Supreme Court allows "Under God" on a technicality...
 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040615/D8376H9G0.html

It's pretty unfortunate that the court didn't render a ruling on the issue. Personally, I doubt that it would stand up in the court, but now we may never know.

Although I'm not passionate about the issue, I do feel that the phrase is not integral to the Pledge, especially considering that it has only been a part of it since the 1950's. Why is so much importance placed on the inclusion of "under god?"

this feels a little like dodging the issue, frankly i think we as a nation were denied an actual opinion on this case for not good reason.

Looks like somebody REALLY didn't want to do the test case thing with this particular case. Which make me wonder, why did the SCOTUS even take this case if they were just going to waffle it on a technicality ?

Edit: I use to believe that Ad Homs were poor form but after reading the opinions of the SCOTUS; I learned that Ad Homs are legitimate arguments.

/The more you know PSA music

What's interesting to me is that the issue of custody wasn't weeded out in the lower courts. If that's such a big deal, how did it make it through two levels of the justice system? Was it a new argument introduced by the solicitor at this level?

To me this sort of thing isn't important.
I don't care about it either way they eventually decide.

The founding fathers, when they wrote "seperation of church and state" meant to keep any ONE religion out of government and instead meant for us to be able to freely worship the God of our choice.

I do not believe they meant nor intended us to take GOD's name out of our venacular. It does not say which GOD in the pledge or on money.

Everyone needs spirituality and a belief system (even atheists have a belief system and spirituality.... They believe in nothing, BUT it is still very much a belief in spirituality that they hold). GOD can refer to anything any one person places that value on. Therefore, saying GOD is no more offensive than saying love.

But it is important for us to keep GOD in our society because the value of belief (whatever it maybe) still outweighs no belief infinitely.

Yes, more wars and deaths have been attributed to religion than for all other reasons combined........ BUT it is also in the name of religion that man has achieved his greatest charity works and love and all that is good.

(PS no one forces or should ever force a kid to say GOD in school during the pledge. Hell, when I went to school and we were taught to say it every morning before school started, 1/2 the kids just mumbled through it anyway.)

Saying "One Nation Under God" is not endorsing any religion, that is what the constitution holds, not a "wall of seperation". As stated in the post above it makes no declaration into any denomination, and as far as God the creator goes, he plays an intergral(sp) role in the foundation and function of our country, to say otherwise is both unamerican and ignorant.

Chalk one up for sensible American's, I'm sick of quasi-liberal facist activist judges, as well as god hating groups like the ACLU.

"What do the words "one nation under God" mean? It could have a few different meanings, but its original intent can be seen in President Eisenhower's statement when "under God" was added in June 1954:

In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/page/em...ive/ID/453.htm

Actually, "under god" has one very specific meaning.

/the more you know music

"One Nation Under God" has a meaning, it was meant to take a stand against the Godless evil Soviet Union and the Soviet heroes. People harp on religion, but in our more intelligent and "progressive" years atheism and anti judeo-christian sentiments are responsible for some of the vicious and abhorrent crimes ever committed (read: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin/Lenin, Saddam).

Eh I'd like to believe thats true Mojo but as pointed out by nanofever, its original intent was pretty clear...

As to the actual ruling, I don't really care either way, it seems too trivial to matterbut I'm dissapointed it was waffled in the Supreme Court... seems like on one hand they didn't like it and on the other weren't sure if they should remove or keep it

Why do you want to play the history game? The fact that assholes hide behind beliefs is nothing new in this world and attributing a single person's actions to all that hold the same belief structure is rather obtuse.

That goes for all people regardless of creed.

And as for .

I can spit bile too, but when I do it I like to have things called sources that affirm my bile spiting; otherwise, I would look like a foolish person. I'm not suggesting that you are indeed a foolish person. I'm just pointing-out my particular beliefs on the subject.

Nano is wrong, the only reason people read it like he does was because truly this country was founded under the Judeo-Christian philosophy and influence. Nano has said nothing, nor shown anything that could be considered a valid argument as to why the pledge in its current state is an endorsement of the christian or Judeo God.

You are right, I wasn't clear in my previous post. Lets see if this is a bit clearer:

"...Opponents of the ruling may say the phrase "under God" does not specify the deity of Christianity and Judaism, but includes Allah and any other supreme being recognized by a monotheistic religion. For anyone to say this, they must ignore the cultural history of this nation. This immediately ostracizes atheists, polytheists, animists and Shintoists. It is fine to say the phrase does not cause government to discriminate among monotheistic religions, but if you believe in no god, more than one god, or engage in ancestor or spirit worship, then you are left out in the cold. If the argument is made that the phrase does not endorse a specific religion, it still endorses a type of religion, and the very fact that it endorses any kind of religion violates the separation.



Failing that argument, other detractors have claimed the ruling flies in the face of American tradition. God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. America grew out of puritanical English colonies. We always have been a Christian nation. So goes the argument.



While mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, God was never actually mentioned in the Constitution itself. The Pledge of Allegiance did not even contain the words "under God" until 1954. They were added during the Cold War to help set America apart from the "godless communists" it was opposing. This was the same reason the words "In God We Trust" were added to the dollar bill at roughly the same time. Those two phrases in those two conspicuous places have little to do with American tradition. They are less than 50 years old.



As far as breaking from American traditions goes, the Declaration and the Constitution were written by slave owners. Slavery was an integral part of the American culture and economy by the time of the Civil War, and it is likely the "American tradition" argument was used against abolitionists. The habits of founders and years of accepted activity do not make something right, nor do they excuse activists from changing things.



The final argument is that this is an unpatriotic act in the middle of trying times. With our soldiers fighting abroad and our citizens in danger at home, this is not the time to attack American traditions. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Attacking, suing, and protesting are American traditions. Whether right or wrong, protesting the activity of the government is not un-American. It is decidedly patriotic because it is an exercise of the very rights that make our country great. Taking these freedoms for granted and never exercising them is the quickest way to lose them, especially in times like these when the natural inclination is to crack down on certain liberties in the interest of securities.



More than anything though, all of these are ideological, not legal, arguments. The pledge, an official government activity, endorses religion. Therefore, it violates the Constitution.



For the ruling to be overturned, the justification is going to be flawed because it is going to draw on those ideological principles that have no bearing on a judge's job. They are going to have their minds made up about what they want to do, and then figure out how to go about doing it. ..."


http://www.thebatt.com/news/2002/07/...t-518162.shtml

Does that make it clear? If not, I will dive into my collection, and see if I can find my Golden Book series on Constitutional Law. The topical book in the series is entitled "Eisenhower and The Lemon Test". I swear; I don't know how I made it this far without those Golden Books.

With this whole seperation of church and state issue no one seems to remember the actual wording of the amendment that talks about it. The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So isnt taking out Under God a prohibition of a religion?

Well personally I feel the words under god have no place in the pledge, especially since they were added because communists were atheists. That being said the real issue is how much complete bullshit the pledge really is.

Having just graduated last year, I'll tell you that based on my observations of doing the pledge for 13 years of public school, at least 95% of students don't give a flying fuck about the pledge. Most teachers asked you to stand during the pledge, but no one would recite it, they would just wait for it to end so they could sit again. Some teachers didn't even care if you stood or not. In fact, some of the class clowns would recite the pledge really loud as a joke since it would get so quiet in the class when it came on.

I think it would make a lot more sense if each morning you had to read off something in the Bill of Rights. Something that actually teaches the kids the values and morals that this country was founded on.

I agree Dwayne, and to go farther is not allowing a person to say "one nation under God" prohibitting free speech?


Again Mojo would rather attack than read the whole post I wrote. 2 things wrong with what you posted here Mojo.

1) I defended having God said, granted not the way you wanted. Saying GOD only gives the word the value you put on it. If you hold no belief in GOD then the word means nothing aand why would that person worry about saying it? But if one should have to say GOD then NO Government entity (including schools) should be allowed to dictate value on that word, by saying it is only the Judeo-Christian God and not Allah, or Buddah or the Great Mother, etc.

2) The ACLU is neither Godless nor Ultra-Liberal, they are in fact a very needed part of our country to defend our rights. Without groups, like the ACLU, watching government and protecting our rights, our rights could be severely compromised. They are helping Limbaugh, are they not?

I support and donate to the ACLU, and I am not Godless, I know a lot of people who donate from the ultra right to the ultra left because the ACLU defends the rights of everyone unbiasedly.

Original intent though again only holds value if that intent is still there. If one believes in a polytheistic religion then they can say "GODS".

Again, by taking the word "GOD" out is prohibitting free speech and as Dwayne pointed out inhibitting religion. You are not forced to say "GOD" or to have any value behind the word if you do say it.

I see the argument on both sides and to be quite honest , I truly don't see the issue.

Those who fight against saying the word have put a self imposed value on the word themselves. The fact that the government does not force one to even say the word is another point in which one has to scratch their head and ask what the issue is over then?

Just as I can see how the question why is it important to be in the pledge to begin with? One surely does not need to say GOD in the pledge to a country to affirm their belief in GOD.

A true atheist would not have any value on the word and therefore it would mean nothing to them and hold the same value as QWRAHGVKHFD to anyone else.

Seems like much ado about nothing to me. It does no harm to remain there. Should the next step be to take the term "religion" out of the first amendment? After all, it does imply a belief in a higher power.

Well said pan, and I agree. Damn, I think that's the first time that you and I have done so (or if we have in the past, I just haven't mentioned it).

I don't think the girl's mother took a stand against her father pursuing the case until after cert. was granted.

this sort of naive attitude about other people and their beliefs is exactly why we should remove the phrase. our country had a horrible tendency to overreact when it came to communism and the "under god" phrase is a leftover relic from those days. i'd like to put such ridiculous stereotyping behind us.

I notice a lot of people here are saying this is a lot of hooplah about nothing and that they don't care. Well I just wanted to say that it isn't just one attention-starved Californian who did this. I cared very much about the outcome of this case, and the fact that the "under God" clause was in the pledge did make me feel uncomfortable when I was in school. Just because you don't think it is a big deal doesn't mean you can write it off that it isn't important to anyone else either. Obviously kids don't have to say "under God", but be realistic, that's making that person feel singled out because they have to do something different. Believe it or not, that phrase does imply certain things about America and it can make someone with different beliefs, like an atheist, feel very isolated or detached. That, contrary to the belief of some of you here, matters very much.

Not to hijack, but since people were getting down on me for not putting forth any bit of substance to my claims here we go...

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/...ryArchives.asp

Here are a smidgen of cases where the ACLU has attacked Christianity. The site didn't even get into all the cases that get filed around Christmas, which is a FEDERAL HOLIDAY celebrating the birth of one of histories most influential philosophers... Jesus. If you truly think the ACLU is as righteous as you say it is, perhaps you should do some additional digging and see some of the more ridiculous cases they file in their quest of eliminating Christianity.

Just as you have a right to your opinion, so do the rest of us.

You are free not to say the last two words and are free not to say any of the pledge at all. How many times has the pledge been said with every single person doing and saying the exact same things? In every instance that I've been in there is a gamut of activity and speech going on during the pledge from people being on different verses to people joking and smacking each other. I doubt many people take note of anyone not saying the last two words.

I guess I'd fall into the camp of people who are sick and tired of hearing about how such and such "forces me to feel singled out" or "different". Fine. Gym class makes some people feel "singled out" and "different" should that be banned as well?

In the grand scheme of things, wars, slavery, torture, terrorism, murder, etc,etc,etc I'd have to say it really doesn't matter very much. But hey, that's what's great about our country, I can have a different opinion.

Those looked like attacks on Religion/State interaction.

As for the ruling itself: The SCOTUS is required to settle cases on lesser grounds before it settles them on constitutional grounds.

SCOTUS doesn't make constitutional interpritation decisions on hypothetical situations.

As for "under God", it is an endorcement of deism. Deism is a pretty large umbrella: most people in the USA are some kind of deist.

Religions are strong enough to stand without government support, and governments are strong enough to stand without religious support.

Say that to the Catholics and Jews who died in the gulags and the work camps. Say that to the Poles, hell say it to the whole eastern bloc.

or say it too the people who were targeted by the mccarthy movement and had their entire lives ruined. the cold war was not a moment of greatness for either of the nations involved and to say that the entirety of the USSR was godless and evil is naive and ridiculous come from you or from Eisenhower.

Why is it in this country just the word GOD is cause for fighting. I just don't understand what the fuck. We are the greatest country in the world and we are constantly fighting amongst ourselves over stupidity.

We are destroying what made us great by destroying our heritages, our history and most of all our rights because someone finds offense in how another practices that right, even though the one practicing their right is is doing so in a non offensive way.

To say it makes you feel uncomfortable, I am sorry, BUT you have no right to tell another what they can or cannot say. To tell one they cannot say "under GOD" is the same as them telling you, you have to say it. In either case it is wrong.

Come on now people, the word has ONLY the meaning YOU put on it. Is it that hard to understand, if you put no meaning to the word why are you so uncomfortable that you cannot allow others to say it?

The only solution is to take the whole pledge out of the school and I'm sorry that should never even be an option.

It is on issues like this I can honestly say that the freedoms we enjoy are taken to extremes. If a very small percentage finds something wrong they yell about it until the right that supports whatever the problem is gone, thereby affecting the majority's ability to practice that right.

I am left and very liberal, but for the love of God I do not understand nor affiliate myself with people who are so offended by anything religious or of historical value that they must take away others rights.

no one is asking people not to say anything -- the issue is whether or not the government can endorse a religion by making it part of a nationally recognized pledge.

Appeal to Emotion.
Strawman.
Neglecting anti-communist dictators who murdered thousands with the CIA's approval, think South America.
Shoddy argumentation all around Mojo.

*golf clap*

Now lets get this track back to the topic, the ruling of the SCOTUS on the Pledge.

On that note, will the people saying the "under god" phrase is ambigious or could have any meaning please read my above post on the history of the phrase "under god. The phrase CLEARLY means a Abrahamic god which is endorsing a religion above others and thus fails the Lemon test. Failing the Lemon test equals being unconstitutional

I guess I really do need to pull-out my Golden Book series on constitution law.

I was at a client today. He was talking about a public park with a monument to the Ten Commandments. The local government is "selling" the 10'x10' piece of land with the monument to get around the separation of church and state.

[educational aside]

It's SEPARATION, not SEPERATION.

[/educational aside]

He was pleased with the way the government tricked the public. Pleased. Just fucking solve the problem, people. Don't avoid it.

I should also point out he said it was done to get around the "Southern Baptist athiests." I waited until he was done and asked "Did you just say Southern Baptist athiests?!"

No you are telling people they can't say "under God" by taking it out or by forcing schools to not say the pledge.

Just because something may have a history representing The Judeo-Christian God does not mean it still has to. When added to the pledge that was the God of the masses here. Today, people would like to have us believe otherwise, but with the vastness of different religions and religious practices GOD now means whatever that person places the value on it to be.

People (on both sides) can argue this till they are blue in the face with me, but GOD is just a word that only has the meaning the individual puts on it.

There's that comedy bit forget who did it, where he says, "instead of calling shoes, shoes I have chosen to call them feet holders. Shoe to me now means tv remote control. I like calling it shoe better, because it is easier and I say that more than I say foot holders. So my tv remote control is now my shoe and my shoes are now entitled my foot holders."

Values on words people place different values on different words. The word GOD is no different.

Again, I ask why are people so uncomfortable or trying to find so many reasons to get out of saying a word, even to the point that these people are trying to get others who have placed value on the word to not be allowed to say it in government and public places?

Why are these people so adamant about destroying our history and culture to reflect ONLY WHAT THEY WANT SEEN?

That question would better be adressed to Eisenhower than me. He, along with the Knights of Columbus, decided to change the pledge from a netural to a pro-abrahamic god statement. In doing this, he reversed 64 years of the pledge being neutral.

So I also wonder, Why in 1954 were people " so adamant about destroying our history and culture to reflect ONLY WHAT THEY WANT SEEN" ?

Could somebody perhaps point me to where the government knowingly put the "Under God" as an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God, seriously? Whether it is applied or assumed, which I won't argue seeing as to our foundation has a lot of influence from said God and his philosophies, where does it say it? I will again state how those who feel it is a "violation" should read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and then show where the difference/problem is.

Nano, I would be more apt to say okay with the pledge if that were just it. But it is not, a VERY SMALL minority in this country want GOD excluded from everything in the government and in communities.

I am sorry but I am tired of making concessions to appease a vocal minority over anything anymore. There are many things I am vocal about but I don't demand that government infringe on others rights, to appease me.

Again, history aside, if you have no value on the word it means nothing. The ONLY reason it can upset anyone is because they have put a negative value on the word and therefore feel they must change everyone's view.

When are people going to realize that the more you turn to government to solve problems of minute trivial substance like this, you are in fact asking government to take more rights away? IT is nothing more than a freaking word with only the value YOU put on it.

If you choose to believe it is solely the government's way to make everyone worship the Judeo-Christian God then so be it. Don't say the word in the pledge, don't say the pledge, I don't give a damn that is your right.

BUT DO NOT CONTINUE TO PLAY THESE POWER GAMES BECAUSE YOU OBJECT TO THE VALUE OTHERS PUT ON A WORD. iT'S BULLSHIT AND IN THE END TAKING RIGHTS AWAY FROM ME AND MY FUTURE GENERATIONS AND I AM TIRED OF LOSING RIGHTS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE PLAYING GAMES OF POWER AND SO DENSE THEY REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THEIR WAY OR NO ONE CAN PLAY.

Sorry but come on there are people starving, jobs being lost, a massive deficit, partisan politics that have gotten so bad nothing is being done, an education and infrastructure falling apart, an illegal war that is sucking the money dry, AND PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT THE VALUE PLACED ON ONE WORD THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SAY?????

we don't have to worry about terrorists or other countries, we are very effectively destroying ourselves from within, because everybody wants everything their way. GROW THE FUCK UP AND MOVE ON.

To be fair, the anger that is shown on both sides of this issue illustrate that neither is very interested in "moving on."

Holy balls, have YOU hit the nail on the head. I'm raised Baptist, and although I've sort of shrugged off the strictness of what I was raised, I AM still Christian. This kind of silliness is just, well, silly. To make a big "to-do" over something this small, it's pathetic. Some people are to full of themselves to realize that the past 228 years of this country's history have been based off a start around God, His Bible, and Christ like living and thinking. I find it amusing that those that really want God taken out of our lives (and by that I mean those that initiate actions and lawsuits like this...and possibly those that are so adamantly in agreement that they'd fight to the death over it) are also the ones that probably need Him most.

Good point. But to be honest and perhaps I am getting older and not as left and liberal as I want to believe I am, but I am tired an angry and bitter over losing MY ancestors traditions, the history of our great country, and being treated as if my rights don't matter because some little minority chooses to fill up our legal system with bullshit lawsuits that beg government to solve all their problems with the society my ancestors fought and died for while trying to make a better life for their progeny.

I am tired of hearing how the traditions and morals of this country are too religious. It is that way in every country. Go to any other Judeo Christian founded country and ask their courts to banish the 10 Commandments from their courts or take God's name out of anything public. You would be laughed out of court.

I just truly am tired of watching the morals of this country decline. We can blame the press, we can blame whatever, but the truth is when you take away a spiritual foundation of a nation they will in essence decline into immoral and unethical behaviours. That is in fact what we are seeing in our country now. Divorce up, crime up, drug and all addictions up, this country was founded on people helping others and communities taking care of their own and we are so far from that because we have begged government to interfere in everything. And the irony is the people who cry about the government are the ones begging for more laws and more interference from them.

Since the phrase "under god" has only been around since the 50's, it is a bit inaccurate to say that it represents a facet of American history.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Founding Fathers seemed to think so.

And they were, of course, infallible.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

pan6467: my post was not directed at you. i know that you think it's not just the pledge, i've read your posts, but since my response was only in regards to whether or not being "one nation under god" somehow endows us with rights that we may not have otherwise I don't see why you think this is a sign that i've ignored the opinion that you've reiterated repeatedly.

I appologize then Brianna. I am sorry for constantly repeating myself but this is a very passionate issue with me.

And to be honest "under God" in the pledge isn't that big of a deal, if it were to stop there. I just know it won't though, because it never ends.

All of it? This country was founded with slavery and no voting for women. Do you really want to keep all of it? That argument is ludicrous. It's not hypocrisy to use what's right and try to fix what's wrong.

In 1954, post McCarthy era "Red craze," when communists were seen hidden under every rock and in every person who was considered "unpatriotic", the Knights of Columbus began a modern day crusade. It was through their efforts that "under God" was added. Read the story in their own words in this PDF document on their web site K of C story of the Pledge
http://www.kofc.org/about/activities...nvolvement.cfm
(The story as about 1/2 way down the page).

There are groups attempting to restore the original Pledge. Among these is the Pledge Restoration Project.
This is a good site with a lot of links, information and history.
http://65.18.154.108/The_Pledge/the_pledge.html

I support restoring the pledge because children ARE punished and ostracised for NOT saying it. My kids were denied breakfast and lunch at school and harrassed by staff for not saying the pledge. I have my own case filed with my local ACLU office in case the school starts up again.

Our reasons for NOT saying the pledge are not purely religious. They are also tied to the fact that the K of C made the push to get the words "under God" added. The K of C honors a man that nearly wiped out an entire race. What are we teaching our children when we tell them Columbus is a hero? That murder is ok...

No it's not. The hypocrasy comes when people look at only one thing and are blind to the rest.

Gun control and the NRA are good examples. Each looks at the amendment to bear arms.

To me, it is just funny how we praise our freedoms given, praise how great the DOI and CON. are then when we see something we dislike we blindly focus on that one item.

There are some things that are definately outdated and have been taken care of through the amendment processes.

I regret to inform that there are a significant number of people in this world who do not have a monotheistic belief system, and those people do not deserve to be ostracized. Having "under God" in the pledge ostracizes those people, and is an example of the government respecting the practice of a specific form of belief.

I personally am agnostic. I do not have anti-religious agenda, I just want everyone to be treated equally.

Now for that you have a very strong case. I do not think a school has the right to dictate what you can or cannot say (provided it is not vulgar and inciteful). In essence the school has taken your children's 1st amendment to free speech away and that is wrong.

I too want ALL treated equally, and therefore my stand to end the idiocies going on.

We cannot change history, Columbus did what he thought was right at the time, Puritans burning witches, slave owners did what they thought right at the time, Prohibitionists, McCarthy and so on, all did what they believed was best for their community at their time. I cannot condemn people in the past for doing what they believed and what the masses allowed to happen, because I was not there and they do not know what we know today as far as right from wrong.

It is easy to condemn anyone in history, but unless you were there, subject to exactly the education and beliefs they were, who knows what they would have truly done then?

Anyway, sorry for the change in topic and the ranting...... but I am the Mad Heretic afterall and being such I cannot allow myself to make too much sense.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think most people need to grow a thicker skin.

I've been reading this thread and watching it develop for a while now, and I've got a few questions for pan. I don't mean to attack, but there are a few things in your arguments that I don't understand, and you seem to have become something of the spearhead for the "leave it in" side. I am personally for the removal of the "under God" phrase, but I would like to understand the other side of the argument, especially from someone as fervent as you seem to be who claims not to relgious, but rather spiritual. This is how I consider myself, as well. So,

1. You have repeated several times that the word GOD has no intrinsic value, but rather whatever value you place on it. I have to draw distinction with this idea, at least in this context. Yes, to use one of your examples, black people have transformed the word "nigger" into a slang term and devalued it of its meaning, at least in some contexts. However, if I (as a middle-class white dude) were to walk into a predominately black neighborhood with a bullhorn and start chanting " What's up my niggers? What's kickin'? Anybody up for a game of Parcheesi?" do you honestly think that the typical response would be " Hey, look at that guy. Seems ok to me...shit, I could go for a game of Parcheesi..." ? I don't. I think I would have my ass kicked six ways from Sunday within five minutes. The reason being that that phrase has meaning, especially in certain contexts.

I believe that, similarly, in the context of a Pledge of Allegiance to country , that the term "God" has a specific meaning. It doesn't mean biscuit, for example. It doesn't mean nickel. It doesn't even mean "Twelve major Greek gods, all the associated demi-Gods, and a couple of caraffes of wine thrown in for good measure." It clearly is derived from a Judeo-Christrian background, if not the relgion itself, and at very minimum implies a belief in a personified deity, and non a pantheon of deities, or a more wholistic natural view of spirituality. Wriggle it however you like, that's still the implication. Remember, saying the pledge isn't discretionary - when I was in school, you had to say it . Period. I think that this is pretty common. I don't think they have a minute of quiet time at the begining of the day, where you can either say the pledge or pass notes. Which leads me to...

2. You claim that, yes, it is possibly linked in some way to a Judeo-Christian background, but that it is part of our history. Then, when the facts are brought up that it is not, in fact, historical truth that "Under God" has always been a part of the Pledge, but rather was added in 1954 in response to the Red Scare and McCarthy, and this Knights of Columbia angle (that I personally was unaware of) you state that this is irrelevant, and that the role of the phrase in the Pledge shouldn't be affected by this, because it reflects a spritual / political reality of the founding of our nations. This, to me, is interesting.

I grew up in S.C., where up until about two or three years ago, we had the Battle Flag of the Confederate States on top of our State house. Supporters of the Flag remaining on the State house used many of the same arguments that you have used. Removal of the Flag would remove a part of Southern history, that the spirit behind the flag was "Heritage, not Hate." It was brought up that the flag was only placed on top of the State House in 1964, in response to the court ruling in Plessy vs. Fergusson for integration of public schools, and the downfall of Jim Crow legislation and the policy of "Separate, but Equal." Supporters of the flag also claimed that this was irrelevant, and that they didn't intend for the flag to carry the message of "Hey black people, either accept being second class citizens or get the hell out of our state." but rather "we are proud of our Confederate soldiers, and want to honor this part of our history." Very well. A few of them may, although I suspect that many of the ardent supporters of the flag were and are racists, because I grew up with them. However, it's really a moot point.

The point is that any black person looking at that flag would have to see it as a symbol of their years of slavery, whether it was intended that way or not. Even if it were not put up in 1964, but had been atop the state house since the end of the Civil War, they would see it that way. It specifically excluded them. They could pretend that it honored their ancestors who had to fight in the Confederate Army, but understandably relatively few did / do.

I see your claim that the taint of the Redscare context of the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge should not be offensive to Atheists or people who believe in non mono-theistic religions, and the fact that the inclusion of the phrase wouldn't offend them even without this context in an analogous manner. The fact is, if you're from one of these backgrounds, it does exclude you, and probably would offend you or single you out. Unless you place the value of the word God to mean something else. Besides God. Which I don't think your average person is going to do, much less your average kid in grades K-12. They aren't sitting around debating the finer points of philosophy and how they fit into a tautological understanding of the pledge. They say the pledge, and when it comes to the phrase "under God" I guarrantee you that most have a picture in their mind of what is intended , regardless if it is consistent with their beliefs or the beliefs of their household.

In conclusion, allow me to say that I understand what I consider to be the heart of your position, and I agree that the attempt to remove any notion of spirituality and various relgions completely from society is foolish and stoopid. Yes, with two o's. That's how stupid I think it is. It flies in the face of learning to appreciate diversity and respect other subsets of cultures. I agree that I would prefer that Christmas festivals be allowed in public places in the season, but also that such festivals as the Festival of Lights from India or perhaps something commemorating Rammadan be encouraged, or at least allowed if groups from these societies want to throw the party to share their culture with others. However, I personally feel that you may have picked the wrong battle with the Pledge. If you said that you were adamently opposed to a Christian group not being allowed to hold a Nativity scene in the town hall, which people were not forced or coerced to attend, then I would back you 100%. And tell those Nazi-ass shiteating people in town hall to go straight to hell, hell, hell. But on this one, you're taking a stand to leave a specific mention of a phrase which is overtly associated with the presupposition of relgion, in place in a pledge which is nominally intended to show fealty to a secular, inclusive American government, and which children are forced to recite every day before school. I agree that too much money is being spent on this farce, and that we have better things to spend our time on, but I also believe that the phrase should simply be removed and we should be allowed to move on to other things.

^^^^^
<<<<< hanging from the nuts of pigglet.

Pan wrote:I have to disagree. What is happening is that other religions are NOT being given the same voice as Christianity- Christians refuse to share the spotlight. People of other religious faiths are left hearing the, "the U.S. is a Christian nation if you don't like it move to another country" speech.

If they can't share then they need to lose their rights as well. They can't have it both ways. I NEVER had a problem with the pledge until post 9/11 when the school began forcing it and telling my kids they were bad for NOT saying it. My kids were and still are the ONLY kids in the school that know the history of the pledge and why it is said. The school just forces the kids to say it with no background info or history lesson.

If Christian people gave equal time and rights to other religious paths I would have no issues with the pledge, Ten Commandments or "in God we trust"; let’s see if the school will post the Asatru Nine Noble Virtues or the Wiccan Rede next to the Ten Commandments…

Many Christians believe they are the "chosen" and vehemently fight ANY religious diversity because theirs is the one true path and the U.S. government recognizes Christianity as the official religion (with the U.S. motto on money and with the pledge). Most don’t even know our original motto was E. Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.

I have met only TWO true Christians who allowed all paths were valid and had no prejudices against other religions. I follow their example and hold no prejudice against any other religion. I just want the equality promised to me in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I appreciate the questions Pigglet and thank you for the chance to explain.

1. While yes, God to many may mean the Judeo-Christian God, in my opinion it is the value you put on it. If I say or read "In God we trust", in essence I put MY value of the meaning on the word there. Noone can tell me what value to place for God. As for, what others mean by the word, that is their decision, and does not affect my understanding of my higher power (or God). This is a conscious decision by me.

As for kids, a parent can talk to them try to explain what they believe and why. The parents can try to help place a value, but eventually as the child grows they will put their own meaning to the word.

In my opinion, and this is not to offend anyone as this is just my opinion, I believe if you are open and honest in your spirituality with your child and open them to others so that they know what is out there, saying God at school will not be an issue.

If you tell your children that the "under God" is just for the Christians and has no meaning to you, then you are effectively teaching them that God can only have that value. Whereas, if you teach your children there are more than just one view of God, and everyone has a differing view, then they will not be troubled by the word.

As for your example with the word "nigger" I truly feel that it is in the context of use. The way you use the word and the value the target has on it is in direct correlation to the response you'll get. The main reason one would say this is to be inciteful to begin with.

2. Like I said it's not so much the pledge, but these people will not stop. They take and want more. It's the pledge, then it's the money, then it's the holidays, then it's any mention of the word in schools and government. Then they'll clamp down on the prayers in Congress and so on. It is not ever going to stop until people like me say enough. Live with it. We are still the freeest country and have the most liberties, but by your demanding things your way you are taking rights away. Because every lawsuit, every law passed is an erosion of more rights for the majority.

If people don't realize they are wasting tax dollars, clogging the court systems up with ridiculous lawsuits INSTEAD of educating themselves and trying to compromise, then eventually we will have no rights, because we have proven we can't handle the responsibilities.

I just have had enough. Instead of taking rights away, if these people truly wanted what was best for the country, they would work with government and the schools around them and find common ground. But they won't, they want what they want and everyone else be damned.

Look what they are doing to broadcast media right now, not to mention Ashcroft's war on porn. Instead of educating and working to keep the rights, these groups would rather take away the rights of all for their purpose.

It might sound radical, might sound like I'm way out there. Perhaps, time will tell. But we have to take a stand on all these groups and say enough. No matter how stupid the object of the stance appears we have to look at the whole picture. And right or wrong this is my stand to say enough.

Quoted for truth.

Pan, thank you for the response. In reading your reply, I see that I think that we are simply going to disagree on some points in this particular situation, although I agree with what I consider to be the basic underlying stance you are taking. As I stated earlier, I simply think that this is not be the place to stand. In fact, in feeling as though I would like to take a similar stand, I end up on the opposite side of the argument. Funny, eh? If your concern is the undue influence that relatively well-funded, highly vocal groups are having on our society (is this essentially your issue, or am I misunderstanding you?), then I would agree with you...at least when the influence is to successfully further objectives which are unconstitutional, or which unduly infringe on the rights of others. In the current case, I see it the following way. There is an increasing vocal, well-funded group of people who are very interested in the phrase "Under God" being removed from the Pledge. There is also a vocal, well-funded group who is very interested in the phrase "Under God" being retained in the Pledge. My guess is that the majority of Americans probably wouldn't pursue this issue on their own, nor would they develop a strong position if neither of these groups were pushing their agenda in the issue. This is the way most issues are argued in society. When confronted with this situation, this specific situation, and asked where I stand, I have to fall on removing the phrase from the Pledge, for the reasons I stated above in my earlier post. I don't see the point in repeating them, but...



Here is the first place we will have to agree to disagree for now. You seem to feel that you can say the phrase "Under God" and have it be inclusive to various forms of spirituality, and have it take on various meanings through parental counseling of the child or expanded consciousness. However, in my opinion, you fail to recognize that some parents and their children apparently do not want to have to do this. They just don't want to say the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge, neither do they want to feel singled out by not saying "Under God" in a classroom of their peers (and do you remember high-school / middle school peer pressure? God it was awful for some people). Saying the Pledge is mandatory in some places, I know because it was where I grew up. Over ten years ago. There is no doubt in my mind that saying the phrase "Under God" has no effect on you, and I commend you for your mental flexability in being able to render this phrase to mean whatever you want it to be. However, I do not think that everyone should be forced to warp the phrase away from it's original intention in order to be able to tolerate it, in a Pledge of Allegiance to the United States. Once again, this singles out people for no apparent reason that I can understand or justify. The inclusion of the phrase "Under God" was not the default - remember it was added merely fifty years ago, and I just don't see how a mandatory Pledge of Allegiance which includes the word God (which presupposes, at minimum a belief in some sort of monotheistic god, and for reasons which I think have been eloquently argued by previous posters, strongly insinuates a Judeo-Christian god (language, historical circumstances surrounding the group that originally lobbied to include it, etc)) can not violate Separation of Church and State.

As another point, remember that this is a Pledge of Allegiance. It's not a pledge to be a good kid and not stick bubble gum under the desk, under God. It's not a Pledge to show up for detention if you get caught trying to peek in the girl's shower, Under God. It's a pledge of Allegiance , to the United States, Under God. You don't think that if you don't believe in a God, that pledging Allegiance to one could be somewhat uncomfortable, or dare I suggest a violation of your constituational rights? I just don't understand that. Not to mention that even if every single kid in public school was a Christian (hypothetical - eliminates the need for any interpretation of the word God.) and wanted to say the Pledge with "under God", I don't really know how I feel about them making that Pledge in a public instituation devoted to the shaping of their minds and, at least partially, their world view, regardless of their views on sprituality. Is that really appropriate, technically?

Quote:

If you tell your children that the "under God" is just for the Christians and has no meaning to you, then you are effectively teaching them that God can only have that value. Whereas, if you teach your children there are more than just one view of God, and everyone has a differing view, then they will not be troubled by the word.

So if you're choice was to teach your children that the concept of God was a load of horse dung, and that all this stuff was a bunch of hocus-pocus that has no more metaphysical reality than, say, Mickey Mouse in Fantasia , and thus they decided not to say the Pledge because it went against their relgious beliefs, which either 1. Got them in detention Hall (where I went to school, for instance, this could happen although it was rarely enforced), or 2. Singled them out from other kids, particularly uncomfortable in say, small town S.C. middle-of-the-Bible-belt land, or if they did say it, forced them to say something they don't believe in, in essence making them hypocrits. You don't think it's easier just not to have it in the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States (not the Pledge of Allegiance to the Land under the provence of a Collection of Loosely-Defined Any Spirtual Belief You Like So Long as It Has a God), and let the kids of various religious faiths pray elsewhere when they like?



Of course, that's exactly what I said. In this case, the context is a bunch of kids being forced to recite a Pledge of Allegiance which specifically includes the ideological concept that you are pledging allegiance to a Nation which is under the provences of a God, in a clearly state-supported instituation and setting. In may not incite anything in you, but don't it might incite some feeling in an Atheist child?

Well, I probably will live with it, at least for now. I'm not going to go out and spend my time and energy on these issues, personally, as there are other things that I need to do. However, I support those that are fighting these issues, and while we're at it, I'm glad you brought up the issue of money and prayers before Congress, because I agree - hopefully they will eventually go after that. As far as the $$$ goes, it's probably best just to not ask you to explain why "In God We Trust" is there, because of course it's the same issue and there's no need to diverge the current discussion. As for prayers before Congress, I don't know enough about it to have an informed position on it, but I would say that a mandatory prayer before the meeting of one of the most powerful governmental bodies in the world sort of sends a message. For the holidays and so forth, I already explained how I, at least, see that - and I haven't really heard so much about holidays being cancelled as much as I've heard about them being added.



I just don't see this, in this context - in fact, I feel as though by this statement you are essentially hoisted upon your own petar. To wit, everyone is this discussion is insisting on things being their own way - if they weren't, we wouldn't be having a discussion. Pot, meet kettle. If it wasn't that way, I'd be saying "Take the 'Under God' business out," and you would be saying....

Nothing, because you wouldn't be insisting on having it your own way. Secondly, I don't think that anyone is trying to take away your right, or anyone's right to say God anywhere, including school. I think that they are trying to preserve the right of kids not to say that they believe in some concept of a God, when in fact they may not...and certainly not to have them pledge allegiance to a God in a publicly supported instituation.

Quote:

If people don't realize they are wasting tax dollars, clogging the court systems up with ridiculous lawsuits INSTEAD of educating themselves and trying to compromise, then eventually we will have no rights, because we have proven we can't handle the responsibilities.

I don't know that civil rights cases are the ones clogging up the court docktets. I think that there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits, but I would guess the court system is more clogged with blue collar legislation, transactional cases, and other legal matters than these cases. I could be wrong, but this is the feeling that I get from my friends who are attorneys. In fact, I think that using this as a justification for wanting this particular suit is pretty much a strawman argument. It sounds good to me, but when I think about it I tend to think that of all the money wasted in our society, in court cases and in other areas, that the money going to fight this case is probably minmal. Not to threadjack, but of the top of my head I seem to recall that we paid some cat in Iraq about $350,000 / month to not do what we said to do and give us bad intelligence. I don't want to get into a discussion of that - I'm just saying that a lot of $$$ flows in our society, for a lot of reasons - and that attaching that stigma as a reason to throw this case away seems invalid to me.



Once again, I can't really speak to what attempts were made, if any to address this issue prior to the court case. I'm not trying to challenge you to quote sources here, as I've not included any either (we seem to be having an ideological debate, not a source-related what happened debate) but do you know that they didn't attempt to approach the school systems about this? I'd be curious to know. Once again, I don't see how anyone's rights are being taken away.

I agree with you 100% here; I just don't think that the two groups lobbying for removing the Pledge stuff and the people fighting to keep porn are the same camp. This really isn't a freedom of speech issue ( as no one is saying an individual can't say the word God on school grounds or anything) - it's a Separation issue, which I would think would actually be trying to protect people's civil rights. They don't happen to be yours in this issue, as far as I can tell. I don't mean that as an attack, I just think you'd have a different take if you couldn't make the phrase God mean whatever canopy of spiritual belief you hold to.

I don't think you're radical or out there - I just think that you may have chosen the wrong stand. As I said before, if you were talking about the nativity scenes and all that, then I would agree with you. If you were arguing that Jewish kids shouldn't be prevented from wearing the little beanie hats to school, then I would agree with you. If you were arguing alot of other things, I think I would tend to agree with you, espeically given what I've seen of some of your posts in other threads. Just not here. In any case, thank you for your responses. As you can no doubt see from this post, I still don' t understand your point about the phrase "Under God" having some dubious, relativisitc meaning - that is so ill-defined that you can make it mean whatever you want it to. If fact, if the meaning is that open to inpretation, it kind of seems like a crappy thing to have in such an official declaration. What if God to me meant "North Korea"? Or "Satan"? Or the "Hot Chick Living Next Door Whom I Regularly Spy On While She's In The Tub"? It's not much of a Pledge if it's so wishy-washy. I agree that special interest groups are, and have been, taking advantage of polical influence, primarily derived from $$$, for too long. I just think it's funny that two people who see that issue the same way, come down on exactly opposite sides of this position.