Topic: Poll: Supremes vs. God (Read 8805 times)

JimH · « **on:** March 24, 2004, 09:44:27 pm »

I wish that Harry the Hipster were still around to rule on this or at least rant and rave about it.

The United States Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the two words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violate the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

Chris Shaw · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2004, 09:53:09 pm »

Is the pledge of allegiance compulsory in schools? Seems a little like brainwashing to me.

JimH · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2004, 10:02:20 pm »

For those who live in other parts of the world....

In the U.S., from a very early age, children recite the "Pledge of Allegiance" each morning. I remember it as being kind of fun. It was a salute to the country and the teacher, and so on. In 1954, which I also remember, the two words "under God" were added. We thought it was a little odd, but we proceeded on in our duty to our country.

"Good morning, Miss Moore. I pledge allegiance to the United States, and to the flag for which it stands, one nation, [under God], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

{{I had to go to Google to get it right....}} $:-\$
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

@l@n · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2004, 10:12:35 pm »

mooseman · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2004, 10:47:03 pm »

I'm not an atheist, but I think it should be removed. I think that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are two of our most important rights.

sirshambling · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2004, 01:36:58 am »

Being a soul music fan, looking at the "header" for this thread I thought it was about Diana Ross & Co.

Not being a US citizen I wouldn't dream of offering a view on the real subject.

John

Mastiff · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2004, 01:41:01 am »

I am an atheist, and a foreigner at that, but I say it should. Just like the christian education should be out of schools in Norway. That's the only thing I admire about France - they have religion and state totally separated! As for their stance in Iraq...without the US they would be drinking schnaps now instead of their own wine!

NoCodeUK · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:34:16 am »

Give us a little credit too please for helping the french out of their plight. Yeah the US gave us a little bit of help at the end but we held for a good three years before they got involved

Adam

Mastiff · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:36:42 am »

I apologize for that one. Of course you did. Also you managed to make complete fools of yourselves in northern Norway before you left us...not to mention Dunqerque...

benrad · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2004, 04:33:36 am »

When did this board get all political?
Don't get me started...I'm fired up as it is

Mastiff · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2004, 04:45:33 am »

Political? This is just a bit of fun to me! It's the british national pasttime at work - taking the p...

KingSparta · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2004, 05:40:46 am »

God was not in the original Pledge but if they vote for it to be removed then I think all aspects of it should be removed from our money and other parts of our law, government and Ceremonies.

To include The United States Supreme Court Room it self

I Don’t Believe In God but I think it should stay because most of the country does and should only be changed when 2\3rds of the country gets killed by religious nuts who believe in “Muhammad” and want to kill everyone who does not.

Answer: It Should Stay

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #12 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:17:08 am »

It should stay . Our founding Fathers did not want to get rid of " god " but wanted the freedom to worship the way they wanted

JimH · « **Reply #13 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:31:53 am »

Quote from: GRAYDOG on March 25, 2004, 08:17:08 am

Our founding Fathers did not want to get rid of " god " but wanted the freedom to worship the way they wanted

Religious freedom should include the freedom to _not_ worship. The remedy has so far been "You're not required to repeat the pledge." This, however, does not insure religious freedom.

When "separate but equal" schools kept blacks separated from whites in the U.S. until the mid 1950's, would it have been adequate to say to an Afro-American, "You don't have to go to school"?

It's a good idea to keep Church and State separate, no matter what you believe.

Mastiff · « **Reply #14 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:33:51 am »

Yeah, that would be logical. That or saying "God, Allah, Buddha, The Great Spirit, Jahve..." Sorry if I missed any...

skidoo · « **Reply #15 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:45:29 am »

Who gives a big steaming cow turd? I raise my son and daugher, not their teachers.

When my son was in preschool, he came home confused and upset about Noah and the desrctuction and the rainbow. I immediately sat down and watched some Clint Eastwood spaghetti western with him.

Then I asked him. "Was that fact? Did that REALLY happen."

'No," he replied. "It was just a movie."

"Right. But was it *true*?"

"What do you mean?"

Thus began the discussion about truth and fact. And rainbow promises or no rainbow promises, a story, no matter the source, is just a story.

salsbst1 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:55:34 am »

Under the same pretence, the word "marriage" should be removed from all of our laws. Marriage is a social and religious institution, and we get nothing but trouble from mixing specific social and religious institutions with laws.

P.S. Our founding fathers may have set up a decent governance structure, but they also owned slaves and gave women very few rights. "What they wanted" has no bearing on what we should have.

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #17 on:** March 25, 2004, 09:53:29 am »

P.S. Our founding fathers may have set up a decent governance structure, but they also owned slaves and gave women very few rights. "What they wanted" has no bearing on what we should have .Posted by: salsbst1 I agree not all they did was right . But the way I understand this is that the church and state are tobe seperate to protect us from having a state religon and also to protect the church from the state . also what about foot ball ,you know the hail mary pass?

AoXoMoXoA · « **Reply #18 on:** March 25, 2004, 09:59:13 am »

Does not Freedom OF Religion also necessitate Freedom FROM religion as an equal option?

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #19 on:** March 25, 2004, 10:08:29 am »

We all have a choice that is the important part . CHOICE

salsbst1 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 25, 2004, 10:23:41 am »

Quote from: GRAYDOG on March 25, 2004, 10:08:29 am

We all have a choice that is the important part . CHOICE

Does a public school student have a choice as to whether or not to listen to people reciting that America is "under God" every morning?

Aoxomoxoa seems to have been prescient of your comment. Freedom from religion in official public forums needs to be an available option, and as such, religion should be neither practiced nor preached aloud.

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #21 on:** March 25, 2004, 10:28:57 am »

Do they still do that in school? I have three childern and do not think they ever had to do that.

JimH · « **Reply #22 on:** March 25, 2004, 10:52:16 am »

Quote from: salsbst1 on March 25, 2004, 10:23:41 am

.... religion should be neither practiced nor preached aloud.

Amen.

salsbst1 · « **Reply #23 on:** March 25, 2004, 11:07:31 am »

a) Well, Jim, you and others have stated that this isn't a public place in the past, so on that count you are ok.

b) According to Merriam Webster the meaning of amen is not technically bound to religion, so on that count I guess you are ok, too!

Quote

Main Entry: amen
Pronunciation: (')ä-'men, (')A-; 'ä- when sung
Function: interjection
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Greek amEn, from Hebrew AmEn
-- used to express solemn ratification (as of an expression of faith) or hearty approval (as of an assertion)

c) I thought about breaking down "aloud" to also include the shared, written word but I figured nobody would call me on it. Perhaps I was wrong?

JimH · « **Reply #24 on:** March 25, 2004, 11:17:30 am »

Very funny. Thanks.

pbreet · « **Reply #25 on:** March 25, 2004, 11:38:47 am »

This is not an important issue to me, but I do have an opinion....

It was added in 1954, it was not part of the original Pledge.

It should be removed. It is wrong to make children recite a pledge affirming a religious belief which they make or may not believe, or not by their parents. No, they don't HAVE to say it, but how many 5 years olds know they have a choice, or could make one.

This is not about whether religion is good or bad, only that our govt should not choose a god to be under. Yes they only say "under god", but that pledge clearly means "our" christian god. What if your child was in a public school and you were not christian?

I never said the pledge in school after 8th grade, saying a pledge to a flag just felt silly to me. it was not the "under god" thing for me, it was the idea of pledging to a flag, silly I say...

Freedom of religion, also implies freedom from religion.

mkutsen · « **Reply #26 on:** March 25, 2004, 02:09:57 pm »

I am an atheist and I agree with most here, but it's interresting how the views of this forum contradict the views of 90% of pople in this country.

AoXoMoXoA · « **Reply #27 on:** March 25, 2004, 02:17:23 pm »

I always just imagined the flag to be a representation of the country and it's guiding principals.
I whole-heartedly pledge to my constitution, the bill of rights, and much of the other structures upon which this great country was founded and built.
I do not pledge to any that goes against those principals.
Freedoms
Equal Rights
Liberty
Including the right to stand-up for those rights

ANYTHING which goes against the nature of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights, seeking to eliminate or minimize the rights of any group of people, even through "legal amendment" undermines the entire foundation and fabric of this nation.

DocLotus · « **Reply #28 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:14:39 pm »

Separation of Church and State...

Hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes with this. If I offend anyone, my apologies in advance but here is my 2 cents worth...

The early Pilgrims & other early European settlers came to the North American continent (now the USA & Canada) to get away from religious persecution that was the norm in Europe at the time (in the 1600's).

All they wanted to do was worship without someone telling them what to do & how to do it without being persecuted, thrown into jail or executed for their believes!

Freedom of religion (and freedom FROM religion) has always been one of the big draws to this country... it's called personal rights or personal freedom.

The founding fathers knew this & wrote the Constitution to keep a separation of Church & State. Each can have their freedom without infringing on the rights or others (or each other).

The problem is that some politicians (mostly Republicans) are pandering to the Religious Right & their decisions are based more on religious ideals then on common sense.

Bush is a good example of this religious right pandering. He totes the religious right to the extreme...

* Women's rights on abortion... favors the Religious Right.

* Stem cell research... favors the Religious Right.

* Using Federal money for religious schools... favors the Religious Right.

* Many other examples... favors the Religious Right.

That, plus how he has a total disregard for the environment has me mad as h**l.

What really makes me mad is that I voted for the jerk. Yes, I'm a registered Republican but currently not very happy with that fact.

I firmly believe in a very strong separation of Church & State to maintain everyone's freedoms.

When the Church tries to influence our Government, nothing good can come of it as it simply does not reflect most people's desires. It ends up being too few people trying to control the lives of the many... including my own.

So, I say to the church... keep your nose out of my business, (and the Government) period!

KingSparta · « **Reply #29 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:36:06 pm »

Maybe They Should Just Change "God" To "Elvis"

Everyone Likes Elvis Right?

'God Bless America' Charted At 36 In 1959

Listening to: 'God Bless America' from 'The Very Best Of Connie Francis' by 'Connie Francis' on Media Center 10

we may need to band the above song from our country.

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #30 on:** March 25, 2004, 03:59:42 pm »

King, the fat Elvis or the thin Elvis

Mastiff · « **Reply #31 on:** March 25, 2004, 04:02:33 pm »

If he's to fit your dog breed of choice we're talking about the anorectically skinny Elvis!

GRAYDOG · « **Reply #32 on:** March 25, 2004, 04:09:31 pm »

Quote from: Mastiff on March 25, 2004, 04:02:33 pm

If he's to fit your dog breed of choice we're talking about the anorectically skinny Elvis!

Yea but the back yard is alot easier to clean

Mastiff · « **Reply #33 on:** March 25, 2004, 04:11:24 pm »

Ever heard of a Bobcat?

Bendra · « **Reply #34 on:** March 25, 2004, 05:41:19 pm »

Quote

So, I say to the church... keep your nose out of my business, (and the Government) period!

And while we're at it, let's keep them out of our bedrooms.

skidoo · « **Reply #35 on:** March 25, 2004, 05:51:56 pm »

Quote from: KingSparta on March 25, 2004, 03:36:06 pm

Maybe They Should Just Change "God" To "Elvis"

Too late G-d has already been changed to Money. Thank G-. Well, hallellujah!

Charlemagne 8 · « **Reply #36 on:** March 25, 2004, 06:42:06 pm »

William Safire made a good point in his column today:

"Those of us who believe in God don't need to inject our faith into a patriotic affirmation and coerce all schoolchildren into going along."

The idea that "majority rules" totally negates the idea of protecting the minority. BECAUSE it's the majority opinion that it should remain IS THE REASON that it should be removed. Convoluted logic, perhaps but protecting the minority is also a tenet that we Americans hold dear ... at least on paper.

I believe that it and all other references to any diety or religion be held completely separate from all goverment functions. That includes "In God We Trust" as well as the prayer to open Congressional sessions. It mattereth not which religion it is or what religion the members are, it has no place in a government that represents ALL of us.

Any religion worth it's salt doesn't need to be force-fed. If it's viable, it will stand on it's own.

The insertion of the phrase "Under God" renders the rest of the Pledge that follows it meaningless.

Rant Over. Return to your normal activities.

CVIII

salsbst1 · « **Reply #37 on:** March 25, 2004, 06:54:06 pm »

Well said!

(try that on for size, Jim

)

JimH · « **Reply #38 on:** March 25, 2004, 07:06:56 pm »

Extremely well said, C8. I read the two paragraphs after the quote from William Safire and didn't notice that the voice had changed. I salute you.

Jim

bspachman · « **Reply #39 on:** March 25, 2004, 07:55:58 pm »

Something I see mentioned only rarely is that the "under God" part of the Pledge was inserted during Eisenhower's presidency (I think 1957, but certainly sometime in the 50s).

Anyone know when the Pledge dates back to? Civil War?

Regardless, I think Holland, Dozier & Holland could come up with a better pledge than the one we currently have....

Brad

AoXoMoXoA · « **Reply #40 on:** March 25, 2004, 08:51:03 pm »

And the nominees for the writter of the new National Anthem AND Pledge or Allegience:

1-Burt Bachrach
2-Neil Diamond
3-Stevie Wonder
4-Michael Jackson
5-Eminem
6-Sinead O'Connor
7-Yoko Ono
8-James Brown
9-Little Richard
10-Madonna

Mastiff · « **Reply #41 on:** March 26, 2004, 01:53:48 am »

Marilyn Manson! That should be right up his alley!

IlPadrino · « **Reply #42 on:** March 26, 2004, 02:49:02 am »

Quote from: bspachman on March 25, 2004, 07:55:58 pm

Something I see mentioned only rarely is that the "under God" part of the Pledge was inserted during Eisenhower's presidency (I think 1957, but certainly sometime in the 50s).

Anyone know when the Pledge dates back to? Civil War?

Regardless, I think Holland, Dozier & Holland could come up with a better pledge than the one we currently have....

Brad

It wasn’t until 1954 that the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance as a defense against Communism. After signing into law a bill to have these two words added to the original pledge, President Eisenhower said "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

9O3q1NJ9eyz42Jf9 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 26, 2004, 09:03:52 am »

When I realized what this thread was about, I thought to myself, "Oh here we go again". That's because the vast majority of people in the United States (or so it seems) are strongly in favor or keeping the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The posts I've seen here, especially from C8 and JimH, are a very nice surprise.

The words "under God" should absolutely be removed from the pledge.

Of course, Christians tend to want those words to remain. This is not surprising.

But to those people, I ask: What if the wording was "one nation, without God..."? Would that be OK with you? Of course it would not.

And why is that? After all, the wording "without God" does suit a lot of people in the United States who are either atheist or who belong to a non-theist religion. You've had a wording that fits your beliefs for 50 years; can we have it suit ours for the next 50 years? "Absolutely not!" comes the reply.

So why is a wording that favors your beliefs acceptable, but one that does not favor your beliefs unacceptable? Are we less important? Should the majority have absolute power?

And why would a wording that favors neither not be the best solution?

There is no possible good answer to that. None. The best people have managed to do is to come up with vague references to the "founding fathers", and the "religious tradition" of the United States. But they fail to tie this flimsy argument into the idea that atheists, Buddhists, Humanists, and others should be force-fed views which they do not agree with.

They don't explain why the children of those people should have to go to school every day and recite--or at least hear--a pledge that explicitly says that their parents are wrong about their spiritual beliefs.

There is no defense to melding religion and state, no matter the degree. Absolutely none. To say "it gives me a warm fuzzy", which is basically what people do, is extremely callous and dismissive of the views of the minority, and actually runs counter to the true principles of liberty.

ph_bradley · « **Reply #44 on:** March 26, 2004, 10:27:36 am »

i get kinda scared when i hear middle eastern countries getting schoolkids having to recite any kind of oath at all to the state because it suggests indoctrination. Add god to that (i'm firmly atheist) and i pigeonhole that country to be a breeding ground of absolutist government, xenophobia and religious self-righteous foreign (and domestic) policy.

replace "middle eastern countries" with 'Republican-led, two party 'democracy' USA", challenge your self-proclamation of being the 'free world', and you get some interesting comparisons between the two.

Mike Noe · « **Reply #45 on:** March 26, 2004, 10:32:52 am »

Quote

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

Far as I can tell, this (and scores of years of legal precedence) is what has given us this "separation of church and state". What am I missing?

Are judicial and executive not part of "state"? Too much "gray" in all of this. Methinks power and money might be involved.

DocLotus · « **Reply #46 on:** March 26, 2004, 10:35:30 am »

Mike;

You got that right

KingSparta · « **Reply #47 on:** March 26, 2004, 11:14:10 am »

here is a link on that

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1549

but when they talk about "God" they are talking about all religons that beleave in A God and not maybe the one me or you beleave in.

I would think it would be wrong if they said that you had to believe in the "Baptist" way and not maybe the "pagan" way. But when it is kept generic I see no harm.

As I said before I don't beleave in any God but i do think people are going a bit overboard with this.

Maybe we shoud ban it all and throw the hole lot out of the US

Who Should Go First?

1. Jerry Farwell
2. Mr Baker and his ex-wife tammy
3. Mr Jackson
4. etc...

would not hurt my feelings

9O3q1NJ9eyz42Jf9 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 26, 2004, 11:40:56 am »

Quote from: KingSparta on March 26, 2004, 11:14:10 am

but when they talk about "God" they are talking about all religons that beleave in A God and not maybe the one me or you beleave in.

And what about religions that don't believe in any god at all? Or what about people who don't subscribe to any religion at all?

Why not change the words "under God" to "under Satan"? Because some people (specifically Christians) would flip out.

If it's wrong to say "under Satan", or "without God", it's just as wrong to say "under God". After all, you say that "under God" is acceptable, because it is generic. Well, isn't "without God" also generic? It doesn't specifically support Humanism, or Buddhism, or atheism, after all.

So what we have here is a situation where some people are happy with things, and represented, while others are not. And that's wrong. Call it overreacting, or anything else, but it's still wrong.

KingSparta · « **Reply #49 on:** March 26, 2004, 11:53:03 am »

I believe that one day we will all hunt down anyone with a religion and shoot them in the back like a rabid dog.

Just so we would not need to hear the word "God"

INTERACT FORUM

Poll

Should the Supreme Court remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance?

Author Topic: Poll: Supremes vs. God (Read 8805 times)

benrad