps you could spare us the feigned outrage and give us the intelligent view on the matter. thanks btw, i hope that username wasn't created for the sole purpose of posting that message. Or maybe you're the march 24th version of surfer. Last edited by filtherton; 03-25-2004 at 11:07 AM..

03-24-2004, 10:04 PM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The pledge gives no specific mention to religion, so it is no endorsement. All it does is call mention to God the creator. If you people have read the Declaration of Independence its the same God (non-denomination/non-affiliated) that is the creator of man, the same God who endowed us with all our rights. Thomas Jefferson- "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? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever." ANNUIT COEPTIS __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition. Last edited by Mojo_PeiPei; 03-24-2004 at 10:09 PM..

03-24-2004, 10:45 PM	#34 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	Just switch it back to the original and everyone should be happy. No more mention of God and you can still be patriotic and true to your country. Religion in these issues is fine with many as long as it's the popular, main stream J/C type. If a teacher in a public school started pushing Buddism or Druidism or somthing "out there" but not patently offensive, many of the "under God" crowd would be up in arms because it doesn't conform to their beliefs. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

03-25-2004, 04:44 AM	#35 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Yes, the "wall of separation" between church and state is a matter of interpretation, but it seems to me it was the interpretation at least some of the writers had in mind. TJ, f'rinstance, wrote thus to the Baptist Congregation of Danbury: <blockquote><i>Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign 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.</i></blockquote> So Jefferson both repected a God, and wanted to keep him out of the actual practice of the gov't. I see no contradiction there. And that's where "Wall of Separation" comes from. Not the constitution, not legal proceedings. From one of the authors explaining it afterwards. Doesn't come much clearer than that. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

03-25-2004, 09:38 AM	#38 (permalink)
The_wall Psycho Location: Rhode Island biatches!	The pledge itself is rediculous. Kids should have to recite the bill of rights or something, that would make more sense. __________________ "We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.