That's not establishing a religion Timber. How is it? It's not decreeing you have to believe it. It's a statement about the nation. The majority believe in God, and so are unified in a theistic/deistic belief. If and when atheists are a majority, the statement will cease to be true. As it is, it is a true statement about America, without declaring what your religion should be.

For comparison, see Indonesia, with a state religion - Islam. See even England. The Queen is the head of the Anglican Church - which is thus the state religion. Laughable of course, given the views of most English, yet nevertheless, a nation without church and state seperation enshrined in it's constitution - without all the whoohar either. "God save the Queen" is the anthem for starters.

[quote]Originally posted by Yorick:

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb] "God save the Queen" is the anthem for starters.

An intresting fact about God save the Queen...
There is a second verse which only seven people in the world know the words to. It does however contain the lines 'god damn their knavish tricks/confound their politics'. Really true. Sounds like a joke but it's not.
It seems appropriate to call on an entity who may or may not exist to save an institution which will probably not exist in 100 years time.

As for the US pledge of alliegence, Americans are not obliged to recite it, so who cares if it is under God?
I personally would like to swear a pledge of alliegence to 'one nation under the thumb of one nation under God' but that probably isn't going to happen.

I like your disclaimer [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll say the pledge with "under God" no matter what the courts say now or in the future. Though I have to agree with TL the majority rules is a dangerous slope to go down. We must have our laws apply to all.

I like your disclaimer [img]smile.gif[/img] I'll say the pledge with "under God" no matter what the courts say now or in the future. Though I have to agree with TL the majority rules is a dangerous slope to go down. We must have our laws apply to all. </font>[/QUOTE]In general, I don't trust the public to make a choice like that. It was a moment of frustration on my part... I want the issue to go *away*

I don't say the pledge. It's a personal choice. You do, and you say "under God." That's a personal choice too, and I respect that. This is something that should be a personal choice for everyone, in my opinion. If there are people who are for some reason forced to recite the pledge, it's not right that they should be forced to say "under God" if they don't believe it to be true. But I would imagine such cases are rare.

I thought it was a personal reference. Last I checked it wasn't "God save the monarchy", but "God save the monarch". Seems appropriate to wish the old dear well if you ask me. Why would you wish her ill? Hear hear. God save Lizzy. ;) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

We all should know that. By "we all know that" what I meant was: "We all know that when the U.S. Congress inserted the phrase 'under God' into the pledge of allegience, it was referring to the Judeo-Christian God and not some broader 'god'."

And, that, I believe is just seeing the facts as they are. It's not a particularly "American" response.

Britain doesn't have a constitution.
Never has done and never seen the need to have one.

Britain doesn't have a constitution.
Never has done and never seen the need to have one. </font>[/QUOTE]Read what I wrote again:

<font color=yellow>a nation without church and state seperation enshrined in it's constitution</font>

The key word being WITHOUT.

In any case, though unwritten Britain still has an "uncodified constitution". Built upon the Magna Carta and act of settlement.

But that is beside the point. The point was, there is no seperation of church and state in Britain. The national Church, the Anglican Church was started by a monarch, and is still headed by the monarch. Politics all around.

This seems like a giant defeat for parental rights to me.


Anyway, I predict we will be seeing round two in the not too distant future, a case brought by a nice 'nuclear' atheist family.