anti-religious extremist gone too far??

[Lady Blue03]

Hmm, i saw this on the news not an hour ago! It is his daughter who is uncomfortable saying it, it seems...

But i agree with Jahanna and Chewbacca; it never really made me uncomfortable, but i could never help wondering how the strong atheists(sp?) felt about it. Thats as far as im gonna take this one [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Lanthir: Hmm I guess peopel do not understand what the intent of the founding faterhs was. They all belived in God. What they did nto want was a state sponsered religion such as in ENGLAND where the King was the head of the church. They did not want the percicuton to take place as it di din England. The idea was that in Aermica you could choose your woen religoon and not have to worry that you would have problems for it. It was not to ban religon. Prior to the constitution in soem parts of the country if you did nto belogn to a particualr church youwre not allowed to vote in the local elections, own property in that town and so forth. That was what they wanted to prevent. To teh case in point what I do nto understand is that if you do nto belive in God what difference does it make to you if it is in there it shoudl nto effect you anyway. Oh to answer the question President Esienhower added the phrase "under God" by executive order.

Well said! The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exersise thereof;"
As far as I know there are NO laws stating that the pledge MUST BE SAID IN SCHOOL. It is voluntary to say the pledge!!!!!!!! Since the pledge is voluntary (you can say it or NOT say it) how can it be a violation of anyones rights?
I know someone will bring up the esteem of someone that doesn't wish to say the pledge with "under God" in it. To that I say what about the esteem of the people that want to say "Under God"? Are not their rights just as valid?

Personally I don't really care what the 9th circut court of apeals ruled. I'm going to say the pledge when ever I Want too! with the phrase "Under God" in it, if you don't like it too bad! If you do like it too Bad! I don't say the pledge of allegance for any human on this earth but me! And I answer to no human on this earth for any pledges that I make, they're mine and mine alone to make!

Yeah, hopefully the other states do the same. I too am waiting for the day that they take "In God We Trust" off of the coin. Never could understand how a nation promoting freedom of religion could put such things on currency anyway. Well the school thing came way too late for me anyway I guess, hate to suffer though all that eventually I ended up uses the coming in late method as well. Though still today it seems you have to endure the forced ceremony elsewhere it angers me the way people look at me when I refuse at sports events, graduations and such.

To address the wording of the main topic, just because you don't want "under god" or "in god we trust" on something doesn't mean that you are non-religious. Just that you are supportive of free thought and the right of.

[ 06-27-2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Orion ]

[caleb]

FINALLY! How would christians feel if they had to say one nation under Vishnu, Zeus etc.

[Scholarcs]

Pardon me for asking, but what is the pledge of alleigance? Is it like pledging yourself to America or something like that? Do you have to do it?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by caleb: FINALLY! How would christians feel if they had to say one nation under Vishnu, Zeus etc.

No one ever said you HAVE to say the pledge, There are no laws making anyone say the pledge under penalty of law. And if the pledge said Zeus I'd just leave that part out.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Scholarcs: Pardon me for asking, but what is the pledge of alleigance? Is it like pledging yourself to America or something like that? Do you have to do it?

Basicly that's what it is, and you do NOT HAVE to say it!!!!!!!!!!

[Scholarcs]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Basicly that's what it is, and you do NOT HAVE to say it!!!!!!!!!!

Do you have to say it everyday? Would it be considered disrespectful if someone did not say it?

I believe that it is unfair to get a child to make a pledge like that. They are too young. Wait until they are teenagers before making them swear their lives away :/

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Scholarcs, The Pledge of Allegiance is usually recited by school children at the beginning of the school day. The class stands up and the teacher leads them in a pledge to the flag.

I gave this topic a lot of thought last night, and I have to admit that I even surprised myself with my answer.

I looked at it from several different perspectives.

First of all, are we REALLY "one nation, under God"? Not anymore. Non-Christian religions are becoming more numerous and more vocal. For many, many years, it was taboo to proclaim any religion that deviated greatly from Christianity. Mormons, Jews, and Catholics were acceptable..but anything past that was really "pushing your luck". That has changed dramatically within the last 25 years, so the pledge is no longer accurate.

Second point - Will Christianity be adversely affected by removing the "offending reference"? Once again,the answer is NO. Christians could still add it if they wished while non-beleivers are offering nothing more than meaningless "lip-service" at best. AFA non-believer simply choosing NOT to state the pledge at all....I cannot agree with that. It looks good on paper, but if a student chooses to NOT recite the pledge, he/she will be "marking" themselves and setting themselves up for possible retaliation. Retaliation that may even receive the "implied consent" from the teacher since they may feel that the Pledge is a show of patriotism and SHOULD be recited by all children.
Orion mentioned the "disapproving stares" he/she recieves at ballgames for not participating in the pre-game prayer. It would be even worse when school children (who can be quite cruel towards other anyway) are involved.
Example: A little over a year ago, I saw a video of a high school chorus group doing a "recital" (or whatever you call a community event where they sing several of the songs they have practiced all year long). One of the members in the chorus was a pagan. She and her mother (head of the local pagan church) had objected strongly to Christian Hymns being included in the groups presentation. She also cited the "separation of church and state". I disagree with that interpretation, but it was a moot point. When the presentation took place, the pagan girl refused to sing the hymns. She was physically attacked by the "Christians" in the group. They pummeled her with their fists and pulled her hair. All of this was captured on video and shown on the local news.

So tell me, do you REALLY think it would be safe for a 5th grader to "sit out" the Pledge of Allegiance?? Sooner or later, he has to go to the playground, and you can bet there will be some kids waiting for him there.

Don't misunderstand me....as most of you know, I am a very devout Christian. But the kind of ignorance and intolerance mentioned above is simply inexcusable. Not only does it NOT reflect the love that Jesus Christ showed to everyone - and that He EXPECTS modern day Christians to do also - it also puts Christianity in a very bad light and simply adds justification to the various criticisms leveled by atheists, agnostics, et al. It gives us a very negative image that is difficult to overcome.

Finally, why did Dwight D. Eisenhower feel it was necessary to add the phrase after so many years? According to one report I heard last night, he stated that he did it so that "children all across America will be calling to and acknowledging the Almighty every single morning before starting school" {paraphrased}.

That IS a direct violation of the "separation of church and state". That is an example of the President trying to impose a specific religious belief on the entire nation.

So I have to say that I do not oppose removing the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't completely agree with it, but I have to agree with the opposition in this case.

Cerek, yet again you have hit paydirt. I believe your comments sum up the legal and ethical aspects of this case quite well. As for people being tolerant of one another's choices, it has gotten considerably better, yet it is still risky to stand out in a crowd in re one's religion. The government of our nation, a polyglot of cultural and religious backgrounds, MUST remain neutral on matters of religion if it is to honestly represent all the citizens equably.
BTW, Cerek, should you choose to run for public office, you've got my vote!