Under God

[Finch]

There is a Little furor brewing at the moment of a case being brought by Michael Newdow... who hopes to get the phrase "under god" removed from the pledge of aligence... to me this guy seems to just be a militant atheist and secularist... his arguments seem confused and this seems a non-issue...added to all this children in CA are allowed to remain silent if they wish to...so "whats the beef?"

here's a link to the story...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4594537/

[elperromagico]

1. This story's been brewing for quite a while.

Saw a debate on C-SPAN about a week ago between Newdow and some church lawyer or something. Newdow's basic argument is that the Pledge (with "under God") discriminates against atheists/agnostics, which sounds like a perfectly viable argument. The church lawyer's argument was that "under God" is an acknowledgment of this country's alleged foundation on Biblical principles, and that no one is forced to say the Pledge. That argument has some merit as well.

I personally don't care whether "under God" is included or not. Oh no. My objections go much deeper than that. I'm troubled by the fact that children are taught to memorize the Pledge, but nobody really ever bothers to teach them what it means. Worse still, nobody teaches them what this country means, or what it can and should aspire to.

That's a bigger problem than whether or not they have to memorize two extra words, I think.

Edited for clarity.

[wyldwolf]

2. The church's argument lacks merit...

1. Our country wasn't founded on Biblical or christian principles
2. The fact no one is forced to say the Pledge is irrelevant. By inserting "under God," the Pledge violated the establishment clause of the first Amendement.

Why not teach them the preamble to the constitution?

[elperromagico]

7. Well, the fellow presenting the church argument on C-SPAN

just didn't seem to get the point that including the phrase "under God" was an insult to agnostics and atheists.

This thing feels eerily similar to the Ten Commandments debate from last year. I've often wondered in regard to that: What if a predominately Jewish community put up a monument at the courthouse to the Torah? Or a predominately Arab community put up a monument to the Quran? What would the reaction be there?

By the same token, what would the reaction be if the Pledge were changed to "one Nation under Buddha"? Would there not be a hue and cry?

[mikey_1962]

109. What religion does "under God" endorse ...exactly?

The Constitution says that Congress cannot establish a State endorsed religion... The words "under God" does not endorse any religion that I know of...

[truthspeaker]

110. a religious belief in a monotheistic God

obvious when you think about it

[mikey_1962]

114. And what RELIGION is that?

Where is the "Church of the Monotheists?"

Congress cannot endorse a RELIGION

[truthspeaker]

116. and belief in God is a religious belief

There are several religions that believe in a single creator God. The phrase "Under God" endorses all of them at once, while excluding others.

[mikey_1962]

117. Still It does not establish a Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

What RELIGION does the words under God establish?

[truthspeaker]

119. all religions that believe in one God

While excluding all those that don't.

I believe I answered that above as well.

[mikey_1962]

127. Where is the "Church of all Religions that believe in one God"

I would like to visit it....

I think we both made our points;

A religion has a specific set of rituals and dogma that must be followed to be a member of that religion. Mormonism and Catholocism are both monotheistic but far from the same Religion.

I believe the words "under God" does not establish any organized religion.

This Newdow guy who brought the suit is a real creep.... He spent five years in court denying that he was the biological father of this girl. I don't think he has any firm beliefs... just likes to argue...(he'd fit right in in my family)

[truthspeaker]

130. It establishes SEVERAL organized religions

So it's OK to establish a religion, as long as you do several in one shot?

And I think you have your facts wrong on Newdow. He spent five years trying to gain partial custody of his daughter. Not that that has any relevance to the court case.

[RapidCreek]

153. The establishment clause sais nothing about "organized religion"

it sais religion...period. The affirmation of a God is the foundation of all Judeo Christian religions.

Under God infers the existance of God, a supreme being....which you ignorantly and arrogantly suggest is common to all religions. Educate yourself....Buhdism is a non-theistic religion...as are many others. I myself am non-theistic in my spiritual beliefs....I do not and will not affirm the existance of any God...particularily as it applies to allegiance to my country. Because such a disengenous affirmation on my part would invalidate the very pledge that affirmation was a part of.

Would you advocate a pledge which stated the following: "One nation, denying the existance of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for those who don't believe in a supreme being."? Using your logic such a pledge of allegiace should be perfectly acceptable. If it wouldn't be...please explain in detail, why not.



RC

[dpibel]

129. Not even a remotely convincing point

You want to pretend that the "religion" must be a specific sect, e.g., Baptist or Presbyterian or Catholic.

You may want to note (although I rather doubt it) that all of those sects are subsumed under the heading "Christian."

When someone speaks of "Islam," do you insist that they're not talking about a religion? Because, like Christianity, Islam has its own sects. Sunni and Shia come immediately to mind. So, under your specialized definition, talking about a conflict between Islam and the rest of the world (a conflict which I do not acknowledge, but which is popularly discussed at lenght) isn't talking about a religious conflict. Don't know what it is, but it's not about a religion.

[wyldwolf]

141. How many religions call their god "God?"

[RapidCreek]

151. The words "Under God" don't endorse any religion?

Well then, what the fuck do they endorse? Please explain in detail.

RC

[phree]

245. 'under God' endorses ~this~ God ...

'Under God' endorses (of sorts) 'Our Lord', undeniably written in Article VII of the US Constitution itself. 'Our Lord' appears in the most important paragraph in the Constitution, it ratification, and is therefore strongly recognized officially by the USA.

The First Amendment details the limitations of Congress. Congress need not be concerned with respecting the establishment of religion, because that was already handled in the US Constitution itself, 'pre-Congress'.

Note: 'establishment' is a noun. 'respect' is a verb.

[phree]

247. and by the way

I am ~~ N O T ~~ a Repulican.

[dawn]

261. Sure.

Just keep tellin' yourself that.

[charlie]

250. No, it's not in Article 7

It precedes the signatures at the end of the document, marking the time of the occasion using the convention of the Gregorian calendar (anno domini) in English. Hardly a strong official recognition.

[muchacho]

3. shaddap

And get back in line!

I think God should be removed from all National references, the Knights of Columbus be damned!

[elperromagico]

4. I am not a number!

[lostnfound]

5. Me too: they force it on 3 year olds these days. But it's not a good fight

right now, because it's custom-designed to make liberals look unpatriotic and/or anti-religious. There are more important issues at the moment IMO.

[RC]

17. You have to start fighting somewhere.

This is as good as any. The fundies will take any advantage they can get. Religion does not belong in the Pledge.

[klyon]

164. I agree

I'm not even sure the pledge belongs in The Pledge.
Aren't loyalty pledges something done in totalitarian governments to help brainwash and control the subjects?

KL

[Az]

51. Discrimination was certainly amplified

by the audience members in the court when Newdow mentioned that atheists could not win elections. The audience members burst into applause. I hope it backfired on them and demonstrated to the Judges that there is a pernicious acceptance of discrimination against atheists. If the audience had cheered for the comment that no Jew could be elected what do you suppose the reaction would have been?

[NicoleM]

53. According to people who were there

the audience was applauding Newdow for his response. They were on his side. That's why Rehnquist yelled at them to shut up, because he was pissed that Newdow outwitted him and people noticed.

[Az]

56. Then the reports are getting twisted

It is being presented as if they were applauding that atheists could not be elected. I am encouraged that it may have been otherwise.

[NicoleM]

58. I'll look for my source.

I thought it was Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, but it's not in that article. Maybe it was Dahlia Lithwick on TV last night. I'll post it as soon as I can find it.

[Az]

61. My source

was NPR's all things considered. http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=current Top story.

[NicoleM]

63. This isn't where I originally got it from

but here is one:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted that Congress passed the law adding "under God" unanimously.

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

"That is only because no atheist can be elected to office," Newdow swiftly responded, provoking applause from supporters and a threat by Rehnquist to expel observers.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2466908

[Az]

67. Not sure

It looks like it can go either way. We need a first hand source I suspect that can tell what the mood was.

[starroute]

93. "Nobody really ever bothers to teach them what it means"

What *does* the Pledge mean?

I'm sure I don't know.

When I was little, I wondered a lot about the "one nation indivisible" part. When I got a bit older, I decided it probably had something to do with the Civil War, and that the Pledge was a kind of commitment not to secede from the Union. But it seemed like a strange thing to be obsessing about a century later.

The "with liberty and justice for all" phrase was also peculiar, mostly because of the way it just dangled there at the end. It obviously wasn't a simple statement of fact, because there never has been liberty and justice for all. But we weren't being asked to dedicate ourselves to work towards liberty and justice for all, either. I could only assume that the construction was deliberately vague, and that it was a pious hope at best and rank hypocricy at worst.

So when they stuck in the "under God," I naturally interpreted it as being of a piece with these other two assertions -- either as a relic of half-forgotten and now-irrelevant 19th century conflicts, or as a vague gesture towards higher values of the kind that adults regularly impose on the kiddies without bothering to adhere to themselves.

In addition, by the time I got to college I had started to worry about what pledging allegience really meant, and whether it was a kind of loyalty oath that they could prosecute you for violating if you didn't live up to its terms. The whole business came to seem more and more morally dubious, and I eventually concluded that the only sound response was to avoid saying the Pledge ever again.

But fundamentally, I'm still about as clueless on all this as I was in Kindergarten. Can anyone out there tell me what the Pledge *actually* means?

[Hippo_Tron]

287. AGREED!

I don't give a shit if there's under god in there or not. I think there should be a law that if the school wants to have official pledging then they must teach what it means.

[Nobody]

6. I think he's right

After all, which god are we talking about?

People in my acquaintance worship from a variety of religious traditions and some none at all.

To me this is a separation of church and state issue. The first settlers to the New World were escaping religious persecution. This is one of the main reasons why, in our Constitutions, we have protections to ensure freedonm of religion, which should include the freedom to choose "none of the above".

Since I prefer the "none of the above" option, I use the band-aid solution of skipping those two words when I'm called upon to recite the pledge.

[Disturbed]

8. Pledge- Ban the whole thing.

1. Our country wasn't founded on Biblical or christian principles
2. The fact no one is forced to say the Pledge is irrelevant. By inserting "under God," the Pledge violated the establishment clause of the first Amendement.

Ditto

[elperromagico]

9. Heck, Thomas Jefferson took a copy of the Bible and a razor blade,

cut out all passages dealing with Christ's supernatural activities, and produced his own version of the Bible.

I wonder what Jerry Falwell thinks of that.

[Finch]

12. The nation was founded on christian principles...

[unblock]

21. bu**sh**

the nation was founded by people FLEEING christian nations.

it was a bunch of christians, but also deists and atheists and agnostics and jews, but more importantly:

it was founded by people who wanted government OUT OF THEIR RELIGIOUS LIVES. and who recognized that religion and government is a bad combination that sullies both.


show me "christian principles" in the constitution. did jesus proclaim that blacks shall get 3/5 vote? did jesus say that congress shall have 2 houses? did jesus say that the vice-president shall be president of the senate?

just a load a brainwashing by those whose ultimate goal is to make this a theocracy.

[Frodo]

74. I'm afraid he's more right than you are.

"the nation was founded by people FLEEING christian nations."


Christian "nations" perhaps, but not christianity. They came here largely to PRACTICE christianity apart from states that did not agree with their denomination.


"it was a bunch of christians, but also deists and atheists and agnostics and jews, but more importantly:"

Christians, yes. Deists, yes (though they all make today's "christians" look like a bunch of pikers and would certainly NOT have a problem with "god" in the pledge),

But which "founding father" was atheist or Jewish? And please don't try and say Thomas Paine. He certainly was NOT. I'm not sure that any of them can even properly be called "agnostic".


We're certainly NOT founded as a "Christian Nation", but that doesn't change the fact that the founders would have no problem with a pledge in schools that included the word "god".

Remember that the first Bible printed in english here was printed BY the founding fathers FOR the public schools. I doubt seriously that men who did that would object to a pledge like what we have.

[BurtWorm]

83. Atheism was not an option till Darwin.

Unless you were looking to be excluded from polite society. Atheism was equivalent to damnation in those days. Very rare were the intellectuals who affirmed that they did not believe in God. The Marquis de Sade comes to mind, but his atheism, according to a convincing case made by Roger Shattuck, was more antitheism--that is, he was against God, not without belief in God.

The rational kind of atheism that we take for granted today didn't really take root until the mid 19th century, when Darwin undermined natural theology with The Origin of Species and Huxley proposed agnosticism as a valid mode of belief.

The Founders may have universally believed in God, but we don't. They also universally believed in creation and divine intention. We don't. Nor did the Americans in the age when "under God" was inserted into the pledge by law.

[Az]

84. Well there was that messy 1500 years

Where religious institutions pretty much ruled the world and killed you if you questioned anything they said. Tends to make atheism a difficult thing to organize. Plus we couldn't even get a look at the source material. Owning a bible was punishible by death.

[BurtWorm]

90. Yes, but a case can be made that it wasn't in the framework of human

cultural intelligence to deny or doubt the existence of God. In fact that case is made in a book called Without God, Without Creed by James Turner. It just didn't compute that there was no supernature to explain the mystifying in nature until science gave humans a vocabulary and grammar to speak about the world without having to bring God into the picture. Once you could create a convincing natural history of the cosmos, fewer and fewer have needed the mythology. But until then, virtually everyone needed a mythology of some kind.

[Az]

91. Agreed

There was simply insufficient evidence or awareness to override a naturally occurring assumptiong brought about by our own psychology and reinforced by institutionalized religion.

Projection of identity is a natural part of our mental development. That is we learn to project an expectation of identity as we experience it onto other people. We do this despite not being able to experience the existance they have. Our minds do not limit this to just people. We project identity onto anything we percieve a pattern in. The more common projections become shared and eventually gave rise to religious beliefs.

With no means of refuting these paths and with religious dominance of education and knowledge, there is simply no way for the bulk of humanity to have escaped the indocrination methods of these systems.

[Frodo]

95. Sure, but there's a BIG difference between saying..

"If they were around today THIS is what they would have believed" and saying "The nation was founded by people who wanted religion out of public life"


The first statement is arguable - and perhaps true.

The second is demonstrably false. There can be NO question that the nation was founded by people who would have completely disagreed with the court decision that "under god" violates their purposes in the Constitution.

There can also be no question that these men were WRONG on many many many other issues (slavery anyone?). Which is why we ammend the document... NOT pretend it says something other than what it says.

[Az]

96. Demonstrably false

I will readily accept this if you would care to demonstrate it. That is what demonstrably false suggests. Demonstrate away.

[Frodo]

98. You must not have read my other replies on the subject.

Yes, it can easily be demostarated as false that the "the Founding Fathers" wanted religion out of public life. Specifically as it relates to public schools.

Again, they paid federal funds from Congress specifically to print bibles that were to be used in the public schools.

Is there ANY possible interpretation of that that fits with the idea that they didn't want mentions of god in the public schools? These were men who gave (recorded) comencement addresses at these schools that were full of "Jesus" this and "Jesus" that.

[Az]

99. When exactly

Were public schools set up in the USA?

[Frodo]

104. Public schools in america pre-date the "USA"

Benjamin Franklin had a leading role in setting the curriculum for the public schools in Pennsylvania in 1749 - insisting that they teach "the excellence of the christian religion above all others" and the "necessity of public religion"

[Az]

105. Sounds like

a nongovernment funded education system. When exactly did a government funded education system take hold in the US?

[Frodo]

112. By the standard you seem to be using - It NEVER HAS

"Public Schools" are not a federal program even today. They are at best state responsibilities and usually run at the county level.

A "government funded education system" predates the nation's founding. They were not "nongovernment funded"

The differentiation you are trying to make is not valid. The schools involved were not "private schools" by any definition.

The bible in question (I've seen a copy of it) is actually inscribed "A neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of our schools" and bears the congressional seal. It was paid for and printed by the US Congress when the men sitting in those chairs were the same men who wrote the Constitution.

[Az]

123. The Perfect Founding Fathers

We both seem to agree that the founding fathers were not perfect. The struggle to create the Constitution was intense. There were in fact a number of advocates that wanted God and Jesus to be referenced in the work. I believe more reasoned minds prevailed.

Once the nation was established, politics set in. One had to choose the battles one could fight. So on the one hand you have the struggle to create a founding set of guidelines. It took deliberate measures to avoid mentioning a specific faith. It is not a perfect document. But it is a great document. Then you have the struggles of individuals and groups. They may well end run the struggles necissary to have established the founding documents as set forward priviously.

[Frodo]

125. Oh I agree with you. I just can't revise history.

I won't pretend that Constitution says or means something other than what it does. If we, as a society, REALLY think that god (generic god) should not be referenced on our currency, or in our public places, or in our schools... then we need to amend the document to "fix" another thing that the founders got wrong.

The problem with that approach is that everyone knows it would fall to overwhelming defeat. Never get out of the Congress and, if it did, would not be ratified by a single state. So they have to spin some story that this is really what the founders intended.

It is not.

[Finch]

214. When was owning a bible punishable by death?...

... only when it was translated into local dialequte... and then it was because it was though that its readers could be radicalized by the message in it and its egalitarian over tones...

[lapislzi]

148. Go back and read your Karen Armstrong

Atheism came about as a philosophy in the 18th century. I don't have my copy of A History of God here, or I would check the reference for you.

It wasn't too popular, but it was there.

[BurtWorm]

222. Godwin was an atheist. Sade called himself one.

But it wasn't socially acceptable to be an atheist. It didn't become acceptable--normal, in a way--until the middle nineteenth century.

[Frodo]

240. Sorry, but it's still not "normal" or "socially acceptable" today.

Things certainly aren't the way they were 250 years ago, but anything beyond agnosticism (or even that) is still not "socially acceptable".

[muriel_volestrangler]

243. It is socially acceptable in enlightened countries

or even areas of countries. Would people bat an eyelid if you said you were an atheist in San Francisco?

[truthspeaker]

246. It's socially acceptable where I live

All my family and friends, and many of my coworkers, know I'm an atheist, and no one bats an eyelash about it.

[BurtWorm]

255. It is normal and socially acceptable among educated people.

It's normal among working class people, usually in urban areas. It's nothing to bat an eyelash over in Europe. Here there are pockets that find atheism shocking, but those same pockets still find natural selection shocking.

[Nobody]

22. Just want to point out ...

Source, United States Constitution, Bill of Rights.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

To me, this means, everyone can worship whatever they want or nothing at all. Not everyone who believes in a deity calls their deity "god". I have friends who believe in a pantheon which includes many deities. Under only one god? Which one? Other people believe in no god at all. The laws of the USA should reflect our ability, very revolutionary in the 1700s, to be inclusive of many faiths just as the 1st Amendment states.

I'm not in favor of discriminating against anyone on the basis of religion or lack thereof. I am in favor of making sure that separation of church and state stands.

[truthspeaker]

87. please point me to the Bible verses that espouse these principles:

Representative democracy

Due process of law

Freedom of speech

Protection from unreasonable search and seizure

Freedom of the press

Freedom of religion

[Az]

88. Nice points

Consider them stolen.

[Zomby Woof]

265. bullshit

I don't see the Sermon On The Mount anywhere in the Bill of Rights. Or the Declaration of Independence.

Those documents are products of the Enlightenment and their accompanying philosophers - Locke, Montesquieu, so forth.

The reverence for the founders can only go so far - many of them owned slaves and used those so-called founding christian principles to justify it.

The worst thing about the "country was founded on christian principles" argument is that presupposes that just because many of the founders were christian (many were Deist, like Jefferson), that it makes it okay to continue the tyranny of the majority opinion. In other words, "tradition" usurps the law. This country has changed, and it is to our benefit we aren't exclusively white or christian. How free is this nation if we are coerced into bowing before the Bronze Age deity of Judea? Or ANY deity or deities?

If christianity wasn't about conversion and proselytizing, the argument would be moot.

Kind of fitting that the Pledge/Under Gawd argument are both tied into forms of mind control and indoctrination: religion and nationalism.

[izzie]

10. I did not even have to say 'under God' when I said it,

We did have to read the Bible at the start of school, every day, someone in class had to do it and both my mother and father were mad about that. It was for Sunday school they said. Course in grade school every one knew each other, we were under 50 kids, with 4 teachers in 4 rooms. we all used to see each other on Sunday usually in the same church.Maybe that is it, we had Sundays for church and now it is for balls games, shopping etc. Wonder if any one ever did a study on that?

[thinkingwoman]

44. I just follow the lead of a fellow DU'er

and say "under GUARD"

Everyone in my fundie freak town thinks I'm oh so conformist while I am making a political statement. Can't beat the rush of it.

[Solomon]

49. LOL! Good one thinkingwoman. I like that a lot.

One nation, under guard, ...

[thinkingwoman]

204. thanks belong to...

the DU'er I got it from. Wish I knew who that was!

[booksenkatz]

11. People shouldn't be coerced

into pledging to something in which they do not believe. Plus, I don't think Christians would appreciate the words "under Allah" in the pledge, even if they were told, "Well, it says Allah, but we really mean ALL the gods, even yours, so don't be offended." Others would be offended by "under the goddess." Likewise, atheists are offended by the presence of any deity in the pledge. Words have meaning. And if words do NOT have meaning, then why have a pledge at all? Can't have it both ways, as it suits your agenda.

Secondly, when you put someone into the uncomfortable position of "opting out" of the pledge, you are forcing him to reveal publicly his beliefs about god and religion. It's no one's business how I feel about god and religion, and I don't like being publicly coerced into exposing my feelings... that little "Aha! Gotcha!" moment when you are expected to demonstrate fealty to god (or not) in a public setting. That is coercion. A child is even less able to deal with that kind of embarassment.

[Finch]

13. ... Add to that

...the inclusion of "under god" is not unconstitutional... "Congress shale make no law concerning an establishment of religion"... the key word there is "religion"... the pledge simply recognises that there is a god and goes into no more detail than that, it could be the Christian God, the Jews God, Allah or Buddha (who isn’t worshiped or seen as a god but there we go)... by making the pledge before a higher and incorruptible power we make the pledge more meaningful... I suppose for a atheist perhaps "before you my fellow citizens" would be better... but the entire citizenry of the United States can not be compared to God in terms of its incorruptibility... by making the pledge to God or even just to the notion of "that which is incorruptible and benevolent" we lend the pledge a greater deal of resonance as we are holding are selfless to an ideal which we other wise would not... and we are striving to emulate that which is perfect (in this case in are fealty to our nation and its values of liberty and justice ), despite the fact that we are unlikely to be totally successful in achieving this goal, it is right and proper that we should still strive to achieve it...

[unblock]

18. what a load of religious crap

first off, you don't pledge to god or before god.
read it carefully.
you pledge to the FLAG, and to the REPUBLIC, and then go on to describe that republic as a NATION UNDER GOD.

your pledge is not to or under god. instead, the nation you pledge to is under god. along with the flag you pledge to.

secondly, you might believe that god is incorruptible, but placing a nation under god doesn't make that nation incorruptible, nor does acknowledging god or making pledges using god language. look no further than the current crop of so-called christians running the show.

thirdly, please do not insult those who believe in something other than 'god' or who do not believe in 'god' that they are any less incorruptible. yes, some people who believe in god feel that morality is based in god and so on. but it doesn't work that way for non-believers. they all seem to find a way to believe in morality, often stronger than the believers do, without god.

just because you don't understand their basis for morality doesn't mean they're not moral people.


all of this just further supports my position. even if you think it's not a direct violation of the first amendment to include 'under god' in the pledge, that doesn't make it a good idea.

where's the harm in removing the two words?

[elperromagico]

19. Respect is a two-way street.

I understand your arguments and agree with them for the most part, but I don't think titling your post "what a load of religious crap" is the best way to sway those who disagree with you.

[unblock]

27. disrespect is also a two-way street

i see your point and normally i tread much more quietly.

but i don't think the 'under god' proponents appreciate just how disrespectful sticking that phrase into a daily recitation for children in a public school is to non-believing parents.

[LeahMira]

38. So... what is god?

just because you don't understand their basis for morality doesn't mean they're not moral people.

That's a good point.

I'm not sure where you derive your ideas about what is or is not moral behavior or morality generally... perhaps what we call "natural law."

But what is this god we all talk about when we argue about the pledge? A person? A force? What?

Maybe the trouble is that some groups have subverted the concept of god and limited it to the point where it no longer resonates with the rest of us.

I don't care for the idea of this or any nation being "under" that sort of god idea.

[Finch]

253. What the problem in keeping two words?

[Az]

254. Whats the problem?

It pressures children in the name of god. It makes a false oathe. It divides the nation. It violates the constitution. It propogates a lie (my opinion). It pushes a cornerstone of religious belief on people in a secular government.

Thats the problem.

[booksenkatz]

29. ...and if I am expected to recite the pledge

in a public setting, I am being asked to tell the world how I feel about god and religion. It's no one's business. The public has no right to know how I feel about god and religion, whether pro or con, period. Even Jesus commanded that his followers pray in private.

You say that the pledge "simply recognises that there is a god." That right there is a violation of the Constitution. It's so simple. If people need to swear to something before the god in which they believe, let them do so in church. But do not make ANY American swear to anything.

[LeahMira]

32. Better idea!

I suppose for a atheist perhaps "before you my fellow citizens" would be better...

Actually, I like that much better! It seems to focus on our responsibilities to one another to preserve the ideals of the founders.

[Ysabel]

97. that is sexist...

i have more to say - but will post further - at the bottom of this thread...

never mind - i'll continue to post here...

i am referring to this sexist assertion made by Finch:

..."the pledge simply recognises that there is a god and goes into no more detail than that, it could be the Christian God, the Jews God, Allah or Buddha..."

that is sexist...

--------------------------------

i also wonder what you mean Finch by the use of the word "militant"...?

as far as i know - this man in the news - who objects to the use of the phrase "under God" is not acting in a militant way...

please refer to Matcom's post below - for further comments on the use of the word "militant"...

[RapidCreek]

156. "the pledge simnply recognizes that there is 'a' god"

I don't recognize that...neither do quite a few other people....all of whom are citizens of this country.

What you fail to realize for some odd reason, is that many citizens of this country don't buy into your belief of a higher being which is benevolant and incorruptible . Why can't you get that through your head? I do not live a selfless life because your God'll get me if I don't....and therein lies the difference between us. You believe yourself to be inherently evil....incapable of inspiration to a mindset whose mission it is to persue the greater good, sans the threat of Godly retribution. Some of us hold humanity in higher esteem.

RC

[Finch]

14. jusrt a sec patsified

"patsified"... Muslims and Jews still refer to god in the same way that Christians do... and in a generally Islamic country would you argue that "Allah" should not be used because it offended Christians and Jews...I doubt it...I would be perfectly happy for Allah to be used in a predominantly Muslim nation and God in a predominantly Christian nation... like the USA...

[booksenkatz]

24. The point is

that America is a pluralistic society. Were we to accomodate all religions in the pledge, and refer to the deity by all his/her/its names, we'd stand there for weeks on end with hands upon hearts. And that overlooks the fact that the atheists should not be coerced into pledging to any deity AT ALL.

This may shock you, but this country does not operate as per majority rule, it operates as per the Constitution. If it were left up to a vote, I'm sure slavery would still be rampant and women would not be able to vote. So what's your point?

[unblock]

15. why do they refuse to REMOVE the phrase?

i mean really, it's one thing to debate how much of of a church/state violation the pledge in, given how required or not it is, given how kids can opt-out or not, or whatever.

but all this nonsense would just GO AWAY if we just agreed to drop the 'under god' bit and return it to the way it was originally written anyway.

BUT NOOOOOOOO.

someone tell me, where is the compelling government interest in asking kids to acknowledge a god that this nation is under.

and try to explain it without violating the church/state separation.

makes it a bit obvious when you think of it that way, huh?

you might not think there's much supporting the idea of removing the two words, but there even less supporting the idea of keeping them in.

[Finch]

16. I think i just said why...

[SixShooter]

20. Personally if you dont want to say it

you shouldnt have to IMO...if you dont like the phrase Under God then dont say that part.

Simple enough.

[unblock]

23. easy enough for ME, but

what about my kid who is forced to go through this every day and is shown a teacher and a classroom full of people all saying 'under god' without his father right next to him telling him 'we skip that part'.

why is the government trying to indoctrinate belief in god into my child?

[elperromagico]

25. So that he'll have something to pray to when he's working two jobs

to pay off this g.d. Bush deficit.

[booksenkatz]

30. It would make more sense if

each person could say "under God" in his own way in his own head. If you like the phrase "under God," then you could say that. If you prefer "under Jehovah," then you could say that. If you prefer "under the Goddess," then you could say that. If you prefer "under Allah," then you could say that.

When you have an ice cream sundae party, it makes more sense to let everyone start with a scoop of vanilla, then each person can go down the line and add nuts, or nut, add cherries, or not, etc.

THIS IS THE ONLY WAY A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY CAN FUNCTION. OUR FOREFATHERS KNEW THAT.

[oneighty]

35. One nation under

the God or Gods of your choice. That oughta do it. Best bet be to take the damned pledge out of schools all together. Where else in our journey through life does one hear or say those words of wit written by some twit with too much time on his hands?

180

[LeahMira]

45. Why were the words really added in?

I think i just said why...

You said why you think the words should stay, but if you check it out you will learn that that is not the reason why the words were inserted in the first place.

Before about 1954, if I remember correctly, we all said the pledge without any reference to a god. The words were inserted during a time when the nation felt threatened by subversives... communists that were supposedly in high places in the government and working secretly and invisibly to take away our freedoms. There was talk about "brainwashing" and fears that even people who were friends and neighbors might be spies. (Did you ever see The Manchurian Candidate?)

If you think about the national "climate" at that time and compare it to the national "climate" now... with terrorists hiding among us, casually taking flying lessons and buying plane tickets and sitting right next to YOU next time you need to fly somewhere... you might see a lot of similarities.

And surprise! We're finding ourselves in need of reminding ourselves that in the end, we're "under God."

What is this? Turn to God and the commies can't win? Turn to God and the terrorists can't win?

I don't argue that YOUR sentiments about God are insincere or that the specific reasons you cited are the reasons that, for you, make it a good idea to have the "under God" in the pledge. (I wouldn't dare!)

What I am suggesting is that there may be a deeper, more general reason that is shared by a large number of people in this country, and that more generally shared reason explains why there is such passion expressed from both sides of the issue.

[baldguy]

26. Because, he's right.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

Whay part of "no law" don't you understand?

But, of course they didn't mean to Your religion, mmm...

[pnorman]

28. I'll look up the details later,

but the Pledge was originally written around 1890 or so as: "One nation, Indivisible ...". Since the author was an ordained Baptist minister, it's not likely that "God" was so far from his thoughts that he left it out by oversight.

During the Political Correctness FRENZY of the McCarthy period (around 1954), the Knights of Columbus "persuaded" Congress to insert the phrase "Under God" into that phrase. That was an offer they COULDN'T refuse.

Edited to add: At my Union meetings (the only place this issue comes up for me), I repeat the word "Indivisible" (and NOT under my breath), to keep in step with all the rest. I once got called on it by another Union brother standing alongside me, and my reply was: "I'm giving it as I first learned it in grade school ... as it was originally written over 100 years ago ... the King James Version, so to speak". That shut him up. At Jobs with Justice events, I work with many sincere and dedicated Christians, and I hold them in high regard. But I have NO use whatsoever for these pious Jesus-jumping HYPOCRITES, and I like to give them a little heartburn.

pnorman

[terisel]

31. What is wrong with being a militant atheist or secularist ?

Why do you say he seems to be "just" a militant atheist and secularist.

Our nation is a secular entity. We do not have a "state" religion.

If you want to live in a nation with a state or national religion, there are plenty of those from which to choose. Do we want to use their templates to reduce our freedoms ?

If you truly have a strong religious belief there is no need to force other to say what you believe. That is political coercion, not freedom and not religious freedom.

Try saying the pledge the way it was originally written: one nation indivisible. It is a powerful statement that brings people together, undivided.

Possibly it is what we need to return to in order to help us end the present divisiveness.

[Finch]

33. I am not forcing my beliefs on any one…

...I think belief is a personal matter and interestingly from when I studied philosophy of religion I found atheists all ways the most dogmatic… but having said that… as I said I think it is important that we assert our dedication to all that the United States stands for (Freedom, Justice etc…) before that which is the eternal personification of these notion and to most that is God, now it does not have to mean you take god to be any thing more than a fictitious concept designed to encapsulate these notions but you should still hold your oath to those values that the “concept of god” embodies in most peoples minds…

[booksenkatz]

34. Two problems

1. You used the word "most" at least twice in your post, as in what "most" people think about god. Unfortunately for you, the pledge says "all." How ironic. I might add, the Constitution is also for ALL. Not "most."

2. Again, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires me to publicly declare how I feel about god, whether that is "god is real" or whether that is "god is nothing more than a fictitious concept."

[Finch]

40. patsified your not getting my point…

1.) True the constitution does say all… however the constitution while it must work to reflect the views of all people MUST accept the views of the majority in situations where there is perhaps a divisive issue with no “third way option”… now what I offer is as close to a third way as possible… the vast majority of Americans believe in one form or another in god, in fact if you believe the polls most believe in an Armageddon as described in Revelations (but I’m getting side tracked), so it makes sense for this majority to swear allegiance to the ideals their nation encapsulated before God who they see as the personification of those ideals… now for the minority who do not believe in God they can see the use of the term god as refereeing to the ideals that god represents… now is there anything wrong with holding your oath of allegiance up to those ideals?...not necessarily god in of himself, built the ideals he represents…

2.) Your right you don’t have to attest to believing or not believing in God… but my argument does not require you to… all I am asking is that those who swear the oath of allegiance do so before the ideals that this nation was founded upon (Freedom, Justice etc…) and that most would see as God representing… you do not have to see the use of the word god as literally meaning a real being of infinite love and compassion, you just have to accept the ideals that God is suppose to represent and the majority of Americans see him (or her) as representing…

[booksenkatz]

43. Well

1. There is a "third way" option, and that would in fact be the "first way" option, which is to make the secular pledge the default, as the Constitution itself would have us do (if we are indeed to have a pledge at all). Look how complicated things get when we attempt to insert religious ideas where they don't belong! I don't care if most Americans worship a styrofoam grasshopper, that doesn't mean the minority has to curtsy to it and pretend that it is real.

2. No, I should not have to hold my oath of allegiance up to your ideals or anyone else's. In fact, the Constitution requires no oaths of allegiance whatsoever. A citizen should not have to be coerced into a) pledging his allegiance to anyone or anything, b) saying the word "god" when he doesn't believe in one, or c) holding up a little sign explaining what he really meant when he was just coerced into saying the word "god."

I like my sundae with lots of hot fudge and nuts, but no cherries. How do you like yours?

[LeahMira]

68. Wrong!

however the constitution while it must work to reflect the views of all people MUST accept the views of the majority in situations where there is perhaps a divisive issue with no “third way option”…

I see this as tantamount to the argument that the Constitution says that the majority rules. It does not!

The Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) was established to protect the rights of the minority. In fact, if the majority cannot manage to do its business without infringing upon the rights of the minority, then the majority has to make the accommodation... NOT the minority.

The majority needs no protection. In a democracy, the majority will would rule. That's why we don't have a pure democracy in this country... and also why we don't espouse what other nations expect from democracy.

As to your "third way option"... the reasonable option would be to eliminate the mention of God in the pledge.

I don't know about all religious services, obviously, but at Jewish services we say a prayer asking for G-d's blessing upon our country, its leaders, and its people, and we ask for G-d's guidance for our country so that it lives up to its promises of justice and freedom for all its people. That prayer is said every week at services.

Seems to me that if people who are religious wish to ask for divine assistance for the country they have more than adequate opportunity to do that, as a community of believers, at weekly church services. In fact, God being God and all that, it seems that God would not need additional reminders.

[unblock]

37. then quietly utter, "dear god," before reciting the pledge

the default language should be to NOT refer to god. the default language should be something we all agree on.

if YOU want to "add" emphasis or commitment or whatever, then YOU can say "dear god" before reciting the pledge.

personally, when i make a pledge, i take it seriously. i don't need god as my witness or to say under god or anything else to take my pledges seriously. actually this makes me doubt christians' sincerity whenever they say or pledge something without refering to god. do christians have two levels of honesty and commitment?


anyway, in practice, and in original intent, the pledge is not about dedication to shared values such as freedom and justice as you suggest. it is, has been, and always was a loyalty test.

why do you think the pledge starts off, first and foremost, with allegience not to justice, not to liberty, not to the republic, ... not even to god, ... but with allegience to the FLAG?

it's a statement of loyalty, plain and simple. the rest is window dressing.

[LeahMira]

64. Again, what is god?

I think it is important that we assert our dedication to all that the United States stands for (Freedom, Justice etc…) before that which is the eternal personification of these notion and to most that is God, now it does not have to mean you take god to be any thing more than a fictitious concept designed to encapsulate these notions but you should still hold your oath to those values that the “concept of god” embodies in most peoples minds…

OK, but if you "encapsulate" the ideals of freedom and justice in a fictitious concept, what are you saying about the ideals themselves? Why not simply say exactly what we mean?

Also, a lot of people would take issue with you on the idea of god as fictitious concept. I think there are not a few people in this country who conceptualize a god as a very real and all-powerful super-man who exists above the clouds and watches everything that people do in order to reward those who do well and zap those who don't. These are certainly among those who strongly oppose removing references to a god from the pledge.

[Az]

70. You forget the host of religions that are not monotheistic

Buddhists and Taoists are not particularly theistic. Scientologists for all their issues are not theistic. Shintoism is not theistic. Hindu goes in the opposite direction and has a plethora of deities.

The singular greatness that was our fight for freedom was cutting off the old ways. Divine rule. The system we seperated ourselves from was one based on dogmatic authority. The king drew his power from the church. We rejected that claim of authority. Now people are trying to reassert that authority. It violates the very spirit of what our nation stands for.

[RapidCreek]

190. Buddhists are Non-Theistic...that's the point of Buddhism

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/buddhist_attitude_to_god.htm

Guess Buddhists aren't real americans eh finch?


RC

[Az]

191. Yes and no

Buddhism has no teachings suggesting the existance of a god. But there are indviduals who profess to be buddhists and maintain a belief in god. Thus in general Buddhism is atheistic. But not absolutely so.

[matcom]

36. "Militant Atheist???"

stop shoving YOUR beliefs down MY throat that i'll stop being so "Militant"

why do i have to 'pledge my nation' to 'your god'?

[Finch]

41. I’m not…

As I said while I see God as a real entity who encapsulates all the beliefs I hold to be good as do most Americans, be it in the guise of Yahweh or Allah or etc…, all I am asking is that in the “oath of allegiance” you assert that essentially “before all you hold to be good” and for most God represents that… if that is not so in your case then think of it simply in terms of the ideals “god” represents…

[matcom]

47. no, in my case it is equating nationalism (which i abhore)

to religion. in my case it is worshiping a false idol.

the standard argument is that "well, nobody is FORCING the kids to say the pledge....they can even walk out if they so chose..."

which is complete bullshit and anyone who has ever been a child knows it.

do you even know your pledge history? you DO know that RW facists in Congress during the McCarthy era (i.e. 1954) inserted this little 'gem' thinking that they were fighting commies?

you want to worship (anyone) don't do it in MY PUBLIC schools. do it in church, your home, on your street, in your PRIVATE school but leave MY public institutions out thank you

[Az]

66. Estimates say

That the popuation of atheists in America is somewhere between 7%-14%. Let us say 10% of the US population is atheists. That is 5 states. Would you ask 5 states to accept lower status than the others? Would you rip 5 stars off the flag?

The purpose of the pledge is to bring together all the people. One nation, indivisible. Guess what. Under god divides us. If Under God is in the Pledge then One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice For All, has to go.

Lets try some other 10%.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, Hetrosexual,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation Nonhispanic,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation (except for Conneticut, Maine, Montana, Michigan, and New Mexico),
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Just doesn't seem to work for me. Too divisive.

[Ysabel]

107. you are too...

you aren't asking - you're pushing and insisting and assuming a whole lot - and you are trying to tell matcom how to think...

[unblock]

39. actually, why say the pledge at all?

i mean, do we really need loyalty tests for our kids in school?

are there a bunch of kids who would be secretly studying for the french were it not for daily reminders that they are americans?

:evilgrin:

[Finch]

42. Its an assertion of the basic values...

that our republic its democracy is based upon …it is important that our children have a knowledge of and respect for those values and beliefs… even if they chose to disagree over minutia

[ret5hd]

48. can you name countries (historical or contemporary)...

other than the u.s. that require a pledge of allegiance from their schoolchildren?

[NicoleM]

57. Mindlessly reciting the pledge everyday

does NOTHING to teach children the "basic values" of our country. When you were a kid, did you spend any time thinking about what you were saying during the pledge, or were you (like me) worrying about the math test or thinking about recess? On the news last night, somebody interviewed a classroom of kids, I think they were 6th or 8th graders, and they said they don't give the pledge any thought, they just say it because they have to. IMO, aside from the "under God" issue, the time spent saying the pledge every day would be better used to recite or read a little bit of the Constitution.

And to say that people's religious beliefs are "minutia" seems to me a tad disrespectful.

[truthspeaker]

80. and belief in a god is not one of those values

Have most Americans believed in a god? Yes.

Is that belief a foundation of our republic? No. The freedom to have that belief, or not, is.

[LeahMira]

120. But every day???

Its an assertion of the basic values...
that our republic its democracy is based upon …it is important that our children have a knowledge of and respect for those values and beliefs… even if they chose to disagree over minutia

Then explain exactly why the pledge must lead off every school day.

Why not teach children the words of the pledge as part of a history lesson, in the context of why it was written and how it has been changed over the years, and at some point when they are capable of understanding what the words mean. Then perhaps they can recite it in a large group when there are school assemblies.

As adults, most of us do not recite the pledge on a daily basis... I can't remember the last time I was in a situation where it was said. It seems strange to insist that children behave in school in ways that they will only rarely behave in adult life.

[TinaTyson]

54. My question is.

Let us suppose for a minute that we were to discover there is a big "loophole" that allows the government to promote religious ideas like "there is a God" for example (an obvious assumption of the current pledge).

Given all that we know of our founding fathers and the people that lead the drive to revolution (like Tom Paine) and all the progress that should have occurred since then, given that shouldn't we all be in favor of closing any loopholes? Or have we devolved as society to the point where we think that religion should be allowed in our government now?

That is the point that really exposes these people. If someone truly feels that such a hole exists, a true enlightened individual that understood the ideas and not the technicalities, would be leading the charge to close those loopholes, not arguing to keep them open and open them up more.

[Az]

59. Who determines who is enlightened

Remember, the hardline fundimentalists think we are under the sway of satan. They honestly believe that their's is the only way. If the definition of enlightenment were left to them you can well imagine what they would define it as.

The problem is we have members of society who realize that truth is not such an easily grasped subject. They are able to cope with others who have different opinions on the matter. Then there are those that believe they have the truth. Not only that but it is an authorative truth that must be praised all over this land. While the former strive torwards inclusiveness (including the authoritative groups) the latter struggle to eleminate all other voices. There is an inherant weakness on the part of the progressives in that they cannot silence the fundimentalis. Meanwhile the fundimentalists are perfectly happy with the idea of the progressives being silenced. Thus one can gain ground while the other can only defend.

[TinaTyson]

72. I mean elightened in the sense of "The Enlightenment period".

From which the ideas behind our country came.
I am basically asking if we are rejecting those ideas. We seem to have done so in other areas as well such as the concept of democracy and who it should serve and economic systems and what their results should be.

[Az]

73. The struggle continues

500 hundred years ago we began to emerge from the Dark Ages. The Magna Carta was signed and people began to recover their rights that had been held by dogmatic authoratative organizations. With the return of science and rights civilization exploded in a burst of advances.

But the triumph of the humanist spirit did not destroy the institutions that held power for 1500 years. It seperated their ability to control the state and returned it back to the people. The institutions remained. They were forced to adapt somewhat but they retained the basic structures that they had developed. Some embraced the new teachings and fractured. Others bided their time.

They continue to pump the same message that they have the one truth. That they speak for how things are supposed to be. As society advanced the stress between the new society and these institutions increased. At first their infighting with each other kept them from halting the progress of the new world. But as the pressure of a diverse society insisting that no one had the absolute truth increased they began to drop old grudges. They formed alliances. They shifted their focus from fighting with each other to fighting against this new world.

This is the environment we have today. The religious institutions of the world fear losing their last grip on authority. Their followers see the press of plurality in society as a pollution of morals. They are abandonning the social contract in ever increasing numbers. The more firm their belief in the authority of their institutions the more they struggle against diversity.

This is why when you hear them rail against our society they sound so appocalyptic. Their ways are under siege. The foundation of the world as they see it is being chipped away by enlightenment. They truly, honesty, and devotedly believe they are fighting the good fight. They believe they are fighting against truly evil forces. They believe in their hearts that they are the good guys. And they have difficulty understanding that there really can be a difference of opinions.

[TinaTyson]

46. The beef is that it is an extremely clear violation of the Consitiution.

This wouldn't even be an issue in a free society that understood the ideas it was founded upon. Unfortunately we have devolved quite a bit since those days and ignorance is the norm.

The amount of pure ignorance it takes to make a statement such as "our country was founded as christian nation" is truely staggering.

Please give yourself a minimum of education about the subject.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


--

links for the ignorant:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_tripoli.html

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon179.htm

[Frodo]

78. Is your argument that the founding fathers didn't understand..

... what they were writting?

Because they obviously didn't agree with your reading of the Constitution.

[Az]

82. The world is not static

The founding fathers had a frame of reference when they wrote the Constitution. Our understanding of many things has changed since then. We are an increasingly diverse people. Understanding the spirit of the Constitution is vital to determining how to guide this growing nation.

[truthspeaker]

85. How is that obvious?

The founding fathers didn't make an official pledge that included "Under God", nor did they make "In God We Trust" the national motto. They were probably rolling in their graves when Congress came up with those in the 1950s.

[Az]

86. Well technically

The earth is spinning so everyone is more or less spinning in their graves. The earth may have picked up an eccentricity in its orbit due to their additional rotational energy being added to the system.

[Frodo]

94. Just read a little history. It IS "obvious".

As I posted earlier. The first bible printed in English in America was printed BY the founding fathers FOR the public schools. I doubt there can be an argument that they wanted scripture studied in school but would somehow be offended by the word "god" being introduced.

You can also read the debates on the floor of the Constitutional convention. it's very clear that they didn't want a government-selected denomination. They had no problem with a government endorsement of faith in general.

Obviously the prayers that they had on the floor of the convention were evidence that they didn't want a separation of God and public life. They wanted to keep government's hands off of things religious, but not the other way around.


AZ basically has it right. It isn't the constitution that forbids this sort of behavior, it's the "spirit" of what GAVE us the constitution that says "if we were writing it today - THIS is how we would say it".

And I COMPLETELY agree with that. The problem is that we should then amend the Constitution to reflect the nation's current thoughts on the matter... NOT pretend that it CURRENTLY says that. The Supreme Court really has no choice (though they may choose to disregard that fact).

[Az]

50. Children and belief

We are not born believing anything. We have to go through years of absorbing exerience and lessons before they can begin to synthysize their own view of the world and their own beliefs begin to take hold. Thus it is that religious indoctrination attempts to strike while childrens minds are still pliable. As Richard Dawkins suggested "Out of all of the sects in the world, we notice an uncanny coincidence: the overwhelming majority just happen to choose the one that their parents belong to."

If it is the wishes of a parent to raise their child in belief set that they choose then that is acceptable. They can send them to private religious schools. But for parents that send their children to public schools, they should be able to do so without fear of their children's minds being plied with religious ideas and concepts that they do not hold to be true. The Pledge, with its reference to god, places an unwarranted pressure on children of parents who do not share the belief of a singular benevelent god. It applies this pressure at a time when a child's mind is most open to suggestion. Again referencing Richard Dawkins. "With so many mindbytes to be downloaded, so many mental codons to be replicated, it is no wonder that child brains are gullible, open to almost any suggestion, vulnerable to subversion, easy prey to Moonies, Scientologists and nuns. Like immune-deficient patients, children are wide open to mental infections that adults might brush off without effort."

Whether god exists or not it is the parents right to choose their childs path as long as they have the responsibility of guidance in their life. Once the child is able to actively defend their own world view they will struggle to free themself from their parent. Till then the government cannot interfere with the parents desires in matters of belief.

Children are not adults. It takes a great deal of experience to be able to navigate this world of ours. To expect them to brush aside such a powerful concept because we take it for granted completely dismisses their nature.

[NicoleM]

60. One of Newdow's best arguments

is that the government is making him look like a liar to his daughter. It is one thing for her mother to tell their daughter there is a god, but it is quite another for the public school to do so.

[Az]

62. Exactly, however

I fear he missed a vital factor in his arg. The court seemed to be operating with the concept that children are just small adults. That they are equally impacted by influence as an adult would be.

[lapislzi]

52. ...and "secularism" is bad...how?

What would you have in its stead?

You make some dangerous assumptions in your statement, the first of which is that secularism is undesirable. I disagree.

Newdow's arguments are quite coherent, and this is obviously far from a non-issue, if the SOTUS is hearing the case.

[Az]

55. I often wonder

how the religious right would react if we gave them a demonstration of a real atheist education program. Perhaps then they might appreciate the neutrality that a secular education systems offers.

There are too many religious claims. To many positions. Too devisive a subject for government to become embroiled in religion.

[EV1Ltimm]

65. The pledge needs to go altogether...

loyalty oaths seem a little stalin-esque, don't they?

the whole "under god" and "in god we trust" is a very exclusionary statement. but by now, i'm so densensitized to its presence, i could really give a shit at this point.

but the whole "it doesn't say which god" argument has been irking me for one reason... wouldn't it have to be "in A god we trust" for that argument to even BEGIN to be logical? oh well...

[lapislzi]

69. "under god" divides the "indivisible"

The issue of loyalty oaths aside, I can't for a second recite the pledge with any conviction. I don't believe it. It's a false oath. I have a big beef (to use your words) with false oaths.

[Bridget Burke]

71. Let god show up in person & I'll listen to him.

Oh, wait. He tried that & it didn't work out...

It's often been said that the "under God" phrase will cause certain kids to feel left out--whether they stay silent or go along because of peer pressure. The "Christian majority" say that's too bad--they shouldn't be so sensitive.

Another possibility: Some of the kids reciting a rote pledge including that god stuff, will learn contempt for the whole concept. They'll go along & become bitter & cynical. Really, I do know some fine people of faith--all faiths. But the pledge as it stands will cause some smug little creeps to become more smug, a few kids to feel persecuted--& create a large subset of cynical atheists in the upcoming generation. So, maybe it's OK!

[Groosalugg]

75. Exactly.

There is no problem. The guy has a right to refuse to say it. Sheesh.

What a waste of taxpayer money. What a waste of the Supreme Court's time.

It's not even going against the Constitution. Saying "under God" isn't pushing the Christian belief onto anyone. In fact...God is worshipped by many religions, including: Christians, Jewish, and Muslim. So what's the problem?

It's just a few godless people who think it's a problem, that's all.

[Az]

76. Then you won't mind

A few godless people talking to your children about the fallacies of believing in god?

[Groosalugg]

77. Yes, I would mind...

I wouldn't want my kids to listen to the godless crap. I want them to believe in something...and that something that exists, which is God.

[Bridget Burke]

79. So take them to Church.

Sunday School is good, as well. Of course, you have daily prayer sessions & bible readings at home?

The public schools have quite enough to teach.

[Az]

81. Do you suspect

that I might wish the same for my children. To not be indoctrinated by those I disagree with?

[lapislzi]

92. Do you feel threatened by people who claim that there is no God?

If you and your children are secure in your beliefs, you should have no problem hearing differing points of view.

Are you threatened by other people's belief systems?

[Finch]

100. Do You feel threatened by Theists?

... its a minority view that god does not exist and that there is no spiritual aspect of the universe... its is also a minority view that the Holocaust did not happen yet it is taught as fact in schools... would you rather it was not... I am sure that those Holocaust deniers see their children as being potentially indoctrinated... But you would probably have a problem with them disputing that... Religion is not drumbed into children at school, the vast majorities of schools encourage children to be open minded about different views of the universe from humanism to Zoranastrianism... On the issue of the pledge as Ive already said its what the term "god" represents (a higher standard of moral conduct and the personification of all that is good) which is important not what your precise views on the reality of "god" are...

And to me this is all a waste of tax payers money and the Supreme Courts time... CA law says that children can remain silent so let them... this guy just seems bitter at his ex-wife and the case he puts forward is rambling to say the least...

[Az]

102. You are right

It is a waste of our tax dollars. The 9th court's descision should simply be allowed to stand. It really is such a minor issue. .... er so why was it dragged before the supreme court?

[Heyo]

106. I really agree with your post....

I was wanting to reply, but couldn't find the right words before you did...

It's not a good argument to claim that a class participating in a pledge that contains the two words "under God" is being 'indoctrinated.' .. "Indoctrinated"?.. Come on :eyes: ... it's kind of a forehead slapper if you ask me.

Most Americans believe in a higher power in some for or another, and most Americans would like the phrase to remain in the pledge, if you don't like the pledge, don't say it. Hard to believe it really is that simple. Your kids are not forced to say it. Furthermore nobody will notice if they stand silently or just leave that part out if they choose to do so.

Our freedom of religion says that you are free to be an athiest and practice or not practice accordingly, it means you have the right to say "under God" or not say it if you don't want to.. it doesn't mean you should take the phrase away from the majority of Americans who are perfectly comfortable with it.

I think that if the government did decide to remove the phrase, in alot of instances people would still say it.

Heyo

[Az]

111. Indivisible

Does that mean anything?

One Nation?

With Liberty and Justice for All?

Could just be me. But if we went to the trouble of making an oathe couldn't we make it as inclusive as possible. Particularly considering inclusiveness seems to have been the intent of this nation. At one time anyway.

Eh, its only a few atheists. They don't matter.... right?

[truthspeaker]

113. yep, Bill Gates doesn't matter

neither do Carl Sagan, Jodie Foster, Katherine Hebburn, Ted Turner. They can just leave if they don't like it here, and take their skills and millions of dollars with them. Who needs 'em?

[truthspeaker]

251. forgot Mark Twain and Thomas Edison

[Heyo]

230. How do you figure that...

... if you son't want to say the pedge you don't matter?

People who don't want to say the pledge matter just as much as those who do.

Heyo

[Groosalugg]

212. Thank you!

I agree with that totally. If you don't like it, THEN DON'T FRIGGEN SAY IT! IT'S NOT THAT HARD! GEEZ!

[truthspeaker]

108. why is it OK for you to indoctrinate my kids, but not me yours?

Why should believers in God get special consideration by the law?

[Heyo]

231. Special consideration by law?

What law?

[muriel_volestrangler]

248. 35 state laws, apparently

http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/47/20/4720.htm

Most are optional for individuals, but some are forced.

[truthspeaker]

249. the law that added "under God" to the pledge

that law

[Heyo]

258. but there is now law...

... that says anyone is required to say the pledge.. if so.. I think that is wrong. (obviously)

Even if the state requires the school to, (which I think is BS, it should be up to the school, the parents or the kinds or some combination thereof)... any kid can skip any part they don't agree with or skip it altogether..


Heyo

[truthspeaker]

260. but the Pledge is an official statement by the government

endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.

What's wrong with the original pledge?

[lapislzi]

145. Maybe that's what "god" means to you

I can lead a perfectly moral life without acknowledging a deity.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I did not suggest that there is no spiritual component to the universe; you presume too much.

As for the Holocaust (straw man! straw man!), there is actual evidence that such event took place. Eyewitnesses. There is no physical or historical evidence to substantiate the existence of a divine being.

I see being a Theist has turned you into a fine speller, too! I see that you are new to DU. Please feel free to avail yourself of the handy spell check feature.

[dpibel]

147. Does the issue of provability move you at all?

I understand that the existence of god is self-evident and undeniable for you, and you're welcome to that belief. You're not welcome to tell me that I have to believe that way, any more than you would welcome my saying that you ought to believe something different.

As to your utterly disingenuous analogy to Holocaust deniers: Are you able at all to see the difference between matters for which tangible evidence is available, as opposed to matters which are entirely based on faith? You can show pictures of Dachau, and what was there at the end of WWII. You can read the first-hand accounts of the people who were the objects of the Holocaust.

When it comes to god, you simply cannot do the same thing. You can line up all the people you want to tell me that they, personally, have a deep and abiding belief in a ghostly presence they feel down in their hearts to say. That proves nothing beyond a set of shared beliefs. It makes the existence of such a being neither more nor less likely. We can go through the whole list of things people used to believe -- earth-centered universe comes to mind -- which are no longer believed. But in 1400, you could have lined up pretty much the whole world to testify that they knew, as a self-evident fact, that the sun revolves around the earth. It wouldn't have proven anything beyond a shared belief system, now would it?

How do you feel about teaching evolution in public schools. Aw, don't even answer that question.

Your trenchant analysis of the merits of Newdow's case is very convincing. You are aware, are you not, that this case didn't just spring out of whole cloth at the appellate level? There had to be some sort of trial during which this "rambling to say the least" case somehow pulled the wool over the eyes of a Federal District Court judge. Then that same weak and rambling case bamboozled a three-judge appellate court panel, along with the en banc 9th circuit.

That's quite an accomplishment for a vengeful, incoherent guy.

If you say that this is just a matter of the crazed atheists on the 9th Circuit bench seeking once again to impose their insane ideas on the rest of the country, then riddle me this: IIRC, two of the three judges on the original appellate panel were appointed by St. Ronald Reagan. Would you mind explaining to me what Ronnie was thinking (and I use that term loosely) when he appointed atheists to lifetime seats on the Federal bench?

[Ysabel]

103. prove it...

n/t...

[KansDem]

89. Yesterday on C-Span...

I caught the tail-end of a caller who was commenting on this...

She said the phrase "under God" didn't appear in the Pledge until the 1950s during the Eisenhower Administration. She was placing blame on the GOP for the present brouhaha, and made an excellent point when she said "They <Republicans> put it in, so they can just take it out!" The simple solution is always the best!

I thought she had savvy sorely missed in the present-day Congress.

[ieoeja]

101. But, Finch, the ideals which "God" represents ...

... are in direct opposition to the ideals which this country represents. God is the ultimate dictator. Even if you see God as fluffy bunny who loves everyone, we still have absolutely no say in who gets to be God, for how long or what authority God possesses. How can you require someone who doesn't believe in God to express his acceptance of God's authority?

And you are asking us to pledge ourselves to accept God's authority. It says "Under God", not "while hanging out with our good buddy, God".

The best argument I have heard for the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge is that rights and liberty are derived from God, not government. That statement can be just as easily expressed as, "rights and liberty are natural, not given by government". If you read the Declaration of Independence you will see that it actually says these rights derive from "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" which, in a pre-Darwinian and pre-Cosmological society, comes as close to atheism as you can come.

Furthermore, the justification for the rule of kings is that they ruled under God's authority. When you get down to it the "Under God" clause is downright un-American!

[dpibel]

143. Pretty clear Finch's god is no fluffy bunny

Read the sig line: "And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

No fluffy bunnies for Finch.

[lapislzi]

181. Where's the moral excellence in that, again?

Thank you, I'll choose not to acknowledge the sovereignty of a loin-smiter.

Sinners in the hands of an angry god, and all that.

[DrWeird]

115. How about we change it to "allah akbar"

Is that good for you?

[Finch]

118. "Allah Akbar" is specific... "God" is not...

... admittedly "God" would seem to be a Christian term for the deity but Muslims and Jews would be happy to refer to Allah or Yahweh as God as well... in a Muslim country i am sure Allah would be used, would you be happy with that?, however in the United States (a Christian nation) it makes sense for "god" to be the term used and as i have previously said "god" represents the pinnacle of all that is morally good now even if you don't except the reality of god you should except the notion of moral excellence which "the concept of god" should symobolise...

[truthspeaker]

121. "God" IS specific

It is specific to those faiths, almost all of them descended from Judaism, that believe in a monotheistic singular deity.

[DrWeird]

122. So you're saying the US is a christian nation?

Funny, I thought the US Constitution specifically said it wasn't.

""god" represents the pinnacle of all that is morally good"

So what you're saying is, people who do not believe in God are not morally good. That's what you're insinuating. Sounds like a bigotted statement to me.

[Finch]

128. Don't you dare call me a bigot...

What I have said has no such conertations... people who are atheists i am sure would respect the concept of "moral excellence" as would every body you don't have to believe in god for that to be so...

However for the vast majority the definition of god is "that which is supremely benevolent and just"... now atheists would probably except that that is how many "believers" would view god...

How has what i have said insinuated that atheists are amoral or evil?... for religious believers (generally) god is this "pinnacle of moral excellence" and to them that is what he represents... for atheists while they would dispute the reality of this being, i doubt they would dispute that that which he represents is good and should be striven for...

How is my saying that... while atheists would reject the supernatural and spiritual elements of Christianity they would still generally accept the basic tenets of judao-Christian morality and attempt as "people of faith" would to be moral... how is that bigoted?

All i have argued is that all people are ultimately united by a similar moral frame work with which god can be seen to be strongly, even centrally (for some) identified and even if you reject the reality of god you don't reject the reality of these moral standards....

[DrWeird]

131. Do you believe that atheists go to hell?

That somebody who does not believe in God and does not take Jesus into their hearts will go to hell?

[truthspeaker]

132. that may be your definition of God but it is hardly universal

Here's a thought: let's make religious belief an affair for each individual American, without any government intrusion either way. That's the only way all of us can be free to believe.

Or is your faith so weak you need the government to reinforce it for you?

[ieoeja]

152. Thanks, but then why use religious terminology?

Thanks for accepting that one can be a good person yet atheist. Yesterday Indiana Democrat said he/she would never vote for an atheist in the belief that atheists were morally inferior. A few months back I was infuriated by a morning talk show artist in Chicago named Mancow who said much the same thing. That sort of attitude is commonplace and openly stated throughout most of this country. Hence the reason atheist DUers see DU as a refuge for venting.

And this is why atheists everywhere hate the inclusion of religion in politics and government.

But back to what you said about "even if you reject the reality of god you don't reject the reality of these moral standards." I fully accept the reality of moral standards. Do you see atheists objecting to "with liberty and justice for all"? No. Obviously we have NO problem with those moral standards. You want me to acknowledge moral standards in general? Fine. Replace "Under God" with "With Moral Standards". Why do you insist on forcing religious terminology upon us?

I bow to noone, be he King or God. I am an American! These knees don't bend.

[Ysabel]

175. a vengeful god...

missed your sig line before - that particular "god" - offends me - i think that you are trying to push that vengeful "god" on people - i think that "god" that you are pushing is a bigoted, vengeful, hateful, unforgiving, mean old stubborn, bull-headed (no offense to bulls), obstinant, pig-headed (no offense to pigs), real down-right jerk of a "god"...

[Az]

177. Do we have to list examples

of god being morally repugnant? I hope we do not have to resort to that. I do not wish to assail your beliefs. But to insist that the god of the bible is a perfect representation of moral excellence is a bit of an afront to many here.

[LeahMira]

137. To YOU... but not to me.

"god" represents the pinnacle of all that is morally good now even if you don't except the reality of god you should except the notion of moral excellence which "the concept of god" should symobolise...

Sorry, but humanity represents to me the pinnacle of moral excellence... and we're getting better every day!

All our ideas of moral excellence are human ideas, arrived at by human minds. There is not a one of us who is incapable of knowing what is morally good. We don't need any spiritual entity to somehow reveal it to us. Each of us knows.

True, we may not always act accordingly, but that happens among those who believe in a supreme being as much as it happens among those who do not.

In fact, the little children that are reciting a pledge are already aware of what is morally excellent and good, and they do not need a "concept of god" to improve on what they already understand.

[Solon]

124. What about other religions?

This is turning into another Christian vs. Atheist/Agnostic debate. Question to you Finch, does this pledge offend you?

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation, under Sophia, indivisble, with Liberty and Justice for All."

Do you have a problem with the pledge being OFFICIALLY changed to one that honors a Goddess?

ON EDIT: If you don't recognize the name of this Goddess, read the Bible, she is the consort of God. Goddess Wisdom, Revelations 12:1.

[DrWeird]

126. See post #118

Apparently the US is a christian nation. Therefore we should us "God." Furthermore, Jews and Muslims would accept using the word "God" but using "Yahweh" or "Allah" would be inappropriate. Apparently in the Buddhist religion, Buddha is the equivalent of the Christian god, and since Buddhists all pray to Buddha, they can say "God" too. And then there's the Hindus, saying "God" is shorter then saying "gods" so we're saving them time and effort, plus having all those extra gods is just plain silly. As for atheists, if they don't believe in God, they're immoral, so they don't count.

[Solon]

133. Hey Dr. Weird..

Allah is the Arabic name for God, so it is not specific. Sophia is Greek for Wisdom, and in this case the forgotten Goddess, whose consort was the CHRISTIAN God. I'm interested in his response to have her referenced in the Pledge, being a good Christian and all.

[Finch]

138. What you are referring to is...

...I think and its been i while since i had a long look at biblical history but...

this is the period in the "old testament" when the Jewish religion took on my Greek and eastern Mediterranean ideas and for a period it was taught that god had a consort...

By the time of Christ this notion had been thoroughly reject and as i remember was never wholly excepted in the first place... i seem to remember that it sparked some kind of religious revolts against the Jews Hierarchy for their perceived herasy...

And even if she was a real goddess then... my statement would still stand the term "god" has a universality (as does the Hindu term Brahman to Hindus... so weather Hinduism in polytheistic is debatable) and carries connotations of "moral excellence" which are good and positive and should in of themselves be encouraged even if you don't accept the spiritual dimension of the notion of "god"..

[Finch]

135. Don't misconstrue my statement.

I said that Buddha is not worshiped but is seen as a moral teacher... I made that point in an earlier post on this thread...

Furthermore my argument is not that the Christian or even the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God is superior i am arguing that the connotations of the term "god" are good and positive...(see my last post for the ump-teenth time I made the argument)...

Atheists are not Amoral and where have i said or even suggested that?

All i am saying is that is it not possible that there is an ultimate morality, as most atheists would believe (i assume thats why most are law abiding)and while most would associate that with god... they don't... fine... i dont really care... what i care about is that being held accountable to a higher standard (Which most see as represented by God) is good and positive... and most atheists i know (and thats the majority of my Friends) would agree that while they would reject the spiritual side of this (god) they would accept the conotations and the notion of "moral excellence"...

[truthspeaker]

136. I disagree that the connotations of "god" are positive

To me they are overwhelmingly negative: blind faith, superstition, intolerance. However, just as I have no right to expect the government to endorse my understanding of the word god, you should not expect it to endorse yours. That "freedom" thing, you know.

[dawn]

197. Sorry.

To Buddhists, the historical Buddha is not the equivalent of the Christian God.

[Frodo]

134. There is no "Sophia" in Revelations

Nor any mention to "Goddess Wisdom" or "consort of God".

How does "read the Bible" support your statement? how will (s)he "recognize the name of the Goddess" by reading Revelation?

[Finch]

139. Thanks for the support Frodo...

...phew... this rapid response is hard work...

[Solon]

140. Ever heard of Gnostic Christians?

It was a tradition in their religion, the word Sophia was translated to Wisdom in the KJV of the bible, however in the original texts and looking at history she is mentioned. Proverbs is a book dedicated to Sophia, mostly noted as the Spirit Wisdom, or Lady Wisdom. Wisdom is referred to as "She" throughout Proverbs. The term "Holy Spirit" is translated from the Greek feminimum word "Pneuma" the Holy Spirit of Wisdom. She even had a place in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, given the name of Asherah, King Solomon revered her, until the reforms of King Josiah almost stamped that out.

[Finch]

142. As i said it was a cult...

...and Jewish traditionalist stamped it out... which suggests it was not a genuine element of the Jewish faith... as for Gnostic Christians they where a tiny group and what is written about them is mostly conjecture in one book ("The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels) it is argued that they where not simply derived from Judaism but also borrowed from Buddhism and Hinduism as well and where shaped by the cosmopolitan populations of Alexandria and other great ports... so to call them Christians is really a bit of a strech... more a religion in of themselves which borrowed from a wide array of faiths... that being said there where many Jewish sects at the time... but Gnostic's cannot really be called Jews or Christan's any more than Muslims could... as they differed radically in some areas ... but this is not a discussion over the validity of the Gnostic's belifes...

[Solon]

146. What about the Russian Orthodox Church?

Is it a cult? The Russian Orthodox Church has begun a school of "Sophiology" to explore the theology of Sophia without contradicting the Russian Orthodox theology. Also you forget the Nag Hammadi texts which are at least as old as the New Testament. I'm curious about your definition of Christians, are Roman Catholics Christian to you? Mormons? Jehovah's Witnesses? They self identify themselves as Christians why doubt any of them?

More from the Bible KJV:

Proverbs 1:20-33
20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:

21 She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,

22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.

24 Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;

25 But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:

26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;

27 When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.

28 Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:

29 For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:

30 They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.

31 Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.

32 For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.

33 But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

Proverbs 8
1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?

2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.

3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.

4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.

5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.

6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.

7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

8 All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.

9 They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

10 Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.

11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.

12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.

13 The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

14 Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength.

15 By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.

16 By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

17 I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.

18 Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness.

19 My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

20 I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment:

21 That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures.

22 The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.

23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.

24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.

25 Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:

26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.

27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

28 When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:

29 When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:

30 Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;

31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

32 Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways.

33 Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not.

34 Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.

35 For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.

36 But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.

[Frodo]

159. You're really mixing your religions here.

There's nothing wrong with believing whatever you want to believe. But don't go mapping it on to other religions (it makes you sound like you don't think your beliefs are valid without the support of some "legitimate" religion).


Sophiology (really sophianism - "Sophiology" is a euphemism) is NOT the study of the Goddess Wisdom named Sophia. Nor, as the website you are copying (without attribution) claims, is there "veneration of Sophia" in the eastern tradition.

[Solon]

178. Who said I believed it.

I mentioned it for the controversy, nothing more or less, I am neither Christian nor am I a Gnostic. Just pointing out that the phrase "under God" is religion specific, "Judeo-Christian" we haven't even gone into those religions which the entire pledge conflicts with.

[Frodo]

144. Certainly.

But "Gnostic" was not the same thing as "Goddess worship". And "Gnostic Christian" is a stretch since they were some of the early "heretics". Not that their beliefs are invalid necessarily - just not "christian".

And you've got it somewhat back wards. The Greek "sofiva" IS "wisdom" from the root "sofovß" or "wise". The fact that some people used it also as a proper name does not imply that the proper name (for the Goddess) was the source of the word. If a Greek wanted to say "he's really wise" he would not necessarily be referring to Sophia (as a proper name). Her name means "wisdom", not "wisdom" means Goddess Sophia. Just as "Christopher" means "christ bearer" not the other way around.

Regardless, mistranslated or not, "wisdom" is not mentioned in the verse you cite either.


And Pneuma in Greek is neuter - not feminine. The Hebrew word (Ruah?) is feminine and used in the Latin as masculine.

[Solon]

149. Not saying that all references to wisdom refer to the Goddess.

However, look at the above Bible verses, how can wisdom cry?

[Frodo]

155. There are plenty of times where words are personified in Scripture.

That doesn't mean that they were actual persons.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Finch]

154. Once again my friend you misrepresent my position…

...we are fellow democrats yeah I’m a DLC… however I am pretty much where Edwards is on trade so I am no Zell Miller and I’m pretty much to the left of the likes of Breaux and Lieberman… so calm down and no I wont report your post…

He is not launching this law suite because he wants to be able to swear allegiance to the flag he is launching it because he say that the school is telling his daughter that he is wrong on the issue of god and his ex-wife is right… now the fact that he is an atheist makes him no less a citizen… there have been many atheists who have contributed a great deal to society (Plato, Bernard-Shaw, Marx… the list goes on)… I am arguing that the phrase “under god” should be retained because it asks those who take this oath to swear it before what is the embodiment of a standard of “moral excellence” you do not need to believe that embodiment (“God”) to be real in order to respect and agree with the notion that this standard of fair and just behavior is commendable and should be sought to be emulated by all… however the great majority of Americans (of all stripes and religious affiliations) do believe that this embodiment is a reality… accepting the positive nature of what god represents and believing in god as a real entity are two very different things…

PS: Being a DLC'er does not mean i will not fight for my party, my beliefs and my country... even if Bush decided that there would be a draft tomorrow and i disagreed I'd still go and you can hold me to that...dont presume to lecture me on my patriotism...

[Az]

157. The ancient Romans

Would ask people to swear fealty to their gods. Those that would not do so were seen as morally bankrupt and promptly thrown to the lions.

The Romans had a rather intellectualized concept of gods. There were used as vehicle on which to detail the moral expectations and consequences in society. Thus by swearing to them it was understood that it meant you acknowledged their moral position.

Under God constitutes the same test. There are those in society that cannot swear to god. Placing an oathe before them puts them in the same position as the ancient Christians standing before their Roman oppressors.

[lapislzi]

158. What if we disagree with what is "moral"?

It's not as though everyone is on the same page with morality. My morality is probably very different to yours. Does my oath then carry less weight?

I also happen to think that the word "god" has negative connotations. I think it means misery and suffering to many. So why should I swear an oath on something I don't believe in?

What is fair behavior? What is just behavior? You cannot assume that everyone holds the same ideas about these concepts. What is moral excellence? Why does one need a deity for such a concept to exist in the world?

[Finch]

162. Plato argued...

...for what he called forms... their is this world and the world of the forms... every concept has an ultimate and perfect form in that world... I do not subscribe to Plato's view of the world however... the notion of their being an ultimate form of the good and the just must be so or both concepts are not real, as both have to be universal to have any meaning subjective morality would excuse many atrocities, the holocaust, the massacres by the crusaders, the war crimes in modern day africa... morality can not be subject or it has no value...

[lapislzi]

165. maybe yes, maybe no

I would never advocate a position of moral relativism. But to suggest that people basically hold an ideal of what constitutes a "moral" human being I believe is a false assumption.

Would you kill for your country?

Would you kill for your family?

Would you kill for fun?

I would say no...does that make me more or less moral than you?

I would argue that what might on the surface appear as moral relativism may in fact have deeper roots than you realize.

I also reaffirm my position that a deity is not required to lead a moral life. I am living proof (so I say!)

Plato also asserted that these forms are ultimately unknowable. We are destined to merely emulate them.

[Solon]

168. Morality is not absolute.

Many of the great debates of history, and social changes that resulted, were because of this fact. At one time, it was moral to own slaves, to kill, rape and pillage, indiscriminately in war. To give away daughters to older men as basically sex slaves. All of these atrocities were what "Moral" men did throughout history, along with other actions that we abhor today. Many did it due to the cultural or religious edicts of their regions, but the point is that we evolve, morally, and always have. Otherwise these actions would be acceptable today.

[Solon]

160. How is "God" an example of moral excellence?

It seems, that like most Christians, you are under the assumption that God is some universal standard for Morals. I'm not even an atheist and that offends me in the extreme. This is a reference to the Christian God and is unnecessary, return the Pledge to the original. As written by a Minister no less!

[Finch]

163. Would you not agree that...

...the just and caring god who is popularly portrayed in society is an example of "moral excellence"... in the actions of Jesus what did he do which you would consider amoral or wrong or would conflict with your belifes?... I am not taking the Christians god to be only truthful Deity here... i am simply suggesting that the values he represents are pretty universally excepted...

[Az]

166. I have read the bible

I cannot say the god of the bible is a just and caring example to live by.

I have studied history. I cannot say that organized religion has exemplified a high moral standard consistantly.

I have studied psychology. I cannot say that I believe that dogmatic aggressive religions are a positive force for society.

[Solon]

173. No I would not...

I'm not a Christian, so to say that I hold Jesus in high regard is moot anyways.

As an example of Jesus conflicting with my morals:

(Luke 14:26) You cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless you hate your father and mother, your siblings, your children, your wife.

I cannot hate my family, so no I cannot be Christian. Besides I take the entire Bible as a book of mostly Mythology and Allegorical teachings at best, for it was men who wrote much of it, in a very primitive and horrendous time in history.

[markus]

171. It says no such thing

The oath taken in court is sworn "so help me god." The pledge does not say that.

It asserts the belief that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights."

However, that phrase does not appear in the Constitution. A clear wall of seperation between civic and religious society does.

I reject the notion that I get my civil rights from god. I get them from the foresight of a small group of men 230 years ago, who sought to guarantee them through thick and thin, whether god takes a particular interest in myself or my nation, or does not.

If I accept the notion that I inherit by rights from god, then we get into an argument over whether this or that particular situation is "godly" and therefore should be protected.

It ultimately brings the bible and other various scriptures into the argument over whether, say, the right of gays to marry, is 1) appropriate to the rights granted by god and, therefore 2) covered by the intent of the constitution.

The purpose of scripture is to govern my personal conduct. Those who wish to see scripture govern civil society are invited to spend some time in Iran or Saudi Arabia and see--from the perspective of a disenfranchised minority--that is how they would like to see this country operate.

[RapidCreek]

186. Ok let's break this down

You stated: "to me this guy seems to just be a militant atheist and secularist... his arguments seem confused and this seems a non-issue"

No place in your original post did you suggest the inspiration of his suit had anything to do with his wife. You put forth the assertion that he was pursuing a law suit because he is "just a militant atheist and secularist". In point of fact, this man himself, has at no time, indicated that his wife has anything to do with his interest in preventing state sponsored religious marketing. This is an argument...albiet a weak one...which you fell back on when your origianl assertion was challanged...one to which, I correctly pointed out...you have no competant defense.

I asked...So what if this guy is a militant atheist and secularist? Of course, you referred to him as "just" a militant atheist and secularist...which suggests that his views and beliefs are somehow less important than your own, less relavent and silly. In short you marginalized him and everyone who believes as he does. Which is exactly the point. It is the aim of those who are militantly religious to marginalize those of us who are not...by their insistance in rewriting a our Pledge of Allegiance to include religious affirmation.

You suggest that inclusion of a God affirmation in the pledge is a supplication to something you claim is the embodiment of a standard of "moral excellence" and further suggest ones belief in the object of that embodiment is unimportant. This sort of thinking is typical of the very sort of disengenous crap the DLC is famous for....You suggest that those who take a Pledge....need not take literally it's words. Which of course invalidates it's point. You made my argument for me...thankyou. First you have pointed out that inclusion of a God affirmation is the only way one can supplicate oneself to a pure standard of moral excellence. In so doing...you and those like you...suggest that those of us who do not hold your belief structure have no moral direction. We do....and that direction doesn't require supplication to your theocratic ideology or anyone elses. Your insistance that My Pledge of Allegiance...to My Country...must be predicated upon a disengenous affirmation of something you belive in and I do not is unpatriotic. You see, I am a citizen and I have rights, the same rights you have. I have the right to be free of your theocratic ideology and you have the right to be free of mine. I do not insist that recitation of the pledge include a denial of the existance of God...and I would ask that you respect my wish that it not include an affirmation of the same. It is simply a matter of mutual respect. The mutual respect this country was built upon...the mutual respect that true patriots pledge thier allegiance to.

RC

[RapidCreek]

198. Common Finch...ante up....you takin a break or something?

RC

[RapidCreek]

236. and the silence is deafening...

got no answer....so we change the subject and talk about warrior cults eh?

RC

[Greyskye]

267. Well put!

Thank you RapidCreek! Very well put.

[Finch]

274. I have not

...as you suggest fallen back on the argument that this suite could have something to do with the gentleman’s’ wife… I have merely brought that possibility up on a number of occasions to suggest that perhaps there is more to this than (what I see as an ill-advised) crusade against the term “god”… it is interesting I think that while Mr Newsome has no legal rights of custody over his daughter his ex-wife who does is a Christian and Mr Newsome seems to be attempting in effect to weaken the influence of his wife over his daughter… Now the key to his argument is that the state cannot (in Mr Newsome’s view) tell him that he is wrong in his belief that god does not exist and that it is doing this by including the term god in the pledge… I have already argued that the inclusion of “god” in the pledge should not be considered to be an outright acceptance of the reality of the Christian or any other deity… as I have said the importance in mentioning god is to invoke the standard of “moral excellence” which he represents” I am sure that some do not see god as representing these ideals but I am also sure that most people do… for atheist who have trouble in relation to the pledge perhaps it would be best to take a look at the “secular Jews” these are Jews who reject all supernatural elements of the bible and see it as a tool for moral teaching, now what is wrong with that… still I am sure there will be those who argue that they cannot except this description of “god” as being this personification of “moral excellence” but then there are also people who don’t except that polygamy should be illegal and it still is… by the logic we are using we should accept polygamy as well as sadism and masochisms simply because some people are comfortable with it and the tyrannical majority should not legislate against it…


I apologise for any offence given by the term “just” being inserted into that statement… we the plaintiff in a case of this kind but reversed was a fundamentalist christen I would use the term “just” all the same… Now you argue that “It is the aim of those who are militantly religious to marginalize those of us who are not”… well could they not equally argue that you are “being militantly secular and attempting to marginalise them”?.. I would argue that no one is attempting to marginalise any one, if I had been militantly religious my self (Which I most defiantly am not) then I would have asserted my beliefs as superior and yours as dead wrong and harmful, militancy from either side on this debate is the only thing I see as harmful here… the pledge was rewritten in 1952 (?), so we are not talking of rewriting it now but retaining it, by this logic then we should remove the term “in god we trust” from coins as it discriminates against atheists and suggests that the federal government is endorsing religion…

“You suggest that those who take a Pledge....need not take literally it's words. Which of course invalidates it's point. You made my argument for me”

How so?... what I have suggested is no more than that the term “god” can have universally positive connotations and that for those who reject the reality of “god’s” existence it can be as the embodiment of these values that the term “god’s” inclusion in the pledge can be viewed… as I have said the pledge includes no affirmation that god exists… but does mention god as a way to hold that oath to a higher standard of moral conduct and is that not positive




“...and I would ask that you respect my wish that it not include an affirmation of the same. It is simply a matter of mutual respect. The mutual respect this country was built upon...”

I respect views completely and as I have said I am not imposing my views upon you I have suggested an alternative way for you and other atheists to approach the inclusion of the term god in the pledge… but if that does nothing for you then please just remain silent at that point… I also think its interesting that you talk of mutual respect, and yet you use the term DLC as an insult and slam my political beliefs in a wholly more abrasive fashion than I have in opposing your wanting to remove the term “under god” from the pledge… added to this you also called me unpatriotic earlier on … now respect my friend is a two way street what you seem to be arguing (in a way Saxby Chambliss would be proud of) is that I should respect your views because to you they seem self evidently correct… while my views are fair game to be derided and lambasted simply because you disagree please make up your mind here… you cannot call someone unpatriotic and then deride their political views and then say…

“respect my wish …It is simply a matter of mutual respect. The mutual respect this”

… if you honestly believe that then you should respect the beliefs of everybody… now I doubt many people can actually hold themselves to that I certainly cant… do you respect the views of creationists?, Scientogoligist?, Nazis?, Communists, Republicans?... the list goes on… and my new question stands do you respect these peoples views… because I am not sure that I can respect all these people’s views… now while I respect your views, that is not the same thing as agreeing with them… now can you respect the nearly 90% of people who do not see the pledge of allegiance as being a government endorsement of religion or more specifically Christianity? …

[rawstory]

161. Why doesn't the Court take him seriously?

Linda Greenhouse, the Times' veteran court reporter basically said the judges were condescending to his passionate argument. What I want to know is, how is it that they can actually keep God in there? And while they're at it, why not take God off the currency?

[Finch]

169. Because is argument is rambling and...

...is not coherant... one moment he argues that his rights are being violated HIS RIGHTS... not his daughters and then he changes the whole cases and says his daughters rights are being violated...

added to all this he does not look after his daughter his wife does and she is a Christian to me it seems that perhaps he is getting back at his ex-wife who now looks after their child...who he is arguing is violating his rights through allowing his daughter to swear the oath of alliegnec...

[Az]

170. Thats odd

The legal reporters from NPR and other sources suggested that his presentation was a, and I quote, a virtuouso performance. Look elsewhere for the reason the judges did not pay attention.

[markus]

172. It clearly does violate his rights

because it places a civic institution right damn smack down on the side of his ex-wife in a dispute over religious instructions. It brings the weight of the state down in favor of the side of religious instruction.

[RapidCreek]

189. his rights are her rights

they are one and the same. Point of fact...all our rights are the same. It matters not whether you believe in God or you don't believe in God. That's it in a nutshell.

RC

[Cat Atomic]

167. I think you've been watching too much Bill O'Reilley.

Seriously- what the fuck is a "militant secularist"?

[Finch]

174. pretty much the same as...

a militant Muslim, or a fundamentalist Chrisitan...

I suppose it comes down to if you believe God has no place outside of Churches and the Homes... my politics, the politics of the founding fathers and many progressives from Eugen Debbs to Tony Blair ave had their politics informed by their faith...

Why are people so worried about having god in our national life?... why does every one immediately denounce you as an extremist or a fundementalist... I am neither...

[Az]

176. Secular means neutral to religion

How can you be militantly neutral? You either are neutral or you are not. God in an oathe set before our children is not religiously neutral.

[Finch]

182. not recently...

...secularism has increasingly become a desire to eradicate public displays of relgion... yes "secularism" can be defined as being neutral to region... but more generally it is defined as the absence of or it, or a proactive effort to remove any reference to it... what i do not appreciate is a very small minority attempting to argue that barring any public reference to religion is a good thing... I disagree with that...

The issue here however is weather word "god" 1.) infringes on the rights of this gentlemen and 2.) If the word "god" is acceptable as an expression of a standard of moral excellence we should all strive for...

1.) No it does not... Mr Newcomer's rights are not effected, I will have to take a look at the original legislation form the 1950's, but i would argue that the mentioning of god is not done in a manner which accepts the existence of a "god" but rather acknowledges a higher standard of conduct that we take the oath beofre... his rights are not in any way being violated...

2.) Of Course the word "god" carries all the connotations of what is supremely good, loving and just... and why would it be a bad thing to invoke these ideals and ask are kids to try and emulate them... at other times in the class room children are taught about other faiths and humanism and it is up to them... this is in no way a promotion of a particular religion or faith more widly...rather it is as i have said countless times the invocation of the ideals for which this nation was founded, personified by god... be that "god" real or simply a useful tool to demonstrate these principles...

[Az]

184. Public displays

You can drive a cross into your front lawn. You can place a 5000lbs memorial to the 10 commandments on top of your house. You can plaster your car with as many religious icons as you want to. You can genuflect until you pass out in public. You can pray on the street corners. You can watch religious programming on TV. You can buy religious diet books. You can even argue with me about what you believe. But a representitive of the government is not free to express their religious beliefs when they are on my dime.

Secularism does indeed mean neutrality. If it is possible to maintain a governmental series of religious displays that include all reasonable conotations of represented beliefs then go ahead and display them all.

It is a side effect of our diverse society that it becomes increasingly difficult to fairly represent all beliefs in the limited space available for display. Thus in respect for all we opt not to display religious icons.

This is not atheism in government. Atheism would be displaying monuments declaring us a god free people. Atheistic displays would teach people that there is no god. There is a decided difference between Secular and Atheistic governing.

[Solon]

179. Differences in supporting God in public spaces.

and codifing it into Law. Private citizens, even politicians, can mention God or Jesus, Allah, Buddha, and the plethora of other religious figures as to the basis for their political beliefs. That is not what is argued, the point is why do you need it codified at all in the Pledge. It is a sign of weak belief to have to have the government officially support your position on this issue.

[markus]

180. Because there are a large body of people in this country

(not you) who would like to estalibsh a Christian Nation in a sense that the founders of the current Iranian regime would instantly recognize.

Appeasing those people is a big mistake. If they continue their successful push int hat direction, we will have a level of division in this country last seen 150 years ago.

[Finch]

183. I'm not trying to appease them...

...all that I am doing is arguing that this man's rights under the Constitution are not being violated and that the inclusion of the term "god" in the pledge is not a promotion of religion by the state...

Added to this the term "god" has positive connotations that urge those who say the oath to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct and IMHO that is a positive...


The likes of Farewell and Robertson are scum in my view ... i disagree with their interpretation of scripture profoundly and am saddened by what appears to be their power and influence... that being said i doubt they will ever command majority support in this country and i do not see their position strengthened by retaining the pledge as it has been since in 1950's...

[Solon]

185. Does the government have the right to Alienate Children

based on religion? Atheistic, Agnostic, and other children are being alienated daily by an unnecessary ritual that at best is conterproductive. Whether they opt out or not is not the point, why retain two words that exclude up to 20-30% of the population? This includes all non-religious and religious minorities that have differing views of either the existence or nature of God, or use of pledges to the flag.

[Az]

187. Interpret this

2Kings 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Not the most positive image in my book.

[lapislzi]

188. Disagree again

Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk would interpret a SOTUS ruling overturning the 9th circuit court as a vindication.

You might not believe your rights are being violated, but I believe mine are, and my kid's. Please keep your prayerful entreaties out of public school. That's all I ask. Well, that's not all I ask, but that'll do for a start.

God has NO PLACE in public school except as part of an abstract academic discussion of religion.

Do whatever it was Jesus said to do: go in your closet and pray to your father who is god.

[markus]

194. See my posts 171 and 172

where I address your two key assertions direct:

It is a promotion of religion? Are his rights violated? I say yes to both, and explain.

And all of those speaking for retaining god in the pledge are actively in the religious right.

There is an old song, "which side are you on, boys..." which I think becomes more apt every day.

[RapidCreek]

196. Again you rely on your own faith to define everyone elses

belief structure. In my world the term God does NOT have positive connotations. You can tell me it does, all you want....that does not however preclude the fact that to me it has quite the opposite connotation.

I am an US citizen. I have fought to protect the rights of US citizens...mine and yours. I respect your rights...why is it you feel you can tread on mine? Are you better than I am? Does your belief in your god make you better than me? You have suggested that this is so. That those who feel as I do are "just" bla bla bla. Those words are fightin words and not the words of my friend. Don't call me your friend. I'm not your friend. If you want to be my friend afford me the same respect you expect me to afford you. Hmmm that last sentence sounds familiar....let's break out a bible and quote chapter and verse, shall we?

RC

[ulysses]

192. how about this:

We remove the phrase from the official version of the pledge, and let *fundie* children be the ones who get to stand out from the crowd by shouting "UNDER GOD!" and finishing the pledge a few seconds behind the rest of the class if they wish.

Hey - this little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.

[Finch]

193. Strange as those kids would be in the majority...

... what is with this distrust of religion?

[Az]

195. Conversely

What is with this distrust of secularlism in government?

[Finch]

202. I did not say "in Government..."

I said that there is distrust (generally on the left) of the influence of religion (mainly Christianity) on politics and peoples lives… I was wondering why this is?...

As for Secularism in many ways the traditional notion of secularism…i.e the separation of church and state and the failure of government to favour any particular groups is a good thing…however the irrational suspicion of religion as a malign and destructive influence that has now become synonymous with the term “secularism” in recent years is in my view worrying… in my view you should have a moral point of reference… of course elements of Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist etc…teachings may seem antiquated or may seem to only have implications for those who follow those faiths however western Christianity has to a large extent informed and laid the basis for much of modern day popular morality and is it wrong or undesirable to introduce our children to this morality which its self is derived ultimately from the notion of god (or in the Christian faith Jesus) being the example of this “moral excellence”… we are not telling our children that god IS a real and tangible entity rather we are introducing them to the concept of morality that god is traditionally thought to embody… and that concept of morality is good and positive in my view…

[dpibel]

203. A moral point of reference

Which part of modern day popular morality has been specifically informed by western Christianity?

Laws against homicide? That's not exclusive to western Xtianity.

Laws against stealing? Oops! Pretty much everybody has rules against that.

A proscription of adultery? Not terribly uncommon.

A prescription (in America observed mainly in the breach) to care for you fellow human being? Existed in Buddhism a millenium before Jesus preached it. Exists in some form in virtually all religions and, for that matter, exists quite as strongly amongst the irreligious.

So what are these uniquely western Christian beliefs?

I'd suggest that, since the basic principles of human decency are codified in religions across the globe, they represent, more than anything, an expression of commonly held human beliefs which exist first, and are then given the additional imperative of attachment to some divine source.

BTW: It must really hurt your heart to, for the sake of making your transparent protestations that you're not advocating for any particular god, have to render god in lower case. Will he forgive you for that? Is that the sort of deception that's OK so long as it's done in furtherance of righteous aims?

[Finch]

206. Wow your getting very agrevated at this...

I am by no means a devout Christian... my denomination is catholic and I could probably best be called a theist... but I think about this kinda stuff a lot… probably a residue of doing a philosophy course a while back… personally I really don’t care what others believe, I am interested as to why but I am not interested in enforcing my beliefs on anyone… but then again you’ve clearly made up your mind that I’m a praetorian of the Christian coalition so there we go…

You seem to assume that had there never been Christianity as we understand it there would still have been a similar moral frame work… this I doubt had religious trends of the time continued you would have see the emergence perhaps to domains of the cult of ? (cant remember the exact name), but it was almost a warrior cult that stressed the importance of the strong over the weak… and these kinds of cults where very common at the time of Christianities emergence.. and had they become dominant I doubt you would have found that today we would be living in a similar moral environment… its is an almost Nietzsche like cult of the “super man” we are talking about here.. .very different from what we have to day…

The whole western ideas of charity, caring for the less fortunate and having an obligation to do so are derived from Christianity… now Christianity by no means has a monopoly upon things such as this…but in the western world it was radically different to any thing that had come before it and to this day it underpins much of contemporary morality or are you arguing that our morality is perhaps innate? Or that there is a superior moral system?

[dpibel]

218. Yes I am

As to speculation about what religion might be dominant had Christianity failed to catch on, who knows? Is this warrior cult you're talking about a competing belief system from the same time/place as the founding of Christianity? No particular reason to believe it would have taken the world by storm is there? Christianity and Islam have spread across the globe because their founding documents include proselytizing instructions to the adherents. Other religions -- Hindu and Buddhism, for example -- have remained predominantly within their sphere of origin because they have no such aim. So I suppose it depends on whether your warrior Nietzschean cult was evangelical or not.

You say that western notions of charity are derived from Christianity. Well, they're attached to Christianity, but they're certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Which is to say, given that they're such common concepts in world religions, there's not much to argue that, but for Jesus's teachings, there'd be no such concept in the west.

And yes, as a matter of fact, I am arguing that, given their commonality throughout humanity, basic moral precepts are innate. At best, you make the argument that people in the west codify those basic moral precepts predominately as Christian values. But they hold pretty much everywhere else. I imagine that you could find some culture anywhere that has no proscription against murder, but it would be an insignificant number of people who live that way. In other words, people don't need the prodding of Jesus or his dad to understand that killing other people (except on orders of the deity or the government) is a bad thing. All societies that have concepts of private property also have concepts of theft as a bad thing, whether they take their instruction from Moses, the Buddha, Brahma, or the spirit of that tree in the middle of town.

I thought I was pretty clear about that, but I have obvious overestimated my ability to communicate.

And yes I am aggravated by this because words mean something. Although you have been careful not to capitalize god in your communications because you want to emphasize that the god in the pledge is some amorphous giver of values to otherwise uncontrollable humans, I do believe that the god of the pledge starts his name with a capital letter. I really doubt you'd get a great deal of support for advocating changing it to a lower case god, so as to clarify its universality. In fact, you might piss people off almost as much as Newdow has.

Y'all undergod supporters do baffle me on this point:

Argument 1, used as convenient and useful: Oh, silly! That word "God" in the pledge doesn't mean Jesus's dad! It means the overarching giver of morals.

Argument 2, used as convenient and useful: But of course undergod should be in the pledge! Don't you know this nation (or, in your case, all of western civilization) was founded on Xtian principles.

I really don't see how you can have it both ways.

[Finch]

242. Both arguments are responses to the same statement…

…about the relevance of the term “god”

1.) “…used as convenient and useful: Oh, silly! That word "God" in the pledge doesn't mean Jesus's dad! It means the overarching giver of morals.”

…here I am arguing why the term “god” is relevant to the oath and is not specifically relating to the “Christian god” and has more general connotations…

2.) “….used as convenient and useful: But of course undergod should be in the pledge! Don't you know this nation (or, in your case, all of western civilization) was founded on Xtian principles.”

…I must say I not sure what discrepancy between these two statements you are talking about, here all I am doing is furthering the argument that the inclusion of “god” is relevant… as Christian principles do underpin much western thought and are solidly embedded in popular morality…

Now earlier someone mentioned that Jefferson cut out all the passages of the bible with reference to the super natural and made his own bible… now that would seem to suggest that he accept the “concept” of “god” as an embodiment of this “morally excellent standard of behaviour” so his actions would seem to validate my argument that the term “god” does not impinge upon the rights of atheists as it can be taken metaphorically…

[dpibel]

262. I begin to doubt your seriousness

How would it be that both being responses to the same argument makes it more or less likely that the statements are inconsistent? That is the very fact that makes them both disingenuous.

Here is the discrepancy:

Argument one says that undergod is neutral as to religion.

Argument two says that the use of undergod is legitimate because this is, after all, a nation whose moral compass points to the lodestar of Christianity. Perhaps it is I who am obtuse, but I cannot parse that in any way that does not include the necessary implication that the god of undergod is the Christian god.

If undergod is, in fact, simply the embodiment of higher morality, and not the Christian god at all, what possible difference would it make to the inclusion or exclusion of the undergod from the pledge that America is a Christian nation?

[Finch]

280. I see your point…

Now here is my response…

Ultimately the interpretation of the new oath in the 50’s was that it reflected the Christian heritage of the USA… in the contempory USA the oath can be seen to have broader interpretations which can apply as much to Christians , Jews, Muslim and Hindus as they can to atheists… I also presented the model of “secular Judaism” as a widely practised way by which a concept that some see as being a reality can be seen as a non-reality but still seen as the embodiment of a set of commonly held principles…

In short for Christian the term “under god” will mean the Christian god (and the same goes for Jews, Muslims and Hindus as Hindu’s do recognise a god who is the embodiment of all their other gods) and in the 1950’s it will have been added to the pledge with that in mind… now in today’s USA where there are more atheists than in the 1950’s a different interpretation can be offered, seeing god not as a real presence but as an embodiment a symbol of a set of commonly held principles… using “secular Judaism” and for that matter some forms of “humanism” (which use the bible as a symbolic text) as examples why cannot atheists treat the pledge in the same way?

[dpibel]

286. There is a term for this entire line of argumentation

Finch, I do hope you will not take this as rude. You have, as you keep pointing out, been thoroughly polite throughout this discussion.

But the term for what you are doing, in the vernacular is: Backing and filling. More technically, you might call it ex post facto justification.

Here's the deal: You freely admit that the original project of inserting undergod into the pledge was expressly about the Christian god (just out of curiosity: you've protested several times that you're a Catholic, not some crazed RW fundie. You wouldn't happen to be a member of the Knights of Columbus, would you?). You freely admit that, not only then, but now the vast majority of Americans think "big bearded guy in the sky" when they think at all about the words they're mumbling as they say the pledge.

All you're really doing here is saying: "But if you turn your head just so, and squint your eyes like this, there's a way of looking at the undergod that doesn't mean, really, god at all."

Can you at all see why those of us who object to undergod fail to see the convincing clarity of this?

You can redefine words to your heart's content. Henceforth, I believe I shall call socks "shoes," because if you think about it, the both serve pretty much the same purpose, y'know: covering feet and things like that. If I decide to do that, I shouldn't expect to many people to join me, nor would I expect too many people to find my argument particularly convincing. We already have a word for shoes, and it is "shoes." No need to redefine socks.

Similarly, we already have a word to express the concept of morals. It is "morals." It is not "god," because god is already in use for another purpose.

Frankly, if you think we should all pledge allegiance to "high moral probity," or "generalized concepts of morality," or something like that, you'd probably get little argument. But if that's what we're doing, let's use the right words.

Actually, Finch, would you do me a favor? Would you point me to any resource (a dictionary would be good) which offers your definition of the word "god." I confess that I have available to me merely the Random House Unabridged (2d Ed.) which, perhaps, is not sufficiently authoritative. I'm not going to type out here the entire entry, because it's 10 definitions, and it's too long, so you're welcome to doubt me. Feel free to check it out and correct what I am about to say.

Per the Random House Unabridged: (1) The main entry is capitalized, as is the god of the pledge; (2) All capitalized forms of God are defined to refer to a deity or supreme being; (3) the closest definition to your proposed reading is #4, which reads "(often l.c.) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.." But, even if we were to grant you that the undergod of the pledge really should be considered as, say, "the god of the morality of western civilization," the dictionary doesn't help you that much, since it seem quite clear that, if that is what you mean, that is what you must say; otherwise your use of the word will very reasonably be taken to mean what everybody takes it to mean. (It may be of interest to you or other readers of this thread that the RHU's first definition of God is, "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe."

As I've pointed out elsewhere, for all your lower casing of god for the sake of your argument, the undergod in the pledge is capital "G" god. Feel free to find me somewhere that defines (or even uses) capital-G God to mean what you claim it maybe could really actually mean in the pledge.

The real question is not "How could we permit non-believers to redefine undergod in order to trick themselves into believing that undergod does not run afoul of the establishment clause."

The real question is, "You know undergod in the pledge means Xtian sky ghost, we know it means that, anybody who thinks about it for a nanosecond knows that, the people who put it in there not only knew it but put it in there for that very reason. In light of all of that, how can anyone argue with a straight face that it's a religiously neutral term?"

[RapidCreek]

235. Are Buddhists immoral?

The western idea of charity and caring for the less forunate are not derived from christianity...how arrogant. What the hell is a cult? Many consider "your denomination" to be a cult...you drink blood and eat flesh.

You suggest that cults based upon warrior culture were very common at the time of Christianities emergence. That of course is a conundrum as Christianity is responsible for more murdered people in the name of a "superior moral system" than any other single thing on the planet. This aside...why, pray tell, did these other "warrior cults" cease to be? Was their end the result of some innate quality humanity possesses? No? Then what? Why did "warrior cults" cease to be in areas of the world where christianity is not prevalent? Magic?

RC

[Az]

209. Liberalism vs Religion

Liberals are not apostates. But their natural tendencies to favor inclusiveness has a natural negative reaction to evangelism typically found in the stronger fundimentalist institutions. Thus a liberal will typically avoid morality pleas based on religious dogma. Instead looking for a means of justifying their position within the shared sense of morality found within our diverse society.

[ulysses]

200. since when is wishing for the separation of church and state

evidence of "distrust of religion"?

Or hell, maybe it is, at least distrust of religious government. If so, it's well-founded.

And if they're in the majority, it's only because the pledge has been the way it is for so long. Give it a generation or two. :evilgrin:

[markus]

199. Actually, I think those children shouldhave to go stand out in the hall

to recite their pledge. Then we aren't violating their rights in any way.

Doesn't that seem like a good way to treat small children? To punish them for their differences?

We're not talking about doing away with the honor roll or any of the other tripe that's come out lately.

But we are talking about doing away with something that is unnecessary to public education and civic life to preserve the commity of those two things.

[RapidCreek]

201. That's what loving Christians made my cousin do in 1955

in North Carolina....because she refused to say "under god" or engage in a morning prayer to Jesus....unbeknownst to her parents, as odd as that might seem.

RC

[dpibel]

205. Prepare for smiting, all ye who post here!

To get an idea of what you're in for, just read Finch's sig line; the very expression of the gentle, loving God to whom we should happily, obediently pledge allegiance.

Our fate is laid out before us.

Finch is desperately trying to shepherd us weak through the valley of darkness. He is working to keep his brother and find lost children.

And here we are, inequitably selfish and tyrannically evil, besetting Finch on all sides, doing our dead level best to poison and destroy God's brother.

Finch don't care.

He knows that we're in for God opening on us one mighty big, God-sized can of great vengeance and furious anger. Some vengeance gonna get laid on us, big time, after which we will know his name is Lord (not that the name should be taken to have any religion-specific connotations).

Don't say you weren't warned.

[Finch]

208. Its From PULP FICTION!!!

...Come on man...its not religious, its just a cool line from a great film... get over it...

[dpibel]

219. Oh boy!! You really got me, Finch!!

I must admit that I was casting about the recesses of my mind, where I have stored a great deal of lint from my childhood days, spent in Sunday school, church, young people's meetings, church again, and prayer meeting on Wednesdays, for the source of this passage. I couldn't place it, and, by god, I was pretty sure I'd heard about all the promises of smiting and vengeance in that action-packed book.

So, good job, Finch!

Doesn't really change the fact that the Bible actually does contain plenty of promises to smite the wicked, take vengeance, and otherwise demonstrate the mighty hand of a jealous, albeit kind and loving, God, now, does it?

[jsw_81]

207. I hope Newdow prevails

The original god-free pledge was fine. The current pledge is far too divisive (just look at this thread!) and school teachers have no right to tell children that a god does or does not exist; they need to be neutral about such things.

If the fundies want to live in a theocracy then they can move to Saudi Arabia or Iran; I'm sure they'll be happy there.

[Finch]

210. He should not win...

... put all the argument about the pledge we have made here aside... he is arguing that his daughter's (who he does not have custodial rights over) making the pledge of allegiance harms his constitutional rights... while the girls mouther is a Chrisitian... seems to me he might have other reasons for this action... but are his constitutional rights being harmed... the pledge he says is a prayer... no it is not... as i have exhaustingly argued almost all day... the reference to god refers to the ideals god can be seen (by most) to embodie...

[Az]

211. What other part of the pledge

refers to most and not all?

[Groosalugg]

213. Oh geez....

if you don't like the pledge, or more specifically the phrase "under God," THEN DON'T SAY IT!

[Finch]

215. Seconded...

... this is really exhausting...

[Az]

216. Children are not adults

Is this part not getting through? Children are in the midst of forming their notions of what they believe. Their parents bear the brunt of this burden and the government must stay out of it in matters of religious belief. By putting the unnecissarily devisive phrase "under god" in the pledge they have taken a stance on belief. This is not the governments job. It creates situations which can be psychologically disconcerting for children who are ill equipped to deal with such matters.

[Groosalugg]

217. Is this part not getting through...

that the children have a right to REFUSE to say it???? :eyes:

[Az]

221. Missing the point

A child may not understand the very issues at hand. As a parent of a child we determine what beliefs and morals we want them exposed to. The government stepping in and injecting god into their publically funded education is beyond their mandate. Children must not be forced to have to make these descisions as they simply are not yet equipped to defend their beliefs.

[Groosalugg]

225. Oh for cryin' out loud...

No one is injecting God into your kids! I don't understand why and how you think that!

THE KIDS DON'T HAVE TO RECITE ANYTHING!!!!

[RapidCreek]

228. Why should they be put into that position?

Why must they devide themselves from their countrymen and women to appease your religious ideology or anyone elses? It negates the very theme of the pledge! Think...it doesn't hurt...really.

RC

[Finch]

220. Groosalugg is right...

... if a child wishes they can refuse to say it... no fuss... probably not even noticed by their class mates...

Why should the vast majority who want to not be able assert the oath before God... why must the minority decided?... just a though... not necessarily my argument but a valid one...

[muriel_volestrangler]

223. When a child is first taught the words of the pledge

is it explained to them that 'under God' is optional, because many people don't believe that God exists at all?

As an analogy, would you accept "...to the Communist Republic for which it stands ..." in the pledge? To atheists, the 'under God' is just as much propaganda as this. It's not reasonable to expect first graders to make a political decision (which opting out of part of a 'patriotic' act by those around you is). What the atheist wants is to stop indoctrination.

[Groosalugg]

224. I think athiests...

are making a mountain out of a molehill.

It's a non-issue. I think all athiests just feel like bitching today or something. :shrug:

[FlaGranny]

259. When that "under god" phrase hits me in the face,

it feels to me just like what it feels like to you when someone says YOU believe in myths. I DON'T say that phrase, but every single time the pledge is said, it reminds me that I am somehow minimized or marginalized by that phrase. It excludes me - can you understand being excluded, being made "different" in a public setting?

[RapidCreek]

233. No it's completely inane.

You suggest that the very recitation of the pledge be divisive....which defeats it's purpose. Unless you feel it's purpose is to make a child feel uncomfortable to the degree that he or she aquiesces to your or anyone elses religious ideology...which is of course exactly what you feel....and what those feel who market such an unamerican course. Why must anyone decide? That's the point. By forcing one to decide you divide....then again that's the idea right?



RC

[RapidCreek]

227. Why should I have to affirm the existance of God to say the pledge?

The very point of the pledge is to demonstrate our nations indivisablility...yet you suggest that we must devide ourselves from one another when it is given.

You make no sense.

RC

[Crowdance]

226. Furor brewing our specialty

What is it with this? There are real problems out there, and we at DU (myself included) are having our strength sapped by these inflammatory posts. I'm kicking myself for having replied to another post, kicking myself for having read this one. Reason cannot prevail in discussions like these; these right-wing religionists cannot empathize, cannot understand that anyone might have have a right to thoughts, feelings or ideas different from their own. Give it up, folks, let these folks stew in their own juices. This attempt to reason with them is accomplishing nothing.

[The Rock]

229. So...Christianity is only a right-wing religion?

Is that what you're saying? That's what I'm getting out of it. How dare you say Christianity is right-wing religion. I'll have you know that there are millions of lefties that are Christians too...

[RapidCreek]

234. No I don't think that is what is being said.

What is being said..is the tendency to seek to religiously indoctrinate children via government edict is a right-wing practice.... and it is. I know plenty of Christians who recognize the fact that mixing religion with government is a double edged sword...one which can and has cut them...generally it is right wingers who are to fucking stupid to understand this simple truth.

RC

[Finch]

237. How can you say that...

What have i said that is so extreem... please tell me... apart from being a DLC'er (generally), which i recognize is a much persecuted minority on the board, i have attested to nothing out of the ordinary...

All i am suggesting is that it is not infringing of this guy's constitutional rights for his daughter to say a pledge with includes the terms "under God".... is the fact that i recognize a role for religion in society the thing which makes me extreme?... how can that be extreme I am not asking for a theocratic state, all such states have become corrupt and extreem, I am arguing that perhaps religion or at least the morality derived from religion is a good and positive thing in the modern world and that it should inform public debate i am not asking that it replaced public debate with mindless dogmatism....

Its amazing you say something somewhere to right of Denis Kucinich and suddenly your decried as an extreemist... the irony... sorry man but its true... and i really really don't like being likened to extremist such as Robertson and Farewell, so simmer down and actually look at what i have argued for...

[RapidCreek]

238. Anyone who advocates the abrogation of our Constitution is

an extremist. Perhaps Christians should, instead of jamming that which they perceive to be the fount of their own morality down everyone else's throat, focus on practicing that morality which they claim is so important to them.

Here's something to start with. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Or in otherwords...don't do unto others as you would have others not do unto you. Namely, don't jamb your spiritual fantasies down my throat and I won't jamb mine down yours.

You are an extremist. You assert my morality is founded on your faith. This is extremely self serving, extremely insulting, extremely condescending, extremely ignorant and extremely divisive.


RC

[Finch]

241. I am an extreemist?...

...well its news to me last time i looked i was in the majority... RapidCreek you seem to really dislike me...what have we had I'm an extremist on religion and i an evil DLC/RNC mole (hell! in your view what the difference) and then you argued that i was unpatriotic... you seem to borrow a great deal from the RNC handbook on attacking people... Saxby Chambliss would be proud...

Most western morality is based on Christian teachings and the vast majority associate the concept of god as the personification of this "moral excellence" ... do you find Christian morality its self imoral?... you do not have to accept the reality of "god" it simply asks people to hold their oath to the principles he can be seen to popularly represent... why is this such a big issue for you?...

Now come on man I have tried to make peace with you... why must you be so intollerant...

[matcom]

244. i would say you are an extremist

anyone who wants to tout that THEY are in the majority THEREFORE those in the minority should heed THEIR WAYS is an extremist. the polls say the MAJORITY like to pledge their country to some Idol so we ALL must do so.

yup. extremist. frankly, Jerry Falwell would give you a medal.

[Az]

252. The majority

Most of the polls I see certainly seem to favor leaving Under God in the pledge. But not by a huge majority. It usually seems to be closer than 60/40. Thats 40% at the minimum that seem to be against having it in the pledge. The Pledge. PLEDGE.

Pledge: a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear.

Are you getting this word? 40% of the population think the Pledge should be changed. They disagree with it. Not much a of a pledge if nearly half the population disagrees with it.

[Finch]

256. Show me the poll?

Please do I would be interested... the polls i have seen suggest that nearly 90% have some kind of spiritual belief (yes the notion of "god" is not necessarily part of that...but my point still stands)... I doubt that 40% of people in this country would want the term "under god" removed by Congress from the pledge... for most it isn't even an issue...

[Az]

257. I must retract that

Unfortunately I confused the DU poll with the real world. My bad. And I was referencing whether people believed under god should be removed or not. Not whether peopel believed in god.

[dpibel]

272. Wait! I finally found the trick

Finch, the pledge is a pledge to the flag and the republic for which it stands. The former is the symbol, the latter the embodiment of our form of government. I suspect you'll disagree, but I think most would not, that the pledge is inextricably entertwined with the constitution and with government.

Our government is not founded on Christian morality. It is founded on a document which is conspicuously non-religious. Hence the establishment clause.

You keep saying that Christianity is the foundation of morality for western civilization. I do not concede that point but, assuming it to be true for the sake of argument, why are we demanding that children express their allegiance to all of western civilization? It's a pledge about America.

Personally, I hold that the pledge itself is an embarrassing exercise involving the recitation of words which, unthought of and unexamined, are somehow intended to instill in children a mindless devotion to god and country. It actually amuses me a bit, and demonstrates the effectiveness of the exercise, that people take it for granted that the pledge should remain, and argue principally about the form it should take. So far, no one has come up with another member of western civilization which requires its students to stand daily and drone their fealty to their nation.

BTW: It's "extreme" and "extremist." I can't stop you from thinking that's some kind of elitist nitpicking. But I actually am old-fashioned enough to think that spelling helps your cred.

[uhhuh]

239. Can you tell me

why saying the pledge at all is important? I think the easiest solution, as has been previously suggested, is to eliminate the whole thing and just educate children in ethics and civics in order to produce good citizens.
What do you say?

[Renew Deal]

232. I do not have a problem with "under God"

or "In God we trust." It is just a non issue for me and I would not fight for it.

[Finch]

263. Shale we call a truce?

... doesn't seem that either of us will convince the other and this seems a dame divisive issue for Dem's to focus on at this of all times... I stick by my arguments and equally i respect your positions... so thanks for a spirited debate and now lets get on with the even more rewarding job of getting Bush out of office if we are Uber-Liberals or DLC'ers or even dissident republicans for that matter (thats you Clarky boy)...

Well Peace my brothers and sisters...

[matcom]

264. well since YOU keep kicking this

i have a request.

instead of preaching to all of us, PLEASE go study the following:

1)WHERE the pledge was written
2)WHY it was written
3)WHO wrote it
4)WHAT the original contained
5)WHEN it was changed
6)HOW it was changed
7)WHY it was changed
8)WHO changed it

then, come back and make your argument and i will listen to your reasoning.

also, after you have researched the above, please state why/why not you hold the view about it that you do and/or why/why not your position has/has not changed.

THEN this 'debate' will FINALLY become 'intelligent'

[Finch]

266. Jeas man... can't you be a little bit less abrasive...

... i mean you may feel strongly and so do i but i stick by the position which i have articulated... so don't get riled and as this thread had over 250 responses I'm hardly kicking it up... but simmer down... I've extended your ideas and views courtesy now please do so to mine... its not to be misconstrued as weak to say "hey we disagree... so lets let it rest"... I mean hell where Dem's here why to we have to get so worked up about such an ultimately unimportant issue...ok?... once again truce?

[matcom]

269. no, i just want you to learn something

meaningful.

maybe then you won't preach to me (see my above complaints)

why not do a few Google's and educate yourself as to the origin of this 'Pledge' you speak so highly of?

you have defended your position, which is your right but IMHO done so in an uneducated way.

do you even know who WROTE the pledge?

[Greyskye]

271. Can't you?

You do not seem to be able to comprehend/empathize with anyone not of your view.

I have very vivid memories of being extremely uncomfortable as a child during the recitations of the "under god" Pledge of Allegiance. I always left out "under god" and hoped that no one around me would notice. Of course they did. And I got hell for it. People at school kept asking me what church I went to. As an elementary school student - this happened all through 1st through 4th grades - I felt like an outcast. I refused to say the words that (to me) were lies. Well, maybe I don't have a set of Christian 'morals', but I've always had an extremely strong sense of 'ethics' which my atheist/agnostic parents instilled in me. And that told me that lies were wrong. So I worked up with my parents an answer to the question of what church I went to. "I'm nondenominational". Not a lie, but still let me avoid having to tell people that I didn't believe in their god.

Do you really think that this is stuff that kids of this age really need to deal with?



Please Jesus, save me from your followers!

[mellowinman]

268. It's great if he can do it.

Now let's get rid of Bush! I'm frustrated. I have a great thread to post, and the damn thing keeps coming up, "not enough posts, blah blah blah."

Geez! I worked to find important links...

Ah, who cares?

I'll just keep posting that WE HAVE OUR CHANCE TO IMPEACH THE CRIMINALS!

[Az]

270. You could build up some posts

over in the lounge in the Thread that will not die.

[Greyskye]

273. Finch...

...are you ever going to reply to post #186? I'm curious as to your response.

[Finch]

275. Just done it…

But some people seem to be getting pissed off at the tendency of this thread to get booted up the list time and time again…. So sorry…

[scarface2004]

276. i pledge allegiance to george bush..

who is god, screw the nation, vote republican, amen!!!

there s your fucking pledge asshole!!

[Finch]

277. why all the aggression?

... I am not a Republican and when have i once in all the time i have posted here resorted to such unpleasant and down right rude languae... as i have repeatedly been polite and accepting of others views (even if i argue the point with them) you could at least do the same... and as usual i wont report this to the moderators... so why can't you simmer down... I will fight for the ideals of this party and my country for the rest of my life in one way or another and don't your dare... don't you god dame dare... presume to tell me I'm a republican or i don't give a sh** about the nation... so please apologies and extended the same courtesy I've extended to you... and all those who i disagree with... shesh!!!!!!...

[Piperay]

278. "Under God" or not under God is of

no importance to me because I refuse to recite the pledge while we have a dictator running (ruining) this country. :shrug:

[Finch]

279. Your right it’s a distraction…

… But it is an issue, and I personally think that the pledge should remain as it was… but that us just my opinion and I’ve made the same argument again and again and yet still and get torrents of hate from some (and I emphasis some) on the board for it… its rather hypocritical when they take about tolerance and then call me an asshole and a traitor and unpatriotic… as I’ve said before I now know how Max Cleland felt in 02….

…But back to your point this is a wedge issue if ever there was one and unlike “gay marriage” (which by the way I have mixed feelings on… but on balance I probably favour) most American probably support the pledge …we need to get this irresponsible ****** and his crew out of the white house and ideally his friends out of the majority in congress… but hey we’re dems (and communists, greens and socialists lets not forget that critical voting block!) and we’re destined to fight amongst our selves…but I’m being pessimistic… we should be kicked Bush’s ass not having the uber-liberals gang up on the moderate dems…good luck in your quest for unity on this board.. Luckily it doesn’t reflect the mainstream Democratic Party...

[matcom]

281. would you have 'mixed feelings' if you were gay?

why deny ANYONE their civil right?

you started this thread in a rather condecending way. i want to ask you again. a couple of posts up, i asked you to research the origins of the pledge and its history.

have you done it?

do you care?

i really am trying to be helpful here. there ARE other resources out there that are helpful to this 'discussion' other than scripture.

care to respond?

[Finch]

282. Thats not the issue...

... those who a re fairly socially liberal think it is very logical to just let every one essentially do as they please... I know because i use to be fairly laze’-fair socially... But generally I think stable relationship of any kind are good... however I hold to my beliefs that on balance a male/female relationship is a better environment for the rearing of children... that’s just my view... and no I'm not saying that gay's make bad parents... I am vehemently in favour of equal rights for all couples but as far as "gay adoption" is concerned I have my worries... I would probably need to see some research really... what I do dislike amongst heterosexuals as well as gays is the hedonistic tendency to have purely casual relationships (and that’s one reason why gay marriage is a good thing because it encourages stable loving relationships),… now I am not gay, so I cant pretend to totally understand it from their perspective however I have had casual sex before and have had friends who have and it is not something that I or most of them would wish to repeat and don’t think that is something which should be encouraged… sex before marriage is fine by me… but not in the context of one-night-stands and casual encounters be they heterosexual or homosexual IMHO…


But your other point I am not merely using scripture here... I have not once referred to scripture... generally I'm using what I see as logic... If you are genuinely try to help then thanks for the tips… but I’m not referring to scripture alot here…

[Finch]

283. Well Scarface are you going to answer me?

...doubt it, seems you can't give a reasoned response to my counter to your "eloquent post" or explanation for your er... "views"...


But hey if thats how you want it...

[Az]

284. Can't speak for Scarface

But haven't you picked up on the fact that atheists consider the phrase to be very disrespectful to both ourselves and the spirit of this nation. Not to mention the very words of the pledge contradict themself. Sure, we can wrangle with history and law to find ways to cram it in. But in the end we have to ask what is it doing in there in the first place considering this nation is supposed to be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Not just most of the people.

[Finch]

285. Do you want to start this over again?

... or do you want to join me and others...some of whom may oppose the pledge and may be atheists, I don't know and i don't really care at the moment... who have been laying into Fox and trumpeting Kerry's new economic plan on the "Fox gets into election mode" thread... come now let let this one lie and if after we've beaten "W"'s sorry ass back to Crawford in November we still want to the we can argue some more ... ahh coining HOMER its great...

[immoderate]

288. the pledge itself makes me uneasy...

...and the inclusion of a religious reference makes it much worse.

I respect the idea that people have beliefs, but i do not necessarily respect their beliefs. I think the government should stay out of all issues that involve faith. It's hard enough to govern when you just deal with facts.

I don't believe in god, but I know that others do. It's all OK for people but not the government.

The question I ask when people talk about the "Christian principles that this country is founded on," is, what principles were the countries of Europe founded on that we broke away from?

--IMM