anti-religious extremist gone too far??

[skywalker]

I don't the believe "God" in the Pledge has been defined, has it?

It does not say "One nation, under the Christian God", does it?

Can it mean any God that applies to you?

If it IS a big deal, shouldn't "In God We Trust" on our American money be removed. Maybe it should read "In Gold We Trust"!

I don't really care, but the US government should not split hairs. If there is a division between Church and State, it should be all or nothing.

I think there are bigger problems for the American people and our Government to worry about right now.

Like the budget, a possible stock market crash, and other more important issues.

Mark

[Neb]

Well, Mark, the Christian God is usually called God. If it was an undefined god it would have to be in A god we trust.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by skywalker: I don't the believe "God" in the Pledge has been defined, has it? It does not say "One nation, under the Christian God", does it? Can it mean any God that applies to you? If it IS a big deal, shouldn't "In God We Trust" on our American money be removed. Maybe it should read "In Gold We Trust"! I don't really care, but the US government should not split hairs. If there is a division between Church and State, it should be all or nothing. I think there are bigger problems for the American people and our Government to worry about right now. Like the budget, a possible stock market crash, and other more important issues. Mark

Yes, but when you write god with a capital letter you mean the Christian god. If it was just any god, then maybe they should write in plural. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[skywalker]

Ooops! Sorry, I kinda knew that, but I think it was filed way back in my brain. Thanx for the correction guys!

Mark

[Bruce The Aussie]

Americans might have to say the pledge every morning before school with the god stuff in it. but at my primary school i had to sing hymns (sp) before school started. if you didn't sing then you'd be singled out and told off by the teachers in front of everybody. I wasn't religeos and so where my friends.

also how come nobody could say hallaluyah! (really bad s/p) i mean everyone singing always missed off the first H entirly and said the y as a J!.

[Larry_OHF]

Some of you from other places besides the U.S. probably are wondering what the words are to our pledge. See below.


Pledge of Allegiance

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.

[ 06-27-2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[Chewbacca]

I think if the crafters of the constitution wanted goverment institutions to promote religion, specificly by the acts of creating and interpreting leglislation, that they would have mentioned religion more than once in the bill of rights.

[URL=http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html]http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html[/UR L]

Here is a link the constitution in its entirty. It seemed so much longer when I had to memorize it in grade school.

No religion is established by law, aka goverment and Religion is way more diverse than the word God.

Considering religion is free to the people, the opportunity for religion in private schools is still available. It became potentially even more available just today with the validation of vouchers by the supreme court.The voucher system makes goverment money available to private schools, even if they are religon based.

Alas, Today the court that made this decision put their ruling "on hold".
My president and leglislation nearly messed themselves with rhetoric. I think its mostly a clever ploy to gain "religous right" votes preceding an crucial election year that could shift the balance of power in the 2 party system.

Perhaps the people who want to include god in their pledge can do so if they want, but the non-religous original version should be the one that is read by the school leader. Its only fair to all the other religions/philosophies that dont include God in thier viewpoint and people like me who would prefer to let thier children decide about religion without it being a ritualized aspect of being patriotic.

Being patriotic has NOTHING to do with religion. Hence the first amendment of the costitution. Religion is above and beyond public goverment endorsment. Thats what those three words added to the Pledge amount too.

I expect this ruling to be upheld in the end, considering thats the legal precedent set concerning the 10 commandments in the courtroom and the sheer logic of this interpretation of the constitution.

[ 06-28-2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Xero279]

Originally posted by Lanthir: 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.

if it was "one nation under satan" then all the christian kids would be complaing and make it changed, they wouldnt just say it. thats how all other religions (or lack of religions) feel about it

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by 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.

Good post Cerek, It's my understanding that Congress wrote the pledge into a law, stating that this would be the official pledge. Now if Dwight D Eisenhower signed an exceutive order adding the words "under God" then it IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL the first amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It says nothing about an exectutive order, I bring that up because what is being argued in the courts is the "letter of the Law" not the "Spirit of the Law". I'm all for making all exctutive orders unconstitutional, but I believe the US Supreme Court has allready ruled on that issue.

[ 06-28-2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I think if the crafters of the constitution wanted goverment institutions to promote religion, specificly by the acts of creating and interpreting leglislation, that they would have mentioned religion more than once in the bill of rights. [URL=http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html]http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html[/UR L] Here is a link the constitution in its entirty. It seemed so much longer when I had to memorize it in grade school. No religion is established by law, aka goverment and Religion is way more diverse than the word God. Considering religion is free to the people, the opportunity for religion in private schools is still available. It became potentially even more available just today with the validation of vouchers by the supreme court.The voucher system makes goverment money available to private schools, even if they are religon based. Alas, Today the court that made this decision put their ruling "on hold". My president and leglislation nearly messed themselves with rhetoric. I think its mostly a clever ploy to gain "religous right" votes preceding an crucial election year that could shift the balance of power in the 2 party system. Perhaps the people who want to include god in their pledge can do so if they want, but the non-religous original version should be the one that is read by the school leader. Its only fair to all the other religions/philosophies that dont include God in thier viewpoint and people like me who would prefer to let thier children decide about religion without it being a ritualized aspect of being patriotic. Being patriotic has NOTHING to do with religion. Hence the first amendment of the costitution. Religion is above and beyond public goverment endorsment. Thats what those three words added to the Pledge amount too. I expect this ruling to be upheld in the end, considering thats the legal precedent set concerning the 10 commandments in the courtroom and the sheer logic of this interpretation of the constitution.

Chewbacca,
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law establishing religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the gov't. or the President and because it's the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law that is being argued in this case, it might not be upheld. (asmueing "under God" was added by excutive order as has been stated)