MuadDib

I find it interesting that so many theists are so weak in their beliefs that they are threatened by removal of WORDS. It isn't that the word God means nothing to an atheist. In fact, it means quite a bit. Almost all atheists I know hold the term God to mean superstition, evangalism, and entrenching religion into culture. Though I am a Christian, I can see the validity of their claim. It is very hard for someone to remain truly objective on a matter of this magnitude when you have almost all of society breathing down your neck and I personally take comfort in the thought that the government stays out of such entanglements and provides us with some room to think and question such beliefs. It isn't that the word God on a dollar bill or in a pledge is going to destroy their way of life, just like removing won't destroy the Christian way of life. What is important in a legalist state such as ours is the the precident it serves. The logic being the inclusion of such words all revolves around a majority belief in such a deity. The problem is that even the most democratic state can not logically swing with every whim of the populace. There has to be a solid grounding in rights for everyone. Respect for minority rights must trump majority will in matters of basic civil freedoms and rights that would make the majority will less meaningful. Implicit sponsorship of religion does just that. By acknowleding that the government (not the people in government) recognizes a single higher deity it endangers the participation and inclusion of those who do not. Because religion (or lack there of) is an issue that strikes at the heart of almost every human, it absolutely can not be endorsed on merits of popular acceptance.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Bill O'Rights

I find that to be very broad minded of you...and I applaud you for it.


Frankly, I think that we Americans could stand to learn a little more about Canadian politics...so, by all means, post away.


I think you mean McCarthy


How about The God and The Goddess? Would that be alright in your eyes?


Laws of Nature and of Nature's God? Well, that could arguably prove my point about The God and The Goddess. Besides, the Declaration of Independence is not the source of our law...the Constitution is.


Actually, I'm all for the display of the 10 commandments...right next to the Wiccan Rede, the first part of which reads "Bide ye the Wiccan Laws ye must, in perfect love and perfect trust.
Ye must life and let live, fairly take and fairly give."


I find your openmindedness to be refreshing. Especially after having read your location as Lincoln, NE...the capitol city of the largest bastian of closeminded fanatical conservatism I have ever seen. I thank you for that.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

lurkette

Ok, for accuracy's sake (ahem, Mojo...), here's the relevant quote from the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

It says nothing about "freedom of religion." This clause has been open (and how!) to interpretation, but it's pretty clear, looking at historical documents not limited to the constitution but including letters and essays of the founding fathers, that they wished to avoid the kind of "state religion" that they found so odious back in jolly old England.

I personally think the "under God" should be stricken for a number of reasons:

1. you can argue about "deism" all you want, but the fact is that the people who are so adamant about keeping the "under God" phrase in the pledge have a very particular and narrow definition of God that they want to shove down everyone else's throats. What's the difference between establishing a state religion, and establishing laws based on very particular religious precepts (e.g., the "immorality" of homosexuality?)

2. Leaving it in is a no-win situation: either "under God" is an empty "deist" phrase that doesn't really mean anything, or it's a blatant insinuation that to be loyal to this country you must believe in God. Bzzt, separation of church and state, thank you for playing.

3. Since when is having government involved in religion in any way a good idea? Its sole role should be the protection of religious liberty and expression of religious freedom, not the espousing or establishment of any kind of state-sanctioned religious beliefs.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Mojo_PeiPei

Since when is the government removing religion been a good thing thank you Hitler , Stalin, and Saddam.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

lurkette

You've been thoroughly spanked on this one in a number of other threads so I won't even bother.

Iran. Nigeria. Afghanistan. See if you can connect the dots.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

mml

Wow, that is quite a large brush you are painting with Mojo! You know I usually try to stay out of the "Religi-politics" that go on here, but these two comments really blew me away, but then again according you you I am insane and ignorant.

I attended religious schools from Kindergarden through High School. I have a very solid understanding of the bible and Judeo-Christian beliefs,dogma, history and allegory. I have also studied other religions, philosphies and even cults. To believe that the Bible does not contain large amounts of fiction is really quite ignorant. Any serious Biblical scholar will attest to the fact that much of the Old Testament was taken from existing religions and altered to fit within the Judeo-Christian framework and much of the New Testament is allegory and has been edited over and over again(and lets not get into Revelations). I could go on and on, but I simply reccomend you read the Epic of Gilgamesh and see if you see any similarities to parts of the Bible.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...ian/gilgamesh/


Now, as far as athiests being afraid of a word, I think that is a little too simple and easy. I don't know what denomination of Christianity you are, but have you ever been approached by someone of a different belief who will not leave you alone? It gets annoying and eventually offensive, and this is how many athiests I know feel. In addition, it is not only athiests who are opposed the the "under god" portion. Those who wish to minimize the confusion that is inherent in the Constitution whould prefer that the governement not get involved at all with religion.

While I do not think that the "under God" portion in offensive in any way, I do not think it should be included. It was never part of the original Pledge and was only added in the 50's by Eisenhower.

Here is a quick history of the Pledge:

1892

The pledge, written by socialist editor and clergyman Francis Bellamy, debuts September 8 in the juvenile periodical The Youth's Companion. He wants the words to reflect the views of his cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of "Looking Backward" and other socialist utopian novels. It reads: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."

1924

The words "the flag of the United States of America" are substituted for "my Flag." Fittingly, the change takes place on Flag Day.

1942

The government officially recognizes the Pledge of Allegiance.

1954

Worried that orations used by "godless communists" sound similar to the Pledge of Allegiance, religious leaders lobby lawmakers to insert the words "under God" into the pledge. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, fearing an atomic war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, joins the chorus to put God into the pledge. Congress does what he asks, and the revised pledge reads: "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."

2002

June 26 The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the words added in 1954. The decision affects schoolchildren in eight states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana and Hawaii.

August 9 The Justice Department files an appeal of the circuit court's ruling.

2003

The U.S. Supreme Court says it will decide whether the current form of the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.


Source: The Associated Press and Encyclopedia Britannica Inc


I now have remembered why I try to avoid the "religi-politics" threads.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

chavos

mojo-feel free to use this like any other freedom. of your free will, with your time, with out taxpayer support, or government coercion. teach your kids to say it in school. teach kids in your neighborhood. lead a society devoted to reciting the pledge. publish pro-pledge leaflets. buy a buildboard that has it printed on a major highway. tack a copy on to an alter. do whatever you want. on your time. with your money.

There are plenty of us out there who think that God is a little too important to get mixed up with our sense of national pride....for me it has nothing to do with freedom from religion. this is very much freedom of religion. i want my kids to have schools in which they are not taught that the ideas of God that are supported in my family are wrong and unpatriotic.

santafe5000

In an effort not to step on the belief's of any single person, should we not do away with all form's of public interaction. If you can't talk, see, read, hear or feel, then we won't offend anyone. Having said that, I have always believed that majority rules, so if over 50% of the people want reference's to God on the money, in the pledge, or before the football game, it should stay.

__________________
When all else fails, QUIT.

Mojo_PeiPei

How have I been spanked? I never once advocated a theocracy, all I'm saying is that a secularist alternative isn't not any better.

Iran- The people wanted the revolution, they welcomed the Ayatollah with open arms to get rid of the Shah.

Afganistan- The People welcomed/ still welcome the Taliban because they brought law and order from a country caught up in tribal warfare.

You guys seem to be all about self determination, these were the choices the people made regardless of how they like it after the fact.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

filtherton

If majority rules, why even have a constitution? What if the majority decided that no one should be allowed to own a handgun? In some states that's how the majority feels. Should we then just throw out the second amendment because the fickle majority says so?

Why is this such a stretch? How is "in god we trust" even remotely constitutional? Why is it such a big deal to remove it?

Bill O'Rights

Following are the results (as of 3:15 P.M. CST 10/15/03)of an opinion poll conducted by the online edition of the Omaha World Herald (the local rag that I read because it's the only newspaper Omaha has.)




Keeping in mind that Nebraska, and Omaha in particular, is filled with bible thumping neo-cons, this scares the living hell out of me. How quickly people forget that the last time religion was mixed with politics, people got burned. Literaly. Oh...that's right...I forgot... it was fundamentalist christians doing the burning then too, wasn't it?


EDIT oh, and by the way, one of those 602 "no" votes belongs to me!!

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

The_Dude

In addition to the countries that lurkette listed, how about saudi arabia, united arab emirates, oman, quatar, egypt, etc..??

wouldnt they be much better off by removing religion?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

Obviously and I am not going to refute that. The Arab world has sold its soul to Allah to retain power, and the people suffer horribly under it. Hell I won't even argue that Christianity had many many failings when it had power derived from religious authority. But the fact of the matter here is America we are a not a theocracy and no religious beliefs are forced on anybody regardless of what anyone says. The majority of people in America are christian always have been, and will continue to be for along time. They shouldn't have to accept change to accomodate people who don't share their beliefs, especially since there is no really problem in the first place. I know that evangicals exist and I agree they are annoying as fuck, I even hate them and I am Catholic! Just live and let live, there are truths to be found in every religion.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Bill O'Rights

While I apreciate your standing beside us on this issue, The_Dude, really I do, I note that it's 3:30 in the afternoon.

Why aren't you in class or something?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

The_Dude

It's 4:30 here and I'm pretty much done with classes.

I might go to this study session later, so thought I'd drop in.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

The_Dude

haha, then why did they add the "under god" in 1957? Isnt that change when there is no problem in the first place?

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

Lets hop in our time machine and go kick Dwight's ass on account of all the problems this is stirring up here at the TFP.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

no not that. let's just undo his error.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Bill O'Rights

You MIGHT go to a study session later?

Are ther no cute young co-eds to be chasing? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot...Texas, and all. J/K

You might to to reevaluate your priorities, man.




Excellent point, by the way.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

filtherton

We may not be ruled by the pope, i do think religious beliefs are forced on us every day. Where did the antisodomy laws come from? Where did marriage and the opposition to gay marriage come from? You'll have a hard time convincing me that there is objective, factual evidence condemning sodomy or gay marriage as a legitimate threat to the interests of society. Just because it doesn't say "god" on it doesn't mean it isn't motivated by religious philosophies.

They should have to accept change when that change puts things in accordance with constitutional mandates. Obviously there is a problem when one group violates the constitution and sees no problem in doing so.

mystmarimatt

No, it wasn't. Jefferson and a lot of our founding fathers were Deists. they believed in God, but did not particularly buy into Judeo-Christian doctrine.

I'll by into your argument when the constitution or the declaration mentions Jesus or Abraham. I can see what you're getting at, with God and all, but it was later intrepration that brought judeism and christianity into the mesh, the original intent was to be as neutral as possible, considering most major religions had a God, and atheism wasn't a full blown movement. i don't think. but i could be wrong on that one. anyway.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

splck

What's the big deal? After they do the right thing and remove the offending words, people that are pissed about it can say the missing words. It's the same as telling people to just ignore the words now.

__________________
nice line eh?

Ustwo

I'm an atheist. I've been one since I was 8 years old, (figured it out sitting in a church no less), and I could care LESS if the pledge says under god or not.

You get freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If my children are like me and god free, I'll tell them to do what I do and just say it and not worry about it. I love this country dearly, and if it makes a lot of people happy to say under god, I'm not going to get in their way.

Issues like this bring out the worst in people. Some atheists seem to make being an atheist their substitute for religion. As long as people aren't forcing you to slaughter a goat to Baal or give a tithe to the local church, you are just being petty by complaining.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

seretogis

I agree, it seems that to some people Atheism is not just about a lack of belief in a god, but something which requires them to strike out at any who do believe in one. It doesn't work that way.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

Astrocloud

It's funny that theists or deists are always trying to redefine atheism so that it suits them. What you are actually refering to is that some Atheists or other non-theists seem to enjoy proselytizing their beliefs to others.

That same act, proselytizing; is not only an accepted behavior among religious groups... but it is celebrated and encouraged. I guess turn about isn't fair play in this case. Eh Seretogis?


Secondly, the theists and deists have yet to make one argument for keeping the Pledge the way it is -that isn't steeped in religion. If the first amendment stands; if the wall of separation stands -then the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Does anyone have a non-Religious reason for keeping the pledge the way it is?

For reference here is a letter where Jefferson refers to the wall of seperation. The link is given here.

seretogis

I hardly think of it as "accepted behavior" -- Jehovah's Witnesses have a bad reputation of doing the same thing. By and large, the average Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/etc doesn't openly attack other established religions. From my experience in "real life" and on discussion boards such as this, the same is not true of the average Atheist. By the way, I am agnostic.

How about, "it is voluntary and doesn't harm anyone." If someone doesn't want to say it, they don't have to. If someone wants to say everything except "under god", they can do that too. This is really a non-issue that's being blown out of proportion by a very vocal minority.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

chavos

i do appriciate your reasoning seretogis, but the fact is taht if the court considers this a prayer, or institutionalization of religion, then it doesn't help its constitutionality to be made volentary. So long as the school is the intitiator or supporter...it's a problem. They could have a moment of silence...or kids coudl gather around the flag before school and sing it at the top of their lungs.... but the point is that the kids are informed by their families, their church/mosque/synagogue/community, and their own beliefs as how to make a religious expression...and not just being surrounded by a religious expression created by the school.

i don't think its worth the fight that it will be...so i guess i agree with the spirit of what your saying though....

Astrocloud

Yet, with what amounts to an institutionalized prayer every day before class -the government is actively engaging in what Jehovah's Witlesses "have a bad reputation" for. This is first rate proselytizing.



You are making a generalization based upon your own anecdotal evidence. This is weak at best but I'm curious where you are going with it.

My guess is the logic goes something like:

a) Atheists are big meanies who are always "striking out" at others.
b1) Therefore any response to this is just another example of an Atheist "striking out".
or;
b2) Therefore Atheists deserve what they get when they have their rights taken away from them.

Please tell me if I'm creating some sort of Straw man here. What was your point in making a generalization about atheists? I'm curious.



It's very fashionable to bash Atheists. This goes back centuries and is clearly stated in Psalm 14: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." As a non-theist in an increasingly secular society; I have seen atheists get personally verbally assaulted by religious people when we were invited to engage in a debate. I've known hundreds of Atheists, Nontheists and Secularists -not all of them are as obnoxious as you intone, yet many have been bashed.




You say that the pledge is "voluntary"; you are deliberately ignoring the context of the pledge. When I was going to work everyday; I didn't stand with my colleagues and recite this pledge. The people who are reciting this pledge are little children. To voluntarily abstain from reciting the words "under god" -would be quite an advanced behaviour for a 7 year old. If you know anything about the psychology of group behavior; you know that the need to belong often outweighs little personal choices. People going against the norm of a group are often subjected to great amounts of psychological pressure to conform and fit in. (In fact this "need to belong" has been used as a powerful instrument of control by cults).

What the pledge amounts to is indoctrination. I'm fine with it -as long as it sticks to indoctrinating children into being good little patriots. Anything else is pushing it.

Conclamo Ludus

I'm agnostic. And I say the pledge of allegiance with the words Under God. I use money that says in God We Trust. And when I was a kid I had to recite the pledge everyday. And as luck would have it, I turned out okay. It doesn't bother me a bit, and never has. The beauty of being agnostic or atheist is that the words Under God have no meaning to you, so if you have to say the pledge of allegiance with a couple of words of nonsense in the middle of it, than so be it. Its not going to brainwash you. Its not going to make you believe in God and be a Christian if you say it. I guess the Supreme Court will figure it out though. Its not going to change my life or my beliefs a single bit, one way or another.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Astrocloud

Simply ignoring it doesn't mean that the words have no meaning. Accept that there are people not as smart as you... who are influenced by the words on money.

Something that actually happened to me: a student at the University of Arizona (I believe he was a sports and exercise sciences student) -told me that "In God we Trust" printed on money was DIRECT PROOF of god's hand in the affairs of men.

I know this story is anecdotal but my point is that just because X happened to you and you are not harmed doesn't mean that X doesn't have an effect on others.

Ustwo

And the 'eyed' pyramid is DIRECT PROOF of the masons hand in the affairs of the US!

BFD, who cares, would your life have been better if some Arizona jock didn't get to talk about 'In God we Trust' on the money? Do you think the words on the money is why HE thinks so?

Conclamo Ludus

If someone wants to believe that the money is proof that God exists, I don't blame the money for them having that opinion. And believe it or not, I don't assume they aren't as smart as me. I guess I just don't see how people are influenced by it. And if they are, is it going to harm them? I don't think people are that stupid that they will be influenced by it. Maybe I put too much trust in thinking that people make up their minds on philosophical issues in more intelligent ways than reading it off of a nickel.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Bill O'Rights

Actually, I make an effort to get rid of money almost as soon as I get it. I give some to my mortgage company, some to my auto finance institution, some to the utility companies...and the list goes on. So, sorry LD, nothing left to send your way.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Astrocloud

To people saying that mentioning god in the pledge is not a big deal:


Fine, so if mentioning god in the pledge is 'no big deal' then it's no big deal to remove it. If it doesn't hurt anyone to have it there; will it hurt them to have it removed? Right now it seems to violate the first amendment separation clause. So remove it, right?

Conclamo Ludus

Sure. If the Supreme Court says its unconstitutional, they can take it out. Doesn't bother me. Now what about the money thing? Are we not going to have a truly free society until every coin or dollar bill or everything else has gone out of circulation? Should we take it out of the Declaration of Independence too? Should we change the language when its being read aloud in school so that the child who is reading it is not confused or influenced? Or should we just stop at the Pledge and move on with our lives? These are all questions we'll have to face at some point I suppose.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

Astrocloud

I say yes to many of these things... However the Declaration of Independance being plagarized from a John Stuart Mill rant and also more of a historical document than official US policy (In fact the US wasn't even a country when it was written); -doesn't need to be changed and I'm tired of people bringing that up.

In fact the Declaration of Independance supports wholeheartedly the idea that men should be free from the coercive power of the state. "We find these truths to be self evident; that ALL men are created equal" -implies that as equals we shouldn't choose one religion over all others and then shove it down everyone's throats. Being equals -we can decide for ourselves what philosophies to accept as truth.

Furthermore the Pledge of Allegiance is a very obvious indoctrination tool. It is meant to indoctrinate people into being good, loyal US citizens... It was perverted with the intent to push God into the public schools. This has nothing to do with good citizenship.

Astrocloud

I also question the Supreme Court's ability to be objective on this issue (especially Clarence). It seems that over the Years the right wing has been able to stock this court with their own irresponsible court jesters (again, Clarence). They certainly weren't impartial in Bush vs. Gore... and they might not be impartial in this case either.

Conclamo Ludus

Doesn't the word "created" imply religion in "we hold these truths to be self-evident; that ALL men are created equal"? What if you don't believe you were created? Maybe we should change it to "born". If the Pledge of Allegiance is an indoctrination tool, than why aren't you a Christian?

Do you think all this indoctrination has taken away the rights of people not to believe in God? It certainly hasn't for me. I just think its a waste of time, money, and heartache for a bunch of semantics.

Astrocloud the Supreme Court will never be objective, because they might not agree with you. They are definitely going to be impartial if the decision is against what you want them to.

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

KnifeMissile

I'm surprised at the number of people who interpret the desires of some to remove the "under one God" clause as a move by athiests to force their beliefs onto the religious. This is proposterous.
For athiests to do what the pious have done by adding the "God" clause, they would need to say something like "under the fact that no god exists," which is not what they're advocating.
Instead, they're leaving the choice of belief up to you by simply not making it an issue. You can be perfectly patriotic to your country and not be the least bit religious. To do otherwise is simply endorsement.

Having said that, I personally don't believe there should be so much propoganda to build patriotism. I mean, it depends on what you're trying to do. Sure, you don't want anyone to undermine the legal system in place or betray your country in any way, but at the same time you want a population that feels free to criticize it's government. I hate seeing people in the US demanding that people be "patriotic" and "support" the actions of the country. To me, they just don't understand what freedom is. Someone who believes that what their country is doing is wrong and is telling it so is patriotic, in my opinion.

Conclamo Ludus

The choice is up to you already, that's why I don't think it is an issue. I'm done arguing about something I really don't care that much about.
I suppose it proves that its an issue if I keep talking about it...

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues