nanofever

Mojo, I have explained this at least twice.

The Constitution is the foundation of our government, not the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, I could be mistaken, but I believe that the DOI actually has no merit in legal matters. I googled it and couldn't find a definite answer.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Wax_off

All this bull and blister over nothing. We will get a ruling. Apparently there are cases moving through the works in at least 3 different states on this issue. Those cases don't have the custody problems that derailed this case.

In a way I don't understand why SCOTUS dodged this one. They know that they will have to rule at some point, why not now?

Wax_off

Yes, this is correct. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document and was never meant to be one. In fact, the constitution didn't even exist when the Declaration of Independence was written. The constitution didn't come about until 1787, after the failed Articles of Confederation.

pan6467

As I stated the Pledge is my l"line in the sand", my stance of saying enough.

It's not about the history of the pledge, it's about the 10 Commandments not being allowed to be shown in a court of law. It is about people demanding our government exclude Christmas as a recognized national holiday. It is about this MINORITY taking away anything in public that even mentions GOD.

They have bastardized the Constitution to serve their own purposes. A community should be allowed to have a Christmas tree in the town square. The little village I grew up in, in Ohio had for over 100 years had a Christmas tree in the central park area, the streets lined with decorations and carollers and ice skaters and a way of life. But all those are gone now because someone sued. So my kids will never look in awe at the tree or hear carollers in the square.

Hell, I'm not even a Judeo-Christian GOD worshipper but I do long for the way things were before these bullshit lawsuits took away my right to worship where and how I wanted. And if you don't believe these lawsuits have then you are blind. I cannot publicly say a prayer in any government building, or display any item of my religion in the town I grew up because the village says noone can for fear it may lead to a lawsuit.

People died fighting for the right to worship as they pleased in this country and we are thumbing our noses at their sacrifices because a MINORITY wants everything their way and that way is to exclude a 3 letter word and any reference to any religion from public.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

One of the most profound posts I have read on this board. Not to mention I am amazed at how much I agree with everything you wrote, I thought for the longest time we didn't agree on anything.

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

Mojo_PeiPei

The Declaration is not law and it does have no merit in legal matters, but it is perhaps the most important document is the history of man. The Constitution is the foundation of our government, the DOI is the foundation of the entity of our great country, thats where its importance lies. Without the DOI the constitution is jack shit.

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

bonbonbox

We are jerking ourselves around with the whole religion thing. We have no freedom when it comes to religion when the governing powers get to decide what is and is not religion. I say eliminate god from all government in any shape or form.

Scipio

I was afraid my thread would open the whole religion can of worms, and it seems to have done quite well.

I'll make a couple of points:

To me, there are two important points that guide my thinking: one, government shouldn't use public money for any religious purpose, except when a failure to do so would violate the free exercise clause (ie, military chaplains in Iraq). Two, the government must give leeway to people who wish to practice religion. Essentially, government must "get out of the way," or yield to people who wish to practice or pray. By this, I mean that simple and minor changes of procedure to accomodate religious practice is not only desireable, but required. A good example would be opening an unused room for required Muslim prayers, or allowing a Christian student group to use an empty classroom at a school.

When it comes to things like Christmas trees, Christmas festivities at schools and such have given way to "winter" festivities. It's equitable, and it allows the same practices to go on, only without explicitly religious messages. I think compromises like that are just fine.

Now, on the pledge, non-christian parents shouldn't have their children led in a recitation of the words "one nation under god" by an authority figure when they're at a young age. This is a clear instance where a public structure advances explicitly religious ideas. The opinions of people way smarter than me are divided on this, so I find it rather unlikely that we can resolve the issue here. I think it might be more practical to some to some kind of mutual understanding, rather than just attack eachothers positions.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

Wax_off

The argument of "They were talking about any God, not just the Judeo-Christian God" is fairly persuasive. If that were so then I would be alright with the pledge as it stands, despite being an atheist.

But I really don't think it is that way. If asked 99% of Americans are going to say "yes, that's one nation under a white haired guy in the clouds." (alright, they won't say that, but you get the idea.) I think there would be a tremendous uproar if anyone proposed saying "One nation, under Allah" or "One nation, under Buddah" or Shiva, or Thor or Hera or Ra or any of the thousands of other gods one might worship.

To me this means that the Christian majority is imposing it's religious preference on govt. procedings and that's disallowed by the constitution.

brianna

good point wax_off. and while in america we like to think of the term "god" as all encompassing i don't think that it is used outside of the judeo-christian faith.

pan6467

I can understand one's dislike for Christianity when they deal with and see people like Pat Robertson and "Bible thumping" born agains. These types ran me away from Christianity.

Yes our nation was founded by Christians. Maryland was British Catholics leaving their homes for feart of DEATH by the queen and king. Massachusetts was founded by the Puritans.

In the late 1800's and into the very late 1900's there was open prejudices against Jews and Catholics especially Irish.

I cannot nor will not turn my back on the past and the major parts religion played in it, good and bad.

The government has recognized many many religions, and have done so equally. Out West there are churches devoted to UFOology, There is Scientology, Wiccan, Satanic, Pagan and so on churches out there that are treated equally by the government. Hell in the 60's if you jumped through the hoops and did your research you could start a religion, become a minister and successfully fight to get out of the draft.

So tell me again how that is all Judeo-Christian.

As said previously, perhaps the past and a majority put their value on the word GOD. But that word does not have to have the same meaning as you have put on it. No one BUT YOU can put value on the word. To argue what value the word has, means YOU HAVE put that value on the word, not someone else.

I have chosen my value, and no one can ever put a different value on my GOD. I believe religion and spirituality are very private things. I only talk about my beliefs when asked or when friends and I gather and we talk philosophies.

I will not devalue another's because they have the same rights I do to place their value on GOD.

Again, GOD only has the value you put on the word. To argue otherwise is to say you have accepted someone else's value and you choose to devalue what they believe. Not them devaluing your belief, because your belief has been tainted and you allowed others to value the word for you.



Using the 99% (which is extremely high as we have I believe over a 25% non Judeo Christian population) argument, if we were to take a poll of whether or not people had a true problem with GOD being in the pledge or on money, I would feel probably the same percentage wouldn't care or would want it.

So to say because a vast majority has this value on the word is the same as saying the vast majority prefer it is there. So your side is proposing a very small minority DICTATE to others what they can say and what value they place on a word.

As for the 10 Commandments, what is the problem with having them hang in a court? 9 of them have nothing to do with GOD, if the judge prefers to have them hang in his workspace (which is the court room) that is his right.

You all are making a great stink over nothing, clogging court systems, demanding others bow down to your will and ideals. No more. You are now infringing on my rights, stealing tax money from me to fight these, and for what purpose? What exactly do you win by taking the word GOD out of everything? What do future generations win?

It is our spirituality that gives us our individuality. Make this a Godless society and we shall fall apart very very fast, either through a decline in morals or by becoming zombies to the Big Brother.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

DelayedReaction

The use of "God" is specifically monotheistic. Many religions have either polytheistic beliefs, or do not have any gods at all. The word is not an open term; it specifically refers to "God" (with a capital G).

This is the official pledge of the United States. Immigrants say it when they first come to America, and schoolchildren recite it every morning. This is a clear case of the government respecting an establishment of religion.

America is who she is because of her citizens; people who passionately fight for what they believe in. Our country was founded on the principals of tolerance and acceptance of other walks of life. How can we abide by those principals when our very pledge demonstrates a focus on one form of worship over others?

Take God out of the Pledge. America should be "one nation, indivisible," and not split by religious references.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

brianna

the argument that the word "god" can refer to anything you want it to seems a bit naive -- couldn't the same argument be used to defend any potentially inflammatory word? you cannot separate the intention behind someone's speech from it's meaning and it is somewhat patronizing to tell people that they should feel fine when Christian beliefs are forced upon them since they can just pretend that the intention behind the words covers all religions. how is this different than telling someone to ignore a racial slur by pretending that it's really a compliment?

Mojo_PeiPei

You have no leg to stand on incinuating that it is forcing Christian anything on people. God is a universal word, just because you and your agenda will it to take a Christian conotation doesn't mean it does.

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

nanofever

The judge is acting as a government actor. Government actors can't endorse a specific religion. The Ten commandments directly endorses Christanity and the whole "no god but me" statement at the top is an additional problem. That is why the 10 commandments are a no-no.

Quote:

You all are making a great stink over nothing, clogging court systems, demanding others bow down to your will and ideals. No more. You are now infringing on my rights, stealing tax money from me to fight these, and for what purpose? What exactly do you win by taking the word GOD out of everything? What do future generations win?

The purpose is to put a gigantic freaking wall between church and state. When those two groups mix, bad things happen. I'm not saying "no religion". I am saying "no interaction between church and state". If you want to live in a country when religion is entwined with government, I have several middle eastern countries that come to mind.

Quote:

It is our spirituality that gives us our individuality. Make this a Godless society and we shall fall apart very very fast, either through a decline in morals or by becoming zombies to the Big Brother.

Okay first off, bullshit. Individuality comes from a lot of different areas. I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that anyone who's individuality is entirely defined by their spirituality is already a "zombie", as you put it. Your statements also seem to suggest that people without a spiritual side have no moral, in which case, I have several choice words for you but will be satisified with the statement of ignorant, very, very , ignorant

Second, keep the strawman to your self because nobody needs it. No one is suggesting we empose atheism on the whole of society. The idea is that for freedom of religion to exist; the government must be free from religion. That idea is the cause for a push to a government free of religion.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

nanofever

Okay Mojo, I'm saying that we change the word "god" to "brahmin". Since god is universal, people should have no problem making the change, right? Seriously, if you honestly believe what you are spouting is correct and not just sophist ramblings, you should have no problem asking the government to make the change.

Also, Please read the history of the pledge. I know that it might be hard to see with so many posts, but I have posted the history three or four times. I'm hoping this time you *might* take the time to read the history. The addition of "under god" directly violates the Lemon Test. It has no secular purpose and thus, fails the Lemon test.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

brianna

god is not a universal word -- no religion outside of the judeo-christian faith uses this word and yet christianity uses it exclusively. the phrase "under god" was added to put a christian spin on the pledge, there's no way around that and insisting that people ignore the intention of the phrase is ridiculous.

pan6467

Not to be inflammatory, I am not intending offense by this word just to prove a point.

Bitch, in my value system is always derogatory yet there are women and men who call others bitches in a loving way. It is the value they put on the word.

My Irish ancestors when they came over were called Mick, which was very derogatory, yet today has no meaning. Why? Because they Irish chose not to give the word meaning.

Same with a lot of derogatory words. They lost their meaning when the group that was aimed at chose to say the word had no value.

There are still words out there aimed at groups but when said it is up to that group or individual to put value on it. If they choose to keep a negative value on it, that negative value stays and stays until the individual and eventually the group choose not to value that word.

What Christian beliefs are being forced down upon you, by the government? Please do tell, perhaps I will then understand your argument better.

True story, when I was in the Navy my best friend was an African American. We were tight and we had each others back even when the other was wrong we stood by each other. We were effectively brothers from a different mother. Anyway, one night I got totally blitzed I mean out of it, and joking around I called him nigger (I had just seen other AA's calling each other that and him and I as close as we were I didn't think about it in a negative way, but in that way). He could have done many things, ended our friendship and beat me to a pulp, walked away and never talked to me again, etc. Instead of negative, he chose to tell me (when I sobered up) how that no longer offended him, he chose to devalue the word. But I had better never call anyone else that.

It's not naive, it is a way of life and of inner peace. When you devalue a word to mean nothing or only what you choose it to mean, then that word will never bother you.

I was born pre-marriage and my mom married someone not my biological father. He chose to adopt me and give me his last name. For years as a teen and in my 20's I was very, very touchy about the word bastard. It's used to cut people down, "you fucking bastard...." . I would get close to fighting anyone who called me that. Then I realized it is a word. I am a bastard by definition, BUT I am not the negative nor is my mother the negative that gives that word value. Now I hear the word and I say, "yes, I am, but in being that, I ended up with a great dad, who raised me as his own and never thought of me as a bastard."

Going to school we learned Norse, Greek and Roman Mythology in Jr. High school. Zeus, Thor, Venus, etc . WERE ALL TAUGHT TO US TO BE CALLED GODS.
The value of GOD at that moment meant the mythology we were studying, not the Judeo-Christian God.

If you are successful in taking out GOD because you have a value on it to believe it is Judeo-Christian only. You in effect take out the word GOD for everyone and therefore the Mythologies cannot be taught (as they were ivery religious based), you cannot teach about the Celts, as they were very religious based. You cannot teach many sciences as they were religiously inspired, you cannot teach history period as much of it is religious in some form. You would not be able to teach Euclidian Math as some out there believe Euclid to be a GOD.

In other words just because the religion of the majority offends you and you choose to want to get rid of anything religious, in doing so you take out all other religions.

It's a catch 22, you take religion out of government, government does not recognize any religion and eventually laws will be passed to persecute those that are religious, by taking away rights to practice in public. Because right now a vast majority of companies won't allow anyone any religious artifacts in their workspace because they fear lawsuits. Yet, they are sued because they don't allow recognition of religion.

I really truly have no understanding for those that want to take out religion so badly. It is what this country was founded on, the government has bent over backwards to recognize any and all religions the mind can think of and yet NOT BEING FORCED TO SAY A 3 LETTER WORD IS CAUSE TO ABOLISH ALL RELIGION. Makes no sense at all.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

First of all, the judge's job is to hear the case before him unbiasedly, as a representative of LAW not the government. If you choose to believe he represents the government, fine but if that were the case no lawsuits against the government would ever be heard and won.

Secondly, it is his workspace, he should be able to have whatever he chooses to have before him. If the Majority of people do not like what he has in his workplace then they vote him out of office or whatever. He is not forcing his views on anyone, noone has to read the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.

(By the way the 10 Commandments are from the OLD TESTAMENT and are Jewish also not just Christian as you have argued. It tells me you have a true hatred for Christianity not spirituality.)

Thirdly, a vast majority of people are religious and spiritual, and whether we like it or not the vast majority run their lives by their spirituality. Therefore YOU WILL AND CAN ONLY ACHIEVE TRUE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE BY ELIMINATING ALL RELIGION. Because the people in government are going to rule by their religious beliefs and their perspectives which have been set by the religious and spiritualities they hold. So you will never achieve true seperation.

Fourthly, I did not say those without a spirituality lacked morals, I said a SOCIETY lacking spirituality becomes immoral. Even Atheism is a spirituality and a belief.

I did not attack you personally, I did not call you names. YOU HAVE DONE BOTH TO ME. If you want to debate fine but do so without attacking me. I do not like being called ignorant and threatened to be called choice words because my beliefs differ from yours. Is that not EXACTLY the major part of your argument against this "Christianity" ruled government.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

ARTelevision

wow - it never ceaes to amaze me how worked up folks can get when it comes to religion (not that there's anything wrong with that, I guess). but it does stun me.

__________________
create evolution

nanofever

Are you honestly suggesting that a judge isn't a state actor and thus is not bound by the regulations on government? Regulations apply to both people and policy.

Quote:

Secondly, it is his workspace, he should be able to have whatever he chooses to have before him. If the Majority of people do not like what he has in his workplace then they vote him out of office or whatever. He is not forcing his views on anyone, noone has to read the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.

Bullshit, judges are state actors and bound by the constitution when in that role.

Quote:

(By the way the 10 Commandments are from the OLD TESTAMENT and are Jewish also not just Christian as you have argued. It tells me you have a true hatred for Christianity not spirituality.)

No, you are quiet mistake. I am fine with the "love your neighbor" Christians who take Jesus's teaching to heart. However, judges who put the 10 commandments on their walls are not following any teaching of Jesus I know of. They seem to be following their own selfish motives and justifying it with their religion.

Quote:

Thirdly, a vast majority of people are religious and spiritual, and whether we like it or not the vast majority run their lives by their spirituality. Therefore YOU WILL AND CAN ONLY ACHIEVE TRUE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE BY ELIMINATING ALL RELIGION. Because the people in government are going to rule by their religious beliefs and their perspectives which have been set by the religious and spiritualities they hold. So you will never achieve true seperation.

If that is your dim view on the prospects involving future seperation of church and state, I find that the only course of actions is that we promptly make Christanity unconstitutional, build a coliseum and start feeding Christians to the lions, tigers or atheist drunk on their dis-belief in a higher power.

Quote:

Fourthly, I did not say those without a spirituality lacked morals, I said a SOCIETY lacking spirituality becomes immoral. Even Atheism is a spirituality and a belief.

Society is made of people, you can't seperate the two. By suggesting that you need spirituality to be moral; you also suggest that a lack of spirituality, atheism, is immoral. I think that is clearly an attack to suggest that people without spirituality are immoral.

Quote:

I did not attack you personally, I did not call you names. YOU HAVE DONE BOTH TO ME. If you want to debate fine but do so without attacking me. I do not like being called ignorant and threatened to be called choice words because my beliefs differ from yours. Is that not EXACTLY the major part of your argument against this "Christianity" ruled government.

The statement of "ignorant" was not directed at you but rather your belief that spirtuality is inherrently moral and a lack of spirituality is immoral. That belief *is* ignorant as both a sweeping generalization and as a personal insult to people who lack spirituality. Morality comes from your own actions, not your religious beliefs or what those beliefs *suggest* as actions. I am quite sure that people with ignorant beliefs are upset when people call them on said ignorant beliefs. You have your right to say ignorant thing. I have my right to call you on them and to also be shown when I say ignorant things. Since neither of us are state actors at the moment, this is clearly not " EXACTLY the major part of [my] argument against this "Christianity" ruled government.".

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

DelayedReaction

I never used the word Christian in my discussion, I said a monotheistic faith. The Pledge of Allegiance specifically refers to "God" (the capital "G" is rather important), which is extensively used in the Bible to refer to God and God alone. Other deities are referred to as "gods" in the lowercase, but there is only one "God."

I would be equally opposed to the idea of a religious reference in the Pledge of Allegiance if it were Allah, Buddah, Confucious, or the Great Pumpkin. As much as you would like to think I am opposed to Christianity, and that I possess an "agenda" that works against the faith neither suggestions are true. America was founded on the principal that all men are created equal, and the Constitution protects this in part by preventing the government from passing laws that support or oppress religion. Not just specific faiths, but the concept of religion itself.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Yakk

The SCOTUS must decide all cases before them on lesser issues before they can make a decision on constitutional grounds. There were other lesser issues with this case which they ruled on, and hence they are not allowed to make a judgement on constitutional grounds.

SCOTUS does not answer hypothetical questions.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

j8ear

A few facts for those of you who believe god and the 10 commandments are a christian phenomenom.

1. The 10 commandments are NOT EXCLUSIVELY CHRISTIAN. They are universal to at least three of the worlds religions. Jews, Muslims, AND Christians all reference the 10 commandments in their 'books'

2. God is also one in the same in all three religions as well. ONE IN THE SAME.

Please do not make these mistake again.

Hate Christianity all you want, I could care less. Just stop making things up and spreading lies to suit your beliefs.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

pan6467

Excuse me, hate to interupt while you attack me, but did I not say Atheism is in fact a spirituality and a belief? It is a belief in nothing BUT it is inherently a belief.

Again, you twist my words and warp them to YOUR benefit.

No I said as long as their are religious and spiritual people who firmly hold their beliefs, THEY will not do anything against those beliefs. Therefore, to try and seperate themselves from their beliefs when making laws is next to impossible and will never be done.

I am saying without spirituality, yes, the masses (society) as a whole will eventually lack morals. Yes, you can seperate the individual from society. We are not inherently born knowing right from wrong. As society gets away from spirituality, you begin to see immorality, you begin to see crime rise, you begin to see people doing whatever they choose to do. This has been proven in the Old Testament, this was a serious downfall of the Roman empire (when they got away from worshipping their Gods. It was a downfall of the Egyptian civilization. It was a downfall for all major civilizations when they got away from spirituality. The USSR was a "spiritual" free government and they did not work.

You cannot take spirituality out of civilization it has been tried and it has failed miserably.

First, I have no problem with you calling me on my views and beliefs civilly and without calling names or implying you are so much greater than I because you are enlightened and I am something lesser than you. Especially whan I have done nothing but show you respect.

Secondly, morality is not inherent, you are not born knowing right from wrong. It has been taught to you through traditions (which in this country have been Judeo-Christian, however Hindu, Buddhism, even Islamic traditions have been incorporated) and trial and error and observations.

Yes, this is EXACTLY part of your argument as you feel left out in your beliefs by a "Christian society" because in a previous posting and I will not go back to quote it, a person argued they felt pressured to say "under God" because if they didn't they would be subject to dirty looks from others. So, by my not believing in your argument you are doing that to me.

You are the one without facts, without seperating emotion from a philosophical and educational debate. You see things your way and have resorted to name calling to avoid facts and argue without emotion.

You are the one cutting and pasting parts of my argument and twisting things I say instead of reading with open mind ALL that I am saying.

I have read all the opposition has written (and they have made good points) and I have shown tolerence and respect in responding.

I have not once shown disrespect to anyone, the way you have to me. Why, if your argument is so strong do you have to resort to the "I am enlightened and you are just so wrong" attitude?

That is ignorance, that is saying, "I do not care nor listen to what you say because I am so much smarter than you." And in that case your argument is lost and it becomes the "who can call whom the worst names" game. which I refuse to play.

As I said I am not a Judeo-Christian, but I am deeply spiritual and firmly entrenched in my beliefs (as are you). I do not nor ever have felt the government pushed a spirituality or belief system onto me. If anything because of the freedoms I enjoy from the government I feel the exact opposite, that the government has allowed me to seek and practice how and what I want.

Again, I say even Atheism is a spirituality and a belief system. It is just as viable as my beliefs. It is not my job to judge whose spirituality is right or wrong.

If the majority are Christian then we whether we like it or not will be governed primarily by those values and traditions. This country is majority rule with rights for all and protection of the minority. By the very definition of a Democratic Republic that is what we are.

To take this farther and yes, I know the left like I know the back of my hand. IF you are dead set against government recognizing religion, then the Muslim lady in Fla. who by her faith had to wear a veil on her driver's license would be denied by you, because that would endorse a religious practice.

YET, many who are arguing total seperation, argue that lady is well within her rights and government should honor her religious values.

That is not a seperation of church and state though, because the government has to recognize her religious values.

Total seperation means government cannot recognize ANY religious values and therfore CANNOT OFFER ANY DEVIATION OF LAWS TO ACCOMODATE A RELIGIOUS VALUE. Therefore she would be unable to wear her veil. Therefore she has no frredom of religious practice.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

docbungle

Wow.

What a bunch of hatred and heated arguing over simple semantics.

This ruling doesn't matter at all in my opinion. What does it matter, and what will it change? Nothing. Someone will get to "win." That is all. There is always some uprising about some wording that is not quite comfortable enough for every single person in the United States, so we either change it or we don't....and then forget all about it until some other random phrase gets the attention of the week and everyone obsesses over that for a while.


It doesn't change your life one way or the other how that phrase is worded. If they change the wording, you are still exactly as free to say whatever the hell you want as you were before, and vise-versa.

People need to learn to deal with stuff. Plain and simple. Everything under the sun will never be perfect to your liking. Some things are just not worth even bothering yourself with.

This "issue" is one of them

__________________
Bad Luck City

nanofever

You can say Atheism is a cup of lentil soup but that does not make it so. From my perspective, Atheism is a lack of spirituality and belief, and thus under your description is immoral.

I have also realized that on a personal level your position lacks logical consistancy. A person has a a religion or they don't. Theism or Atheism. However, you suggest that both Theism and Atheism are spiritualities. Thus, all people have spirituality in them.

Then, who are the people that you are refering to that lack spirituality? Since all people are theist or atheists, no people exist that lack spirituality.

Seriously, who are you talking about when you say "lacking spirituality"?

Quote:

No I said as long as their are religious and spiritual people who firmly hold their beliefs, THEY will not do anything against those beliefs. Therefore, to try and seperate themselves from their beliefs when making laws is next to impossible and will never be done.

If a person can not perform the job required of them because of their religious beliefs, then perhaps they should not have that job. If it is against your religion to harm other, then don't join the army. If your religion requires you to empose your religion on others, don't become a public servant.

Quote:

I am saying without spirituality, yes, the masses (society) as a whole will eventually lack morals. Yes, you can seperate the individual from society. We are not inherently born knowing right from wrong. As society gets away from spirituality, you begin to see immorality, you begin to see crime rise, you begin to see people doing whatever they choose to do. This has been proven in the Old Testament, this was a serious downfall of the Roman empire (when they got away from worshipping their Gods. It was a downfall of the Egyptian civilization. It was a downfall for all major civilizations when they got away from spirituality. The USSR was a "spiritual" free government and they did not work.

No.

The Roman Empire(s) fell after they adopted christanity, RCC in the west and Orthadoxy in the east.

Egypt was forced into Christanity in 389 A.D. by the Emperor Theodosius. Egypt was a province before this, but it was still somewhat Egyptian. This was the end of the Egyptian Empire, when it stopped being Egyptian and was a Christian, Roman province.

The USSR was never a "spirtually free" nation. Stalin might have tried to empose atheism on the people, but the USSR was a peasant nation. The peasant farmers clung to their orthadoxy as it was one of the few things they had. Furthermore, three generations is no where near enough time to remove religion from a place where it has been strongly rooted for at least a milenia.

Quote:

First, I have no problem with you calling me on my views and beliefs civilly and without calling names or implying you are so much greater than I because you are enlightened and I am something lesser than you. Especially whan I have done nothing but show you respect.

I don't consider suggesting that people without spirituality are immoral to be respect.

Quote:

Secondly, morality is not inherent, you are not born knowing right from wrong. It has been taught to you through traditions (which in this country have been Judeo-Christian, however Hindu, Buddhism, even Islamic traditions have been incorporated) and trial and error and observations.

Religion is not inherently moral, only actions have any moral standing.

Quote:

Yes, this is EXACTLY part of your argument as you feel left out in your beliefs by a "Christian society" because in a previous posting and I will not go back to quote it, a person argued they felt pressured to say "under God" because if they didn't they would be subject to dirty looks from others. So, by my not believing in your argument you are doing that to me.

Can you explain ? I don't understand what you mean by "So, by my not believing in your argument you are doing that to me. ".

Quote:

You are the one without facts, without seperating emotion from a philosophical and educational debate. You see things your way and have resorted to name calling to avoid facts and argue without emotion.

Warrants and proof please.
Also, calling an ignorant statement "ignorant", should hurt the statement's feelings not the person.

Quote:

You are the one cutting and pasting parts of my argument and twisting things I say instead of reading with open mind ALL that I am saying.

I have read what you posted with an open mind. Then, I decided the best way to disagree with you is to go line-by-line and de-construct your arguments. This type of reply makes the debate easier to follow.

*snip* (This is where I declined to argue about what an abusive person I am.)

Quote:

To take this farther and yes, I know the left like I know the back of my hand. IF you are dead set against government recognizing religion, then the Muslim lady in Fla. who by her faith had to wear a veil on her driver's license would be denied by you, because that would endorse a religious practice. YET, many who are arguing total seperation, argue that lady is well within her rights and government should honor her religious values. That is not a seperation of church and state though, because the government has to recognize her religious values. Total seperation means government cannot recognize ANY religious values and therfore CANNOT OFFER ANY DEVIATION OF LAWS TO ACCOMODATE A RELIGIOUS VALUE. Therefore she would be unable to wear her veil. Therefore she has no frredom of religious practice.

Is the lady a state actor? No? Then, they were wrong in not letting her take the picture that way. I'm for total government seperation with religion, however; that lady is not acting as part of the government (public servant on the job) and thus can do as she pleases.


On that note, I'm done with this particular thread. The SCOTUS did the right thing by ruling on a lesser issue.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

cthulu23

At the risk of ruing the love fest here, I have to point out that since both theism and atheism are unprovable propositions that they both count as a faith-based belief.

While I wouldn't call atheism a form of spirituality, the two are not mutually exclusive. Atheism is simply a denial of the existence of god...a belief, but not a spiritual practice. One can have spiritual beliefs that do not include god.

Yakk

Atheism, depending on what definition you use, can include agnostic-like philosophies. Ie, it isn't that they believe there is no god, but rather that they haven't seen any decent arguements or evidence that there is a god, so do not believe in god.

("believing there is no god" and "not believing there is a god" are subtly different statements.)

Edit:seplling.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

filtherton

God isn't universal.


Let me emphasize this even though it has already been mentioned: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN A GOD. For a pledge to have meaning it should be written so that people aren't excluded from honestly taking it. You can't honestly pledge allegiance to a nation under god if you don't believe in god. It makes the pledge meaningless to a significant portion of americans(not that it wasn't completely meaningless already).

Furthermore, there are thousands of ways in which america is not a nation under god. Here's a few: we treat poor people and the sick like garbage. We worship money more than virtue. We wear clothing made of mixed fabric.

To all those who think they would be censored be the removal of under god: let me aquaint you with one of your own arguments: No one would be forcing you not to say under god. Actually it would just mean taking "under god" out of the pledge. You could still say it.

America is not under god. Democracy is the antithesis of religion. God doesn't need your vote in november and god isn't bound by anything as insignificant as a constitution. What is the point of having a democracy if your implicit belief is that it is really being ruled under the power of an unquestionable diety? It jsut doesn't make any sense.

Mojo_PeiPei

It we are not a nation under God (God of Nature, Creator of man) then all of our basic rights and freedoms endowed by him are meaningless.

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

brianna

only if you believe that all right and freedoms are somehow related to god. i don't.

Mojo_PeiPei

Founding Fathers seemed to think so.

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

Kadath

And they were, of course, infallible.

__________________
it's quiet in here

pan6467

From The Declaration Of Independance. Of course those who argue for government to not recognize GOD will argue these men that wrote this were uneducated and we are just so much more advanced in our knowledge.
===============================
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --"
==============================

You can go read the whole document yourself at:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

A sidenote: after re-reading it, it seems like a lot of the grievences the Colonies had against Britain's government, ring true today with ours.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

For those thinking this is just about the pledge to me, it isn't. I have watched as our country has given and given to people who dislike things, and some were fair and needed but some like God is getting ridiculous.

These people will not be happy until GOD is taken totally out of anything government.

The argument I gave above about the muslim lady that by religion had to wear a veil for her picture on her DL, was argued by saying she is not a "government actor".

But he missed the argument. If government recognizes any one religious tradition they must honor them all.

Therefore BY that nature there cannot be a true seperation. Not to mention the elected religious people who govern whether consciously or not will vote by their religious backgrounds and teachings. Are we to tell a huge majority they cannot vote for religious men/women because that is not seperation of church and state. That we are to elect only those that do not believe.

Every session of Congress is opened by a prayer.

As for atheism, it is a belief in nothing and it is a conscious decision to lack spirituality, and that in itself is a belief and a spirituality.

A total indifference to spirituality and religion is a lack of any belief. Like hatred, true hatred towards someone is not anger, dislike and whatever negative emotion. True hatred is a lack of any emotion towards that person. The emotion most believe or say is hatred is an overwhelming amount of negative emotion towards the subject.

As far as whether or not a spirituality of some form promotes morals moreso than none, ask the millions upon millions who have used a 12 step recovery or similar program, or a spiritual belief system to recover and live a better life. Tell them that there is no higher power.

Of course there are people who have recovered without a program or spirituality program but the percentages and actual recoveries are so heavily supportive of 12 step and spirituality, there is no true competition. That to me is all I need as evidence of a higher power, and when I did release myself to a program and found a higher power I could believe in my life, like the millions and millions before and after me has gotten far better than when I lacked one.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Lebell

As a Christian and an American, I would like the phrase "under God" removed from the pledge (and the 10 commandments removed from court houses) for one reason: I never never EVER want to have to pledge "One nation under Allah" or "One nation under Buddah" or "One nation under Vishnu" etc. because Christians become the minority voice one day.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

brianna

this has absolutely no baring on reality -- the founding father's are not god nor were they psychic, so what they think about whether or not god endows us with all of our rights is irrelevant, their opinion on this topic is no more or less valid then yours or mine. we are no more or less likely to lose rights or morals if we are no longer "one nation under god" than we were likely to gain morals when that phrase was added to the pledge in the 50s.

pan6467

So the same great men YOU praise for the Constitution and the 1st Amendment that you are using, you are now ripping? Makes sense, use what you want disregard and tear apart the parts that don't serve your causes purpose. (We all do it, so don't think I am singling you out, it's the hypocrasy that is the US.)

Again, Brianna, It's not about the pledge for me. It's about preserving MY country's heritage ALL OF IT. This country was founded on A SPIRITUALITY.

I want to go to my town square and see Santa and a Christmas tree and hear carollers. I want to be able to see my kids go Easter egg hunting in the park. If people of the Jewish, Hindu, Buddha, Moslem faiths wish to have that same park and town square display their religious relics, so be it. It may actually help us learn from other faiths and erase prejudices.

As for the 10 Commandments in court, if the judge is Muslim let him put up verses of the Koran, Hell, let a Buddhist judge put a Buddha on his bench. IT IS HIS WORKSPACE. If he can't do his job without prejudice then the people will vote him out of office, people are not thet stupid, although I know some way out lefties wish to believe they are better and far more intelligent than the masses.(And there are many judges who have prejudices that don't have any religious symbols in their court so the by having a symbol he uses religion to justify, is rather BULLSHIT.)

The point is religion, no matter who, what, where you are is always going to be a part of your surroundings (well at least in any populated area. Even the tribes of Africa and Pygmys and those not "civilized" have spirituality). You will not make it ever disappear and you cannot ever seperate it from the government of ANY country or community. All you can do is share your views and educate others as to your beliefs (or disbeliefs).

If you keep fighting, and demanding people take away that which in some way makes them feel good, you are in for a severe fight, that you will not win. Even if you take out tyhe words GOD from government, have it so they can't legally recognize any religion, you will cause more hatred over that fact and people will eventually rebel.

In fact, knowing that Christianity is a very, very high majority of people, I would venture to say that there would be a push for an amendment to recognize GOD. And that would be a travesty.

And for those who would disagree, look at the push for an amendment over the definition of marriage.

Look at me, I truly didn't care for a long time but it has gotten ridiculous because you people do not stop, you keep wanting more and more and more.

Why instead of all this fuss, can you not educate people about your views? Perhaps more people would listen and eventually changes would happen. BUT, these people would rather act like a martyr and demand change now and not settle for ANY compromises.

I'm tired of it. That's why partisan politics have gotten so bad. Tired of people wanting everything their way and not willing to compromise at all. It is destroying our country faster than BUSH, Terrorists, an illegal war, class warfare, globalization, whatever.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

MSD

Why don't we leave a two-second pause instead of a phrase and let people say what they want, whether it's "Under God," Under Allah," "Under whatever I believe in," or nothing at all.

I am not a Christian, I am not an Atheist, I refuse to accept any religion as the Truth, and I want to be free to choose whether or not to say "Under God." I didn't particularly like my school district's "Say the pledge or you're suspended for two weeks" policy, which reinforced mindless repetition and devaluation of its meaning.