NEWS ITEM: There's some murmuring going around the "The Pledge of Allegience" MAY be "unconstitional" because is has "One Nation Under God" in it. There has been many squabbles about this item for years, and I'm SICKOFIT (Pronounced: Sick of it)

Whatever (or whoever) an invididual's God is, it's up to the individual's beliefs.

LEAVE THE PLEDGE ALONE!

John, the Pledge is unconstitutional for that very same reason and "under God", IMO, should be removed from it. However, I expect the Supreme Court to overrule the lower court's ruling. They shouldn't but more than likely they will. Maybe they'll surprise us.

And please, no shouting. You can state your opinion just as well in a calm manner.

I really don't care one way or another about the pledge. If it says "under God" or not will that really affect anyone's religious attitude? Wether it says "Under God" or "Under Joe Pesci" does not do my laundry or affect the price of bread.

What gets me is the lawyers fees being spent on it. If some guy in California is so upset by it he hires lawyers to challenge it, so? It is his money to do with as he likes. When the Justice Department or whomever get involved, sorry, that is MY money that is being wasted. Yes, I mean wasted. Don't the AG or President have ANYTHING better to do. If you think it is important for them to investigate bordellos in New Orleans or Providence Mayor's racketering, this stuff only serves to distract them from the "real" work.

SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE

"The phrase 'under God' clearly violates the First Amendment's separation of church and state," said McDonald's CEO Jack Greenberg. "However, there is nothing in the Constitution that separates chicken and state, which is why we're proposing, 'One nation, six chicken McNuggets and a medium Coke, all for $1.99.'"

If some guy in California is so upset by it he hires lawyers to challenge it, so?

He represeted himself, actually. He has a law degree.

If you think it is important for them to investigate bordellos in New Orleans or Providence Mayor's racketering, this stuff only serves to distract them from the "real" work.

Berry, I live in Baton Rouge. Trust me, they're not investigating those New Orleans bordellos too closely.

Matthew Patterson,

If an FBI agent and Justice Department lawyer spend 1 second investigating a "strip" club where "strippers" have sex for a fee with NFL players (accidentally in New Orleans) it is 1 second too much, IMO. However, that is not the point. The point is minute the lawyers WE pay for spend on this non-sense is a minute that the justice department should essential stuff like that and cracking down glocoma grannies with joints ("They only think they can see better."). My feeling that high grand-mas in CA are less of a threat to me than, say terrorists is irrelavant to "the pledge". I feel that "the pledge" scandal is even less important than that.

My feeling that high grand-mas in CA are less of a threat to me than, say terrorists is irrelavant to "the pledge". I feel that "the pledge" scandal is even less important than that.

Probably true, but the government has a right to defend itself in court, and in this particular case the electorate is explicitly denied the right to decide what cases the court will and will not here. So, you're just going to have to live with it.

Mpaterrson,

I just have to live with much wasting of MY money. Ever hear of the Starr report?

Probably true, but the government has a right to defend itself in court -- Mpatterson

The government includes me (at least theoretically) even if only to pay the bills.

I also have a right to complain about it on internet message boards. (No this isn't a freedom of speech issue it is afreedom of the press issue.) (Hey, this is a board for the first amendment.)

Well, the irony of all this is that the government added the "under god" wording in the 1950s at the height of the anti-communist hysteria in order to more clearly distinguish us from those "godless communists" who were out to conquer the world... so there was never any disguising the fact that "under god" was meant to promote religion... or at least to announce that we officially believed in it.

All of this in spite of the First Amendment which states, unequivocally,that "Congress shall make no law" respecting the establishment of religion.

So, all of those self-righteous congressmen who are so devoutly decrying the 9th Circuit's ruling and saying the pledge every day (to say nothing of those Missouri legislators who just approved a mandatory pledge law for public school students)... they've all got their heads screwed on backwards.

The 9th Circuit has it right. We're all free to talk about god, and free to pray to god... or not.

That's the beauty of the First Amendment.

Once it become compulsory, we become someplace else, like, Iran or, perhaps, Taliban-era Afghanistan.

Andy H: So, would a law mandating public display of the Declaration of Independence in every class room be unconstitutional as well? That was passed by a "United States Congress", and certainly has more religious content than the Pledge does.

Other than your "theocracy" argument being far fetched, it's also clearly wrong. No one has to say the Pledge of Alleigence. That has been a constitutional right longer than "Under God" has been in the pledge (I think). Theocratic Governments develop when secular governments fail in their functions and/ or moral authority, provoking a reactionary movement. Both countries you speak of, have always been autocratic societies. In America, no group can do anything unless it has approval of the majority. Except for the Atheist Left, which can enforce it's beliefs upon us, just by getting a judge to agree and calling their opposition "Taliban" or even worst "Heads screwed on backwards" (Aka "••••••", for the Ann Coulter fans) So under the "Theocracy" you can say any part of the pledge you wish, or none at all, but under the "True constitutional meaning" it's criminal to say "Under God"?

Matt,

Believe it or not Matt you can say "under God" all you want. A judge can personally say "under God" all he wants (If he isn't in robes.) The cop writing me a ticket can say he is just doing his job "under God." (I'm already ticked at him when it was clearly yellow.)

The students spontaneously breaking out in the pledge of allegiance with "under God" is OK too. (BTW, I mean real spontaneously, not like a spontaneous demonstration of support for Kim Jong Il.)

The problem is when the state says, "you must." (Note the principal can say as much as he likes, just not when he is representing "the state.") Giving little Johnny atheist boy a chance to stand-alone in the hall during the pledge does not cut it. C'mon, you were a kid. If your sneakers are too different, you can be picked on. If your hair is too different, you can be picked on. If your religion is a lack of religion it is different. Little Johnny atheist will have to watch his back at recess.

BTW, this is another of those non-problems that you guys (both Demicans and Republicrats) get into regularly.

I student taught in a private school. Before each day they said either a Hail Mary or the Lord's Prayer. (Or should I say they mumbled it.) If someone's parents didn't like it they were free to go to the school that didn't pray. (Wow, Freedom and choice because people are responsible for their own actions -- you Demicans and Republicrats gotta shut that down somehow.)

There is a different board to discuss putting choice in public school parent’s hands.

Leave the room? Forgive me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be easier to just not say "under God", and then start again? This ain't the Aborted body parts video, this is just a little loyality oath.

This isn't a non issue. The whole point of public school is to indoctriate our children in American Virtues and to teach them how to be good citizens.

Finally, I'm pretty sure the adding of the words "Under God", was a resolution, not a law, which would fit under the catagory of "We think this is a good idea," not "this is the law of the land".

This isn't a non issue. The whole point of public school is to indoctriate our children in American Virtues and to teach them how to be good citizens.

Indeed, education is about more than training people to sort widgets or work as retail drones or telemarketers.

Except for the Atheist Left, which can enforce it's beliefs upon us,

Please, I am so sick of chrisitians saying that the atheists are enforcing their beliefs on everyone. All they want is for the givernment to no say things that promote the idea that God exists (which would mean that atheists are wrong) They don't want the government to claim that God does not exist they want the government to stay neutral i.e. "we have no oppinion one way or the other"

Matt,

I forgot you went to a private school. Yes, leave the room. I've seen Jehovah's Witnesses children leave the room. (BTW, are Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian? Let's ask them.)
I forgive you.

How many days can little Johnny atheist hide that he is just moving his lips for "Under God"? ("I'll make Johnny Atheist pray on the playground when the teacher ain't lookin'.")

And I guess I should be more precise with my language. It is not a non-issue. It is yet another non-issue. If 19 Saudis hijack planes and crash them into sky scrapers can be averted by re-assigning the lawyers from the case of the third graders who can't say the pledge in a government controlled setting only and putting them in the INS, then the third graders saying the pledge is (IMHO) a big fat hairy deal.

Of course it get you to think of something other than the coming Iraq war, all the corporate scandals, and Halliburton (there are Democratic equivalents, but your guys are in power and thus more photogenic.)

Except for the Atheist Left, which can enforce it's beliefs upon us...
Excuse me, Pesti. Atheists "enforce" their beliefs onto others? Was it the atheists who started putting "In God We Trust" on our currency? Was it the atheists who banned (or tried in some cases) teaching evolution in public schools and wanted only creationism taught instead? Was it the atheists who are sexphobics and wanted no form of sex education taught in public schools at all, other than abstinence? Was it the atheists who've blatantly used manipulative fear tactics to get people to believe in a being whose existance has never been, and never will be, proven? Is it the atheists who have national TV shows that preach their beliefs to millions of people everyday, using guilttrips to fleece countless hundreds of millions of dollars from their viewers, many of whom are lonely homebound invalids, and stooping so low as to have commercials showing little kids that they want the rest of us to feel sorry for, thinking they're a lot poorer than they really are, or look? Pesti, can you please show us even one example where atheists have done any of those things in order to "enforce" their beliefs on others?

And speaking of Ann Coulter (what perfect timing), well here's something sent to me by email the other day that I wanted to share.

Posted on Sun, Sep. 01, 2002
Editor's File | A letter to Coulter
runger

Dear Ann Coulter:

You're fired.

It's not that extreme viewpoints are unwelcome on the opinion pages of the
Centre Daily Times. All political viewpoints, from Cal Thomas on the right to
Molly Ivins on the left, are welcome here.

But, we don't welcome haters, Ann, and that's what you are.

Well, you are either a hater or a hypocrite who calls names and spews enmity
because you believe it will get your pretty face on television more or sell
more copies of your best-selling books.

In either case, we won't be publishing your Friday column anymore. We decided
not to publish a piece of yours a few weeks back because it was nothing more
than a sexual history of some of your enemies -- i.e., private citizens who
dared to give money to the Democrats.

I wrote a column about why we held the piece and told readers then that if
you continued to cross the line, we'd can you.

Your Friday column, in which you declared that liberals are "no good," then
trashed the entire Kennedy clan as a collection of "heroin addicts, convicted
killers, cheaters, bottleggers and dissolute drunks," crossed that line. I'm
not going to defend the Kennedy family or liberals; either group can argue
with you if they'd like.

But, Ann, you're mean -- vicious, really -- which is why we do not believe
that you in any way serve the public good.

On a late summer morning almost a year ago, all of us -- Republicans,
Democrats and everyone else -- witnessed what hate is capable of.

Since that day, Americans have tried to remember that they are on the same
side, regardless of differences in skin color, nation of origin, religion or
political viewpoint. It has not always been easy because, more than ever,
those who are different can seem more threatening. But we're trying because
what we have in America is worth keeping.

And, Ann, you're not helping. You do nothing to elevate our spirits, to
celebrate the great bond that holds us this unruly people together and makes
us a nation.
Hate is easy; love is hard.

Our great nation gives you the freedom to hate all you want and even to make
a buck off it if you can. But, even better, it gives us the right not to have
to listen.
So, Ann, you're fired. I expect some of our readers are going to be mad at us
over this, but we hope they'll understand that while we joyfully publish a
wide spectrum of political and social viewpoints, we condemn hate where we
find it.

You won't miss us much, Ann. Heck, you're rolling in money. And your fans can
find your column on the Internet anyway.

We'll start looking for someone to replace you. It won't be easy because you
sure are flashy and a lot of folks like flashy. But political conservatism
has produced other columnists of merit whose ideas will provide subjects fit
for public consumption and debate -- writers who do not believe those who
disagree with them are traitors, or worse.

Sincerely,
Bob Unger, executive editor

If Matt Pesti: So, would a law mandating public display of the Declaration of Independence in every class room be unconstitutional as well?
Luigi Novi: Only to someone who thinks that a public display and a group recital are the same thing. Since obviously no one does, the answer is no.

Matt Pesti: No one has to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
Luigi Novi: Do you think when group of school kids are told to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, especially grammar school kids, and each one sees the others reciting it, that they not only know that, but won’t feel intimidated by the fact that everyone else is reciting it, and ostracized for not doing so? If it isn’t required, then a public school has no business organizing it in the first place.

Matt Pesti: Theocratic Governments develop when secular governments fail in their functions and/ or moral authority, provoking a reactionary movement.
Luigi Novi: Theocratic governments develop when governments do not adopt full civil and equal rights for all the people who live in its borders as part of their constitutions, when religious authorities seize power, or otherwise exert influence, or when those in power or their constituents do not understand the importance of separation of church and state.

Matt Pesti: In America, no group can do anything unless it has approval of the majority.
Luigi Novi: Untrue. Groups can exert power by giving financial support to candidates in exchange for consideration from that candidate if he/she is elected.

Matt Pesti: Except for the Atheist Left, which can enforce it's beliefs upon us…
Luigi Novi: Saying that it is wrong to have a national pledge recited in public schools to make references to supernatural/spiritual beings is not enforcing a belief. It is the ceasing of the enforcement of a belief on those who don’t share it. National pledges should be characterized by ideas that are universal to those it is intended to represent and be recited by. References to gods are not.
---Putting "In God we Trust" on currency that everyone has to use is enforcing a belief on atheists. Having two different Pledges—one with a reference to God and one without—or having those who don’t see their nationalism in terms of references to spiritual figures, is divisive, and defeats the purpose of a national pledge that is supposed to bring people together in the context of their nationality, not spiritual persuasions.

Matt Pesti: So under the "True constitutional meaning" it's criminal to say "Under God"?
Luigi Novi: No. And no one ever said it was. It’s unconstitutional (not "criminal," which is a different area of the law) for a public school to organize an activity with references to spiritualism.

Matt,

I didn't realize this until Luigi said something about it.

Matt Pesti: In America, no group can do anything unless it has approval of the majority.

Luigi Novi: Untrue. Groups can exert power by giving financial support to candidates in exchange for consideration from that candidate if he/she is elected.

For an example, are mohair farmers a majority?

Josh G: The core of American Public Education, is to create educated citizens who understand the political system and are more likely to resist mob rule. Everything else is nice, but the whole reason we started public education was to create citizens, not send people to high paying jobs.

Brian F: You all would make a better case if you weren't wrestling with mottos, momuments and chants, because essentially, they conflict with your (hypothethical or otherwise) beliefs. When the Supreme Court has to decide how many feet a Crech must be from a light display, you don't convince us of your "plight" especially when a nation of mostly Christians is the best place for atheists (or any other minority religious group) to live.

Blue: Emotional arguments are futile agaist me. I still see no reason why someone can either mouth the words, leave the room or simply run a combination of the St. Anslem's Ontological argument cum Paschal's Wager Of course, JW's have a moral reason for not wanting to be present for a oath to a satanic power, Atheists just disagree with two words. Of course, saying you hate Jews in class isn't also going to make friends, arguing why abortion is immoral with your professor in class isn't going to make you friends. There is a price to free speech.

's Note: Jehovah's Witnesses are not considered Christians due to the rejection of the Holy Trinity. They belive the same about Christendom for the opposite reasons.

Again, I could bring up the Culture War, and other issues that lack the magnitude of the war on Islamic Militants and extremists, but still have to be dealt with in our four 24 hour news network world.

Mark N:
People in a free society have to right to evangelize by any method, and to ask for money as well, for any reason. It shouldn't be any more objectionable than the last 25 years of "The religious right is a threat to our democracy" that is chanted in liberal fundraiser letters. Second "Under God" does not have the force of law, Lincon's face proberly offends more people than "In God We Trust", which is in the "Star Spangled Banner," but again hardly the force of law on our behavior. However, no prayer in public schools anywhere, has the force of law, no pledge in public schools has the Force of law, no ten commandments on public property, has the force of law.

Having actually read Slander, even if only 25% (it's more like upper 90's) is factually and logically correct, the media is still damned as liberal by that 25%. I don't understand how a book with 700 plus footnotes is "debunked" because some one finds a few dozen out of context quotes, a dozen bad facts, or a crafty insult someone dosen't understand. Its also always fun how every criticism of Slader proves the books hypothesis.

Luigi: First of all happy birthday. Based on "laws" banning public display of the ten commandments, a document with less religious references than the DOI, there is no such difference.

Isn't amazing with the exception of people on this board, how weak minded children are? I believe the benefits of increased loyality to this country are outweighed any concerns over psychological effects on young children (who's religious beliefs are supposed to be cc's of their parents anyways.)

My point with theocratic governments is that they rise from countries that are already failures, not from Presidents who want to ban abortion.

Apathy equals consent. Who cares about mohair indeed.

But there is no enforcement. You don't say the pledge, legally, nothing can happen to you. But try to pray in any public school, the ACLU will unleash rabid lawyers upon you.

Since the constitution is the law, any action taken agaist it is illegal, and therefore criminal.

My problem with posting the Ten Commandments are as follows:

1. Which version? Jewish, Catholic, Protestant (all three use slightly different variations).
2. Using the Jewish version (Translation source here):

Commandment 1: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.

Commandment 2: You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Commandment 3: You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God; you shall not do any work-- you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Seems to me that those are fairly religious in tone.

Pesti: But there is no enforcement. You don't say the pledge, legally, nothing can happen to you. But try to pray in any public school, the ACLU will unleash rabid lawyers upon you.

No you canm pray all you want in school (as long as you are not doing it when you are supposed to be listening to the teacher or doing school work) What you can't do is have a public employee (i.e. A Teacher) say "Ok class we're all going to pray to God in his son Jesus' name and anyone who doesn't want to can remain silent and go to hell for it."

Or, as I've heard it put... "as long as there are pop quizzes, there will be prayer in schools."

Blue: Emotional arguments are futile agaist me. -- Pesti

First time I've ever been accused of arguing from emotions. I generally get accused of many other things.

I'm not sure, but I think I was insulted. Is asking you if mohair farmers constitute a majority emotional?

Matt Pesti: I still see no reason why someone can either mouth the words, leave the room…
Luigi Novi: If someone wants to mouth the words "under God," they are more than free to do so.

Matt Pesti: Second "Under God" does not have the force of law, no ten commandments on public property, has the force of law.
Luigi Novi: No one is saying it does. It is wrong because it is the promotion of religious or spiritual beliefs by a public school official. Students are still free to post the Ten Commandments in their lockers if they want.

Matt Pesti: However, no prayer in public schools anywhere, has the force of law
Luigi Novi: And no one is keeping anyone from praying in school.

Matt Pesti: Luigi: First of all happy birthday.
Luigi Novi: Thank you.

Matt Pesti: Based on "laws" banning public display of the ten commandments, a document with less religious references than the DOI, there is no such difference.
Luigi Novi: Yes there is. The DOI is a historical document whose references to a creator are made in casual passing, and the document’s display is based on its historical significance, a significance that exists for all Americans regardless of spiritual persuasion. Displaying it amounts to little more than decorating a room with something that is universally American. Displaying the Ten Commandments does not, because displaying a document that commands the reader in its first three passages to worship a god, not take that god’s name in vain and keep holy a certain day of the week for said worship of said god is a clear endorsement of a belief in a spiritual figure, which a public school or government institution has absolutely no business doing.

This does not mean, however, that a person cannot adorne their locker or desk with such things, since the clear meaning in such a display is that only the user of that desk or locker is displaying their beliefs.

Matt Pesti: But try to pray in any public school, the ACLU will unleash rabid lawyers upon you.
Luigi Novi: Why do so many people insist on making a deliberate confusion between whether you can pray in school, and whether the school officials can organize such activity?

Matt, can you offer one documented example of the ACLU suing students who decide to pray on their own in school, rather than school officials who tried to organize such a thing?

You are more than free to pray in school. In homeroom, at your locker between classes, during lunch, during study hall, during gym if you're sitting up against the wall, etc. And why does it even have to be in school anyway? What about when you get up in the morning, at breakfast, walking/riding to school, walking/riding from school, before dinner, before going to bed, etc.? Why is school thought by some to be so much more necessary a place to pray than one’s own time and place, and why must it be organized by a teacher? If a student feels strongly enough about his/her own religion, why is he/she considered so helpless that he/she can’t pray on his/her own without being helped or guided by someone else?

First time I've ever been accused of arguing from emotions. I generally get accused of many other things. [] Berry

Actually, it's not (unless someone has been impersonating you lately, especially on RM and here on PM). Whoever has been using your name on the "Should we try them as adults" thread has been very emotional and illogical, as I mentioned.

In fact, there have been other threads (Muslim Faith in RM spings to mind) that have posts signed in your name that do not sound like your clear, staight-forward thought processes.

Why do so many people insist on making a deliberate confusion between whether you can pray in school, and whether the school officials can organize such activity?

Matt, can you offer one documented example of the ACLU suing students who decide to pray on their own in school, rather than school officials who tried to organize such a thing? Luigi

It is not just the religious right who are "deliberately confused." There have been cases where student requests for after-hours use of a classroom for Bible study or prayer, or a student-led prayer on the shool steps or in te schoolyard before the day begins have been illegally denied. (Granted it is usually school officials or elected city leaders rather than the ACLU, but still.... And the fact that it often has to go to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court means someone's involved who should know better, if it is as obvious as you present it to be.)

Bible Club

In either my junior or senior year of high school, I had study hall right after lunch, which was akin to a double period of lunch (or a double period of study hall). I think I even had art class right before lunch, so that when I wanted to finish a painting, my teacher allowed me to use the room by myself while she took off.

If I wanted to, I could've prayed.

If I wanted to go into the courtyard to pray, I could've done so. Friends could've joined me if they wanted.

No one is stopping students from praying using their own time or public space like the library or cafeteria. But to officially designate a room for the specific purpose of praying or Bible study may carry with it the appearance that the school is conducting Bible studies, particularly if the school does not allow OTHER extracurricular activities. If the art room is being used by a class, can I paint in that room? Can I repair a carborator I'm working on in auto shop? Can I do my homework there if the library is filled? Or what about just hanging out with my friends to talk? Or getting a group together to promote our ideas about war, the death penalty or abortion? Surely if the school can officially designate a room for use by one group to express their beliefs, why not another?

...particularly if the school does not allow OTHER extracurricular activities.

In the cases that went to court on these issues, the schools usually did allow other after school activities to use the classrooms. In fact in many cases any (legal) activity, including the discussion of controversial poilical positions, was accomodated except those that the officials decided were religious, the religious (or semi-religious) aspects of such activities as yoga, martial arts, astology, etc conveniently falling below their radar. That is why the schools lost in so many of those cases.

In the cases that went to court on these issues, the schools usually did allow other after school activities to use the classrooms.

In my favorite application of this particular principle, a school in Utah banned *all* extracurricular activities in order to prevent a Gay/Straight Alliance from being formed. It worked, too.

(Note that this is not my favorite because of the outcome; I simply find it bizarre enough to be noteworthy.)

The issue is NOT teacher-led prayer; the issue has NEVER BEEN teacher-led prayer; the issue IS student-initiated prayer. FACT: A fourth-grader was sent to the principal's office to be punished for praying over his lunch in the school cafeteria. FACT: A teacher asked each of her students, one by one, "What does Christmas mean to you?" After most of the kids said "presents" or "days off from school" or whatever, one little girl said, "Christmas to me means the manger." The teacher said, "You're not allowed to say that here." FACT: A girl was given a one-inch cross on a gold neck chain and wore it to school one day, and school officials told her that she wasn't allowed to wear it. FACT: The first amendment was intended, among other things, TO PREVENT THE GOVERNMENT FROM INTERFERING WITH RELIGION. FACT: NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ANYONE CAN BE PREVENTED FROM EXPRESSING RELIGION IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE.
Furthermore, IMHO, TO OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS TO SUPPORT THE ATHEIST LEFT, AND A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT BY A LEFT-WING ATHEIST IS JOSEPH STALIN - THE ONE WHO SENT AT LEAST 30 MILLION PEOPLE TO DIE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE ONE WHO HELPED HITLER TAKE OVER POLAND, THE ONE WHO SAID THAT HE WANTED TO KILL EVERY JEW IN THE SOVIET UNION - AND WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF HE HAD NOT BEEN HIT THAT VERY NIGHT WITH THE BRAIN HEMORRHAGE THAT KILLED HIM.

FACT: A teacher asked each of her students, one by one, "What does Christmas mean to you?"

This is the problem. The teacher shouldn't be asking that.

IMHO, TO OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS TO SUPPORT THE ATHEIST LEFT

I see. So, as a Jew, I either have to support the Christian Right, who I deeply oppose, or support the Atheist Left? I don't think so. It's not a bipolar thing, Mike.

That's the real problem, Scott. Too many extemists, on both sides, have convinced too many well-meanining people that those are the only two choices, leaving more rational people Christian and agnostic alike squeezed in the middle, and other people, who like you are religious but not Christian, squeezed out entirely.

FACT: You have no evidence, no links, no news sotries, NOTHING to cooborate anything you said. FACT: You just suggested that Atheists and other non-Christians are morally equivalent to Nazis and other Dictators. You just equated Left Wing philopsophys of FREEDOM FROM RELIGION AND EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK with the madman Stalin! That is BLATANT argumentum ad hominem, and that post (and this one in reply to it) should be deleted POST HASTE!

TomM,

That is me. On both boards they are reason based, or do you think I argue from lust? Perhaps it is pity, or sorrow that is the base.

Since you seem to think that anything you do not agree with is emotionally based, here is a quick test. When you argue against can you get to its base without being insulting? If so, it is logically based. As of yet neither you nor Luigi have resorted to insults. (I can't say what you think.)

Oh, and on the RM boards read what I say not what Luigi says I say.

BTW, I know this was off topic, but I felt I should respond to TomM's post that was completely about me. (Gee, I still don't know if I've been insulted by Pesti or TomM.)

FACT: who doesn't see a bunch of posts with "FACT" in block Capitals?

Dude,

There is no specific person he's aiming at. Calling for it to be dumped makes you look like the kid who always called the teacher at recess. Brian Webber used a better method whenever Peter insulted him by a BLATANT argumentum ad hominem. He just pointed out that he used logic and Peter just called him names.

Mike Brill,

Did you see the Patriots versus Steelers on Monday? The Steelers running back (Futu-Mafala I think is the spelling) was goaded by The Patriots corner back Ty Law. Futu swung at him. Ty smiled and backed up as yellow flags flew. Futu walked into a trap that cost the Steelers 15 yards and a touchdown. Though he may not be Ty Law, do not be Dude's Futu.

Since you seem to think that anything you do not agree with is emotionally based,

Why are you are assuming that I disagree with you? I merely pointed out that you are allowing your emotions to cloud your normally cear and logical responses. (I assume that by off topic here you mean the reference to "Try them as adults? I'll continue this on that thread if you like.)

Mike Brill: FACT: A fourth-grader was sent to the principal's office to be punished for praying over his lunch in the school cafeteria. FACT: A teacher asked each of her students, one by one, "What does Christmas mean to you?" After most of the kids said "presents" or "days off from school" or whatever, one little girl said, "Christmas to me means the manger." The teacher said, "You're not allowed to say that here." FACT: A girl was given a one-inch cross on a gold neck chain and wore it to school one day, and school officials told her that she wasn't allowed to wear it.
Luigi Novi: Is there some particular reason why you’ve provided no documentation or reference for ANY of these alleged incidents?

Mike Brill: NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ANYONE CAN BE PREVENTED FROM EXPRESSING RELIGION IN ANY PUBLIC PLACE.
Luigi Novi: And no one has ever said they can’t. The examples you cited above are, at best, aberrations, and at worst, in the absence of reference or documentation, apocryphal.

Mike Brill: Furthermore, IMHO…
Luigi Novi: Is it really appropriate to write "IMHO" and follow it with a passage that’s in all capitals?

Mike Brill: TO OPPOSE THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS TO SUPPORT THE ATHEIST LEFT.
Luigi Novi: Hyperbole and rhetoric. Many, if not most, in the Christian Right want turn America into a theocracy. Atheists, on the other hand, want nothing more than to be left alone, and keep people from shoving their religion down their throats. They have absolutely zero interest in converting theists into atheists.

Mike Brill: AND A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF GOVERNMENT BY A LEFT-WING ATHEIST IS JOSEPH STALIN - THE ONE WHO SENT AT LEAST 30 MILLION PEOPLE TO DIE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS, THE ONE WHO HELPED HITLER TAKE OVER POLAND, THE ONE WHO SAID THAT HE WANTED TO KILL EVERY JEW IN THE SOVIET UNION - AND WHO WOULD HAVE DONE SO IF HE HAD NOT BEEN HIT THAT VERY NIGHT WITH THE BRAIN HEMORRHAGE THAT KILLED HIM.
Luigi Novi: Stalin accomplished what he did because he was a dictator with unilateral power, not because he was an atheist. His religious persuasion was incidental. England, Germany, Rwanda, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, and countless other countries are/have been ruled by governments, leaders or tribes whose members had some form of THEISTIC belief, and/or have/had laws giving special deference to religion, and punishment to blasphemers, and yet commited atrocities at some point in their histories, Mike.

"Atheism" doesn’t = "tyrant" or "atrocity," nor does "Theism" = peace, equality, civility or justice.

First and foremost, Stalin killed a lot of people, as did Hitler. To suggest he would have not because "Religion isn't the opiate of the masses" is absurd.

Luigi Novi: How does wanting to ban abortion equal theocracy? How does Prayer in some public schools equal theocracy? How does wanting sex ed. out of schools equal theocracy? How does not being enthusatic about biotechnology equal theocracy? It dosen't. Had you read Slader you would know there is no "Religious Right".

1. The "leaders" Bauer, Farwell, Buchanan and Robertson all have went agaist each other in Presidential Politics, all hold unorthidox views having come out agaist impeachment, for China's one child policy, and even supported John Mc Cain.

2. The contributions from ALL Conservative PAC's ($2,599,663) during the 1998 election equals that of the Teamsters ($2,565,495). Where are these deep pockets you speak of?

3. Bloc voting: White Protestants voted 62% to 32% for Bush, compared with Single women, blacks, Jews, and Hispanics, who all voted in higher proportions for Gore.

To put it bluntly, the religious right, as a dark force of American politics is a Liberal Bogeyman, designed to inspire fear. At least the Atheist left can be traced, it's methods examined and it's funding examed (Note: It's use the courts to accomplish goals, get money from rich liberals.) I bet you can't even define a member of the religious right?

DOI: I don't know if "Mos Maiores" has ever successfully been used as a court defense.

Prayer: I should point out that Prayer in the public schools should be a issue of federalism, since the States are only covered by the Bill or Rights under certian circumstances. Want it in your local, Fine, if not fine. Just don't send some lawyer from the Upper West side to a 200 person Mormon town in Utah and tell them to cease prayer in schools, that's a issue for the Utah state constitution.

Blue: Your emotional argument was that because children may be subjected to peer pressure, we should not use "Under God". Keep in mind that when Brent Scarpo and Judy Sheperd came to speak at my school, the overwhealming thought of mine was "Why the heck was your son looking for action in Wyoming?", not the "Isn't this horrible we aren't living in a hate free millenium", the intended message.

Scott N: Um, Scott, the result of that is that the Schools should completely ignore all things that may be religious in nature in anyway. As my Sophmore Year theology teacher pointed out, even the Jain (Indian religion that abhors killing in almost anyway) in our class had a Christmas Tree.

Dude: People on this thread have essentially compared women saying prayers outside abortion clinics to Mullah Omar and you didn't cry "Ad Homiem"

Matt Pesti: First and foremost, Stalin killed a lot of people, as did Hitler. To suggest he would have not because "Religion isn't the opiate of the masses" is absurd.
Luigi Novi: What I pointed out is that atheism, in and of itself, does not lead to genocide. Dictators with unilateral power do, regardless of their religious persuasions. If atheism=genocide, and theism=no genocide, then how do you explain all the atrocities committed throughout history by people who were not atheists?

Matt Pesti: How does wanting to ban abortion equal theocracy? How does Prayer in some public schools equal theocracy? How does wanting sex ed. out of schools equal theocracy? How does not being enthusatic about biotechnology equal theocracy?
Luigi Novi: Funny. I don’t recall saying it did. Trying to create and enforce laws based solely on Biblical teachings without any secular relevance (like trying to ban the teaching of evolution or impose creationism as an "alternative science") does.

Prayer: I should point out that Prayer in the public schools should be a issue of federalism, since the States are only covered by the Bill or Rights under certian circumstances.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, this is one of them. I would bone up on my constitutional law before I attempted to argue this.

Mike Brill: FACT: A fourth-grader was sent to the principal's office to be punished for praying over his lunch in the school cafeteria. FACT: A teacher asked each of her students, one by one, "What does Christmas mean to you?" After most of the kids said "presents" or "days off from school" or whatever, one little girl said, "Christmas to me means the manger." The teacher said, "You're not allowed to say that here." FACT: A girl was given a one-inch cross on a gold neck chain and wore it to school one day, and school officials told her that she wasn't allowed to wear it.

If that did happen the ACLU would have been more than happy to represent the student in taking the school board to court so that she could wear it, just ask that jewish guy they represented when the school said he couldn't wear is Star of David. They said "no one would argue that someone can't wear a cross to school why can they ban the star of David"

Luigi Novi: Is there some particular reason why you’ve provided no documentation or reference for ANY of these alleged incidents?

Much of that is either a dumb person enforcing rules that don't exist (i.e. busting a girl for praying alone in school, an action that no rule has ever banned.) or pure bunk that comes from the BS artists and crackpot callers on talk raido (the same place where I was told that the reason people were getting sink during cold & flu season is because the government is testing bio-weapons on the public)

Luigi Novi: How does wanting to ban abortion equal theocracy? How does Prayer in some public schools equal theocracy? How does wanting sex ed. out of schools equal theocracy? How does not being enthusatic about biotechnology equal theocracy? It dosen't. Had you read Slader you would know there is no "Religious Right".

Slander, you mean that fiction book that somehow made it into the fact section of the bookstores?

Prayer: I should point out that Prayer in the public schools should be a issue of federalism, since the States are only covered by the Bill or Rights under certian circumstances.

That was because when the constitution was writen the founding fathers saw no way in which the states could ever get in the way of people's rights (since they heald to the niave notion that the state government always reflicted the will of all the people and which the existance of "Jim Crow" laws proved false.) Later on the equel protenction amendment was used to justify applying the bill of rights to the state government as well.

That was because when the constitution was writen the founding fathers saw no way in which the states could ever get in the way of people's rights (since they heald to the niave notion that the state government always reflicted the will of all the people and which the existance of "Jim Crow" laws proved false.) Later on the equel protenction amendment was used to justify applying the bill of rights to the state government as well. Brian

Actually, many of the states had their own bills of rights [Madison based the federal Bill of Rights on those Jefferson had drafted for Virginia] (or the equivalent) even before the thirteenth ammendment extended federal protection to their citizens (to emphasize that the former slaves were full citizens); but slaves were non-citzens (and usually non-persons). "Jim Crow" (which, as such, was a post-Civil war phenomenom) was always illegal/unconstitutional. The officials who passed and enforced them simply ignored that fact. If they hadn't the tensions between states rights and federal jurisdiction might have remained an issue for political accommodation, rather than necessitating a Supreme Court decision.

Matt,

Emotional? Saying a public official whose salary I pay, btw, should not make little Johnny Atheist get beat up on the playground when he can easily avoid it is emotional? Do you have any other dismissive words for an argument you can not refute?

Let's put it another way. Mr. Teacher has Mr. Bureacrat telling him he must get the Pledge said during class. Mr. Teacher, not being as much a m0ron as Mr. Bureacrat, knows this action will have consequences, but his hands are tied for the great Mr.Bureacrat hath spoken.

I pay Mr. Bureacrat's salary. In a democracy (OK, representative republic) I am responsibly for the laws and policies Mr. Bureacrat enforces (at least alledgedly). In the end I get little Johnny Atheist beaten up.

Excuse me if I'd rather not do that.

Or is the emotional response supposedly looking at the actions that will occur instead of actions that probably will not occur. If that is the case replace little Johnny Athiest's beating with constantly having his doorbell rung be people asking if he's saved yet.

TomM,

If thinking of the consequences of an action makes me emotional (emotional thought--what a concept) the guilty as charged.

Luigi Novi: So teaching alternate viewpoints to scientific dogma is theocracy?

Patterson: Based on the existance of the Words "Congress shall make no law", the existance of tax payer funded state churches in the Republic until the 1820's and the fact that no State would have ever approved any part of the constitution if it would have meant federal medling in the schoolhouse, I would argue that the original intent of the First amendment was not agaist the states. I would also argue that the 14th amendment was designed as a vauge amendment designed to prevent any more Judical Review of the Civil Rights acts.

Brian F: Idelogical disagreement is not sufficent grounds for calling a book fiction. Maybe if liberals read books instead of burning them.

Well, I don't think the Founders cared about the states oppressing the rights of their citizens. Their primary concern was protecting us from the Feds (You know, the guys with the standing army), which is supported by lack of anything prohibiting states. States were considered coequal parts of government back then, and not the administrative districts they are today. This is why concerns about nullification and sucession appeared in the ante bellum period.

Are you honestly making an argument that Jim Crow laws subverted the will of the people and that Jim Crow was unconstitutional? The Supreme court didn't think so, and pro-segragation democrats were called "Redeemers" then, very much like they are called "President of the Senate" and "Junior Senator from South Carolina" today.

Finally, no part of the constitution says "The bill of rights applys to the states" Does the tenth amendment? Does the second amendment? What is the "Bill of Rights" anyways, is that stated in the Constitution? It's just a judical doctrine.

Dude, LUIGI NOVI and Brian Fitzgerald deny that SOME atheists are or have been violating the rights of Christians in the United States; or at any rate, they cite lack of evidence of such occurrences. If anyone doubts that SOME atheists have been violating the rights of Christians in the United States, I suggest that they examine - and explain - this site. I suggest that you look on the left side of the page, under where it says, "About the ACLJ", and click on where it says, "News Releases", "Cases", and "Resources", and read all of the information therein. I also suggest that you look on the right side of the page, under where it says, "Issues", and click on where it says, "Education", "Equal Access", "Free Speech", "Prayer", and "Student Rights", and read everything posted there, as well.

ScottN - Regarding your posting of Sept. 13, 2:10 pm, I did not intend to offend you or any other Jews, or for that matter, anyone of any other religious faith. In the U.S., over 1000 different religions are practiced by one person or another; 86% of the population claims to belong to ONE of them. I do not perceive anyone as trying to FORCE Christianity on anyone who believes something else, and I would not knowingly support anyone who does. This is a myth propagated by those who ACTIVELY OPPOSE ALL RELIGION, and while I acknowledge that some atheists do not do this, there are more than enough who do.
Dude - In your posting of Sept. 13, 4:13 pm, you mentioned "Left Wing philosophies of FREEDOM FROM RELIGION AND EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK". By "freedom from religion", did you mean "Freedom from being reminded that some of us have a religion"? Or did you really mean "Freedom to oppress religion"? As for "Equal pay for equal work", that is NOT a left-wing philosophy, that is a "straw man" argument, sometimes used by some left-wingers, to MISREPRESENT whoever they disagree with (about something else entirely). I have never heard anyone say that he was against equal pay for equal work; nor have I ever heard anyone say that this-or-that group should get more pay (or less) than any other group, for doing the same job. In any case, your call to delete another person's posting is typical of dictators, would-be and otherwise.

Uh, no here at Nitcentral inflamatory posts are subject to being moved to the Garbage Dump. The owenr of this site wants civility, and constantly attacking the non-religous acting like all of them are Hitleresque totalitarians in training defiantely qualifies.

That should read, defiantely DOESN'T qualify.

Mike Brill: I suggest that you look on the left side of the page, under where it says, "About the ACLJ", and click on where it says, "News Releases", "Cases", and "Resources", and read all of the information therein. I also suggest that you look on the right side of the page, under where it says, "Issues", and click on where it says, "Education", "Equal Access", "Free Speech", "Prayer", and "Student Rights", and read everything posted there, as well.
Luigi Novi: Um, how should I put this.............no.

If you want to cite something, cite it. I'm not going to waist my time wading through all those links just because you don't feel like doing research that's a bit more in-depth. When I want to site something in a post, I either copy or paraphrase the items I find from books, or provide links to specific passages on sites.

When I cited a book by Robert Youngson when responding to Matt Pesti above, I didn't tell Matt, "Go buy this book, read the entire thing and then get back to me." I simply reread the appropriate areas and posted a condensed summarization.

If you have something specific you want to point out and discuss, please go right ahead.

Brill I read some of it. They had a case about a girl who's school didn't want her wearing a cross neckless. It wasn't some atheists have been violating the rights of Christians in the United States. espicaly considering that it happened in Alabama. They told her to keep the cross inside of her shirt because according to the rule book.

"Neck jewelry should be restricted to around the neck and not hang outside of required shirt."

Meaning they would have done the same thing if the neckess had a Star of David, Ying-Yang symbol, pentagram, zodiac sign, Star Trek symbol or diamond hainging from it. The dress code had an exemption based on religous beliefs, but the artical doesn't say what the excption read as. Anyway the school didn't see it as a freedom of religion isue they saw it as a dress code issue. They went to court and the court said the policy violated her first amendment rights. I'd have to agree with them in that case just as I would if it was a member of any other relgion wearing a symbol of that religion.

But let me play devil's advicate for a moment. The christian, the Wiccan, the Jew and the Hindu can all wear their necklesses with various religous symbols but (assuming the scholl hasn't changed the idiotic policy on "neck jewelry") no one else can wear a neckless outside of their shirt. That means the people with neckelsses that say "Best Friends Forever", "I Love K.V.", and have a Star Trek Logo still can't wear theirs outside of the shirt, right? Why should the religious folks get to break the dress code but not the others. What if a student had A tatoo of a religious nature in a place that is not allowed to be exposed by the dress code? (wait get your mind out of the gutter, I'm talking about perhaps the upper leg or upper arm, since most school ban sleevless shirts and shorts/skirts more than x inches abover the knee) Can they break the dress code on the grounds of their freedom of religion?

Luigi: I was only SUGGESTING that you read all of that material. Also, I did the equivalent of referring folks to specific chapters, rather than saying, "Read the whole book." As to why I didn't provide quotes, summaries, etc., I don't want to bore everybody with a lot of details about my personal situation. I don't get upset when somebody doesn't say something exactly the same way that I would. In any case, the evidence exists, there some of it is.
Brian F.: "Especially considering that it happened in Alabama." At the risk of sounding obnoxious, Alabama IS in the U.S.; these incidents pop up here and there in our country, so they need to be corrected, even when they aren't nation-wide. As for "the school sees it as a dress-code issue", do we really know how well they enforce that rule when someone DOES show up wearing a Star Trek symbol or diamond pendant? I first heard of this incident while listening to "Jay Sekulow Live" on FM radio station 105.1 WAVA; the girl's mother phoned the program and said that the school was prohibiting the girl from wearing her cross pendant. As for Star Trek pendants, diamonds, friendship/love slogans, I AGREE WITH YOU - THE POLICY ON "NECK JEWELRY" IS IDIOTIC. And as for your other point, I don't know how they can show a tattoo without showing the skin, so I don't have a solution.

Mike,

I can't speak for everyone, but bore me with details. I can scroll if I need to.

Mike Brill: I did the equivalent of referring folks to specific chapters, rather than saying, "Read the whole book."
Luigi Novi: Clicking on one link on the left, I found a large list of more links. Clicking on one of the links on the right, I found a story about the ACLU, not "atheists."

Mike Brill: As to why I didn't provide quotes, summaries, etc., I don't want to bore everybody with a lot of details about my personal situation.
Luigi Novi: Who said anything about your personal situation? I'm talking about citing quotes or items about the issue.

Brill, my "Especially considering that it happened in Alabama." line was to say that Alabama isn't exactly a state that is run by the atheist left. It's one of the more conservative states in the union.

Dude - My umbrage is at the ANTI-religious, NOT "all non-religious". There's a difference. Those non-religious people who cause no problems, will have no problems from me. There ARE people who want to impose atheism on other people against their will; for example, I read somewhere that a big official in the American Communist Party said, "We will have won when the last preacher has been strangled to death with the guts of the last Congressman.". In recent years, such people seem to have realized that they can be more successful by joining one of the two major political parties and pretending that anyone who doesn't agree with them wants a theocracy.
Blue Berry and Luigi: Basically, I can't go online every day, and fairly often, I'm typing rapidly in order to get something entered before the librarian chases me out.
Brian F.: Oh, so THAT'S what you meant. Well, while there ARE - TENDENCIES - EVERY state has a heterogeneous mixture of ideologies being propagated and agendas being pursued.

Enjoy this November. Afterwards your 1st amendment rights are no more.

Any ad that says, "Your Congressman, Representative (NAME), voted for
this destructive law." is illegal. Until the Supreme court knocks down the latest campaign finance travesty.

The law is probably nebulous on wether reading about congressman what's-his-name (D-Disney SC), but If I was Phil I'd be concerned. The only defense for Phil would be to close PM after November. Yeah, I'm sorta, almost, somewhat, in a weird way serious and not serious.

How? This is unpaid, there are no campaign ads here, political commentary is offered the most extreme protection under the 1st Am.

I have problems with the CFR as currently implemented, but a semi-private website hardly qualifies as political advertising.

That is why I said it was nebulous. BTW, define campaign ad. Does a random internet posting of Re-elect Gore in 2004 count? What if it is on a yard sign paid for by the Gore '04 campaign? What if it is posted by the paid worker putting up those signs? What if it is posted who donated to Gore to buy those signs? The question is not "Why are they different?" the question is "Which ones are campaign ads?"

Another sign of a bad law. You can go after definitions like a puppy chasing his tail.

I don't like to do this often, but I will. The following is an essay I wrote for the Church of Manny (www.churchofmanny.com) - don't worry, I'm working on a new name.

Atheism, Christianity, and Patriotism
Author: Metrion Cascade

I am an American, and proud to be. I served in my country's military and love this nation as much as the next person. I am also an Atheist. I should not have to lie about what I believe to pledge allegiance to my country, nor am I obligated to change for the majority.
There are several arguments against the 9th Circuit Court's Pledge ruling. One is that we really are a nation under God. Perhaps we are. You certainly could say that, since 74% of Americans are Christian. But that does not give the government the right to assume that we all are. Whether we as individuals are "under God" is a personal decision. Many of us believe differently, or hold no beliefs at all. We are still Americans. This country is certainly not founded on Christianity. The original Treaty of Tripoli and the private correspondence of many founding fathers who were Atheists or Deists confirm this. Not to mention a document called the 1st Amendment. Many people seem to think that freedom of religion means the freedom only to be Christian. Rather, it means the freedom to believe as you see fit, or perhaps not at all. Your choice. Not the state's.
Some people argue that the name "God" is a general reference to all religions. This is absurd. "God" (with the capital "G" used in the Pledge) is a name, rather than a word. Even among Christians and Jews, there are those who call him by a different name. So you're already excluding them - unless the government is telling us that we should call him "God" no matter what. Which is not their place. Then, let's look at other Americans. Muslims generally call him Allah. Hinduism has many gods. Buddhism is generally considered to have no god. And, of course, there are many Americans who don't believe in anything that could possibly be called a god. So not only is the name "God" not a generic religious reference, but it excludes those who practice no religion whatsoever. In attempting to use one name ("God") to define all religions and even Atheism, the government is opening a can of worms it should not open, and trying to make a blanket religious assertion it has no right or ability to make. Americans hold nearly 300 million opinions on dozens of religions, and some hold no religion at all. No single religious statement can reflect those many viewpoints.
And yes, the majority of Americans want the Pledge to read "under God." But no majority can speak for both itself and the minority, and the Pledge must speak for all of us. The majority does rule on certain issues, but our constitution has established that this is not the case with respect to race or religion. And there is good reason for this. People have shown that they often only care about the rights of people who are of the same race or faith as themselves. If a person wants to be a racist or religious fundamentalist, they have the right to do so. But they are not entitled to government endorsement.
And if you are Christian, remember that the majority of Romans wanted to murder Jesus Christ for being different. Does might make right?
I can admit that there are bigger problems than "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on currency. But the ruling was made, and it was right. If we only attempt to solve the biggest problems and not the smallest, we will make no progress at all. And the upshot of telling Michael Newdow to find something else to do is that his rights don't matter at all and he shouldn't be fighting for them. Yes, they're just words. But in this society where we bring about change with words rather than guns, political force is still force.
Some believers say that removing "under God" from the Pledge is a violation of their rights. But the Pledge belongs to all Americans of all faiths, and nonbelievers too. Nobody is entitled to government endorsement of their religion. Government religious endorsement is not a right, but a special privilege the extension of which to one group inherently violates the rights of every other group. You can still pray in school whenever you want, and bring your Bible. You don't need government permission for either. You can still say "God," and go to any of America's millions of churches. Failure on the state's part to support your religious practices with political force or taxpayer money does not constitute an attack on your faith. Neutrality is not hostility.
Two questions - how can the people leaving death threats on Michael Newdow's answering machine call themselves Christians? And what right has George W. Bush to assert that our rights are derived from his God rather than our humanity? It's not his place to tell us whether to believe or not. Bush, quite simply, has no business in office. Neither did his father, who openly stated that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots. Guess he was a mind reader.

I must also take issue with the Atheists and Pagans and Hindus and other non-Christians who aren't concerned with such issues. If you don't fight for your rights, then who's to say you even deserve them? Even in such a society as ours, there is still an undercurrent of anarchy and mob rule (in every venue from the street corner to the floor of Congress) that you cannot escape. The only way to protect your rights in such an environment is to demand them. Few Christians will do it for you. Never tolerate life as a second class citizen, and never tolerate those who would see you in such an existence. Don't pardon their ignorance, or worry about offending them, or assume that it will all be okay. It won't be unless you make it so. Don't think for a second that we are entirely beyond the days of burning heretics at the stake. You and I have seen no shortage of people who would love to see us dead or in prison. And if you don't stand up to them, you might as well be one of them. Inaction on the part of a decent person who knows what must be done is often just as destructive as the actions of a bigot, and just as wrong.



All graphics and text copyright © 2002 The Church of Manny. All rights reserved.
Revised: 07/25/02.

Metrion: That was beautiful dude.

Muslims generally call him Allah.

... which means "God."

Great post, Metrion! Well put, and welcome to Nitcentral.com!

Metrion, that was an AWESOME essay! Very well-written. Kudos.

Metrion Cascade's essay shows how even controversial views can be stated reasonably and with eloquence, without resorting to shouting, vague generalizations and/or cheap attacks. (Regular posters and lurkers at NitCentral all know how easy it is to fall into that routine.) Whether or not you agree with Metrion's viewpoint, at least view the essay as a way to present your own side of an issue.

By the way, Metrion, since your essay is copyrighted, may I have your permission to print it and show to a few people--both for and against the views you expressed--who would find the essay interesting, to say the least? (This would be strictly a personal thing, mind you, not a public display and/or money-making thing. Of course, I'd leave the byline and copyright info intact.) If not, I guess I'll just send people to this board or to the website you listed. (Advanced thanks, just in case!)

Yeah, I'd like to get permission for that too. I have some Catholic friends who could use a nice dose of reality.

I don't know if this has actually been addressed, but when talk of religious freedom versus state sanctioned religion comes up (regarding the US), the usual arguments are made such as we've seen on this board (and part 1). In my experience, the debate tends to be whether or not Christianity should become an official religion, with other religions and especially agnostics and athiests being generally ignored or minimized by many making the pro-Christian arguments.
Some observations I've made: Those making pro-Christian arguments tend to use the "majority rule" argument as one way to jusitfy making an official state religion, as long as that religion is theirs. But, ignoring the fact that a lot of other people of different (or no) faiths would be excluded, which sect of Christianity would be appropriate if that came to pass? I should think there would be tremendous in-fighting over which Christian traditions should be officially recognized, and once one sect was decided upon, still more people--Christian people, no less--would now be excluded.
I personally don't advocate any religion being officially sanctioned by the government. Similarly--and this is something else that generally seems to go unsaid--I don't advocate atheism being officially sanctioned by the government. My own religious beliefs/lack of religious beliefs have nothing to do with it; my concern over state oppression of the individual does.
People always claim to value freedoom of religion, yet they fail to see how that freedom would be utterly squashed the moment any one religion were made the State Religion.

IMCO, The State should stay away from any and all (or no) religion to protect the religion (or lack there of).

Thanks, Blue; that's basically what I was trying to say. I shouldn't type when I'm tired. Of course, then I'd never type.
Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing...

Some observations I've made: Those making pro-Christian arguments tend to use the "majority rule" argument as one way to jusitfy making an official state religion, as long as that religion is theirs.

To quote pornographer and free speech defender Larry Flynt "Democracy only works if you're considering individual rights. You can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper. The sheep's going to lose every time"

No really good place for this.

SCOTUS dismissed the Pledge of Allegiance suit on a technicality. They said Newdow had no standing. They did not rule on the constitutionality of the Pledge per se, so someone else is still free to challenge the Pledge.

Classic Supreme Court--dodge the issue! Dodge it, I say!

Still, methinks that the Pledge isn't going to be overturned any time soon.

Personally, I'd like to see it go back to the pre-1954 wording, and lose any potential controversy.

Shall we also remove it from the coins as well?

I'm curious. How did he get so far without the right to sue in his daughter's name? Did the question of whether he had standing, as a non-custodial parent, to represent his daughter's supposed interests not come up when he went through the process to obtain permission to argue before the SCOTUS in the first place? Or during the many lower court proceedings?

>Shall we also remove it from the coins as well? >

Well, yes. There is a lot of un necessacary wordage on US coins. We should delete the latin stuff "E plurbis Unim" or what ever it says. (Who realy knows what it means any way?)

"E pluribus Unum" -- Out of many, one.

I think both "In God we Trust" and "E pluribus unum" should remain on the coins--they're both important.

Keep "E pluribus unum", but as far as currency is concerned, change "In God We Trust" to "In THIS We Trust". :-D

I agree that we should remove "In God We Trust" from coins, but the removing it from the Pledge is more important, because otherwise we'd be telling all kids that they have to recognize God as a pertinent aspect of the creation of the Union, which he is obviously not.

"Obviously" to who? Apparently not the Supreme Court!

Well, but that's just it- the Court didn't rule on that aspect of the case, they threw it out on a technicality.

MikeC: Obviously" to who?
Luigi Novi: To anyone who reads the history behind the country's founding.

Ah, but Sparrow, if the Court DID rule, they had, I'm assuming, three justices definitely in favor of preserving the Pledge and probably two more as well.

And I have read the history behind the country's founding. I'm a history major and spent a semester studying Constitutional law. You said that obviously God is not a pertinent aspect of the creation of the Union. I think God (and I'm referring to a nebulous, deist conception of God here, not the Christian God) was indeed a pertinent aspect.

Thomas Jefferson thought so, as he mentions "nature's God" and "divine Providence" in the Declaration of Independence.

Except that those who put "under God" in the Pledge, and who continue to spread the notion today that this is a "Christian nation" aren't, Mike. They're not talking about Deism. They're talking about the Judeo-Christian God, and many actually try to argue that this country was founded by Christians with Christian laws in mind.

Some even try to push the utterly ridiculous notion that (get this) our Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments, when any reading of the Commandments will show that only two of them (the fifth and seventh) have correlating U.S. laws, another (the eighth) has a correlating law only in certain circumstances, and others (1-3, 9 & 10) are actually in stark contrast to freedom of religion, Separation of Church and State, and Free Market capitalism.

Okay, I obviously missed something; I thought they threw the case out on a technicality. That's different from ruling... right?

I think that the country was founded on (basically) Judeo-Christian principles. I believe if you asked any of the Founding Fathers, they would have probably agreed.

Let's look at the Ten Commandments:

1. No other gods but God. This is the major reason why I am a little leery about fighting for a Ten Commandments-in-court etc. This is an extremely important tenet of the Christian faith, but as I strongly believe, this country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. I'll give you that.

2. Not making an idol. This is basically the same as number one.

3. Not using the Lord's name in vain. For a long time, there were were obscenity laws.

4. Remember the Sabbath day. For a long time, there were Blue laws restricting what could and could not be done on Sunday. In fact, in my home area, some of these laws were just now finally changed, and there are still are some of them existing.

5. Honor your father and mother. Isn't this a gimme? Who WOULDN'T want to do that?

6. No murder. This is a law.

7. No adultery. This is a law (sort of).

8. No stealing. This is a law.

9. No false testimony. This is a law.

10. No coveting. Not a law, but I'd hesitate to make your analogy about free market capitalism.

I'd say about 7 of those Ten Commandments are pretty well established tenets of American values. Pretty good ratio.

7. No adultery. This is a law (sort of).

Depends on your state. It may be grounds for divorce, or a civil suit, but in most states, it is not a crime.

I'd say about 7 of those Ten Commandments are pretty well established tenets of American values. Pretty good ratio.

Yes, perhaps some of them are *values* but should they be enshrined in law?

1, 2, 3, 4: Should not be in law.
5, 10: Unenforceable, and therefore should not be enshrined in law.
6, 8, 9: in law (note that 9 in US law refers to perjury, not casual lying)
7, Should not be enshrined in criminal law. In civil law, should be left up to the states.

That gives me 3 things which should be (and *are*) enshrined in law, 6 which should not be in law, and one which should be up to the states as a CIVIL (not criminal) law issue.

Okay so that's 3 that are law, 2 that WERE in law at the time of the Founding Fathers, and 3 that are strong American values. That leaves really only two Commandments that I would say are NOT well established tenets of American morals.

Want to specify? I really couldn't tell from your list. Note: "established tenets of American morals" does NOT MEAN *should be law*.

Didn't say "should be law."

3 that are law--no murder, no false testimony, no steal.

2 that were in law--no taking the Lord's name in vain, respecting the Sabbath.

3 strong American values--respecting parents, no adultery, no coveting.

Luigi said that the Constitution was not inspired by the Ten Commandments. Perhaps on a literal scale, no, as none of the Commandments are mentioned, but the Founding Fathers were DEFINITELY inspired by the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic in setting up their society.

First, let me list the Commandments that I was raised with in parochial school so that my most recent post above is understandable:

1. No other gods before me.
2. No taking the Lord’s name in vain.
3. Keep holy the Sabbath.
4. Honor your parents.
5. No murder.
6. No adultery.
7. No theft.
8. No lying.
9. No coveting your neighbor’s wife.
10. No coveting your neighbor’s belongings.

MikeC: 3. Not using the Lord's name in vain. For a long time, there were were obscenity laws.
Luigi Novi: Were? And why not any more? Simple. Because it’s a limit of freedom of speech. Such laws are wrong, and it is rightfully so that they are no longer widely on the books or enforced. Thus, this Commandment contradicts a fundamental right recognized by Americanism.

MikeC: 4. Remember the Sabbath day. For a long time, there were Blue laws restricting what could and could not be done on Sunday. In fact, in my home area, some of these laws were just now finally changed, and there are still are some of them existing.
Luigi Novi: Again, why have they changed? Simple. Because it’s a violation of the Separation of Church and State. Thus, this Commandment contradicts a fundamental right recognized by Americanism.

MikeC: 5. Honor your father and mother. Isn't this a gimme? Who WOULDN'T want to do that?
Luigi Novi: But we’re not talking about “wanting to do it.” We’re talking about whether there are just secular laws on the books enforcing it, whether they’re widely enforced, ignored, expunged, and/or have been removed for a good reason. Is there such a law corresponding to this Commandment? No, I don’t think so. Parental custody laws allow a wide amount of discretion for parents to raise and discipline their kids according to their own choices, so childhood obedience to their parents is kind of a given. It’s silly to have a law on the books for it, and we don’t have any. The only reason children learn obedience and respect for the law in the first place is because their parents raise them to. So a law advising children to honor their parents is somewhat moot. They would only obey this law if they already obeyed their parents, because obedience to laws is first ingrained by parents.

Moreover, I think this law is incomplete, and misses the point. By and large, who abuses whom? Kids? Or parents? It is parents who should be admonished not to abuse or molest their kids, and this is why there actually are laws prohibiting that.

MikeC: 7. No adultery. This is a law (sort of).
Luigi Novi: No, it’s not. Adultery is perfectly legal. There are only some rare areas forbidding it by law, and in those areas, the law is rarely enforced, often challenged and expunged from the books, and just plain wrong.

MikeC: 9. No false testimony. This is a law.
Luigi Novi: If you mean testimony in court (as well as false advertising, giving false information to the police, or lying to Congress or the President), then you’re right. In all other circumstances, lying is perfectly legal, and in many cases, perfectly moral.

MikeC: 10. No coveting. Not a law, but I'd hesitate to make your analogy about free market capitalism.
Luigi Novi: A free market economy encourages people to seek better things, to try to make more money, to create new and better products, etc., and this only functions if people COVET the things they want, often after they’re seen someone else with it. Indeed, much of Christianity is contrary to American economic and financial freedom. The passage in Matthew 19:24 that states, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God” is one example. It’s been said that the book of Acts reads like a socialist tract, and the communist motto, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” is derived from Acts 4:32-35.

MikeC: I'd say about 7 of those Ten Commandments are pretty well established tenets of American values. Pretty good ratio.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about American “values.” Values are a nebulous and subjective thing that vary from person to person. We’re talking about American LAW. Of those Commandments, the only two have corresponding secular American laws are the ones prohibiting murder and theft. We can be generous and say that the one prohibiting lying has corresponding secular laws, but only in specific situations, as aforementioned. That’s 2 (and part of a third) out of ten. Not seven.

AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S BIRTH (which is what I was referring to), it was not 2 and 1/2.

There were (and are) obscenity laws. There were (and are) blue laws. There are murder laws. There are theft laws. There are false testimony laws. That's FIVE. When you factor in not coveting (which I interpret to be lust and jealousy) and respecting your parents as "nebulous and subjective" values (not 100% but I'm pretty sure the latter was at one point a law), that's SEVEN.

I AM NOT saying that this is the situation today. I AM NOT advocating them in this particular board. I AM NOT saying the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments. I AM saying that the Founding Fathers based much of their conception of the nation's legal code on Judeo-Christian ethics.

And inappropriate to discuss here, but as I'm sure you realize, I disagree with your interpretation of most of the Commandments.

The founding fathers where deists according to my history teacher and a book i just read called dont know much about history. tehy werent christians and anyhow with the way the "christian" are getting so radically fascist about anythign they disagree with I am glad i am not a christian and wouldnt want to live in a christian country but rather a free country like america anyhow.

I forget the complete details on this, perhaps someone else has heard about it. A few years ago, a man was fined for swearing in public and in front of a mother and her children. He was fishing at the time, got hurt and swore a blue streak. Further more, the man who was fined protested the fine, went to court over it, IIRC - and lost the case. Obscenity laws, as they would correspond to "Thou Shalt Not take the name of the Lord Thy God in vain", exist in this country. Perhaps in isolated areas, but they do exist. Does this sound familiar to anyone else? I read about it in The Dallas Morning News, IIRC. And it happened within the last five years.

(My luck, I'll find out this was an Urban Legend.)

MikeC: AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S BIRTH (which is what I was referring to), it was not 2 and 1/2. I AM NOT saying that this is the situation today. I AM NOT advocating them in this particular board. I AM NOT saying the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments. I AM saying that the Founding Fathers based much of their conception of the nation's legal code on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Luigi Novi: How could they, when they didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian God? They weren’t Christians, Mike. If they felt that murder, for example, was wrong, it’s because such a law is not specific to religion.

MikeC: And inappropriate to discuss here, but as I'm sure you realize, I disagree with your interpretation of most of the Commandments.
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall offering any interpretation of the Commandments. Where did I do so?

My 2-cents-worth:

...but the Founding Fathers were DEFINITELY inspired by the Ten Commandments and the Judeo-Christian ethic in setting up their society.

I don't know the Fathers' intent or what they were inspired by - I have read more often that they didn't belong to the strict sects (puritans or similiar), considered themselves freethinking, liberal people, and were aiming at a secular nation.
And the Ten Commandements don't correspond to Judeo-Christian ethics; they compromise only a small part of that ethic. You could as easily say they were inspired by western ethics (as opposed to asisan ethics, which differ much in some areas, little in other). But you don't need to be a christian fundamentalist to believe in the western ethics; a secular humanist will point to the Human Rights declaration instead of the 10 commandements (and these capture the spirit of the christian ethics, adapted to a different society, very well.)

And according to what I know of Bible study (the subject at university), the 5th commandement doesn't mean that kids have to obey their parents and respect authority; it refers to grown-ups who should treat their parents (the grandparents) respectfully and not dispose of them when they are too old to work.

Likewise, the 9th commandement was meant only for the court - criminal investigation in this society had little hard evidence (no finger printing or similar ), so most of it was done by witnesses.

The 10 commandements are a way for a society to work, but the ethics are spelled out across the whole bible and go much beyond that. (How about "You shall set your slaves free and remember the time when you where slaves in egypt"? The founding fathers didn't write an anti-slavery law in the constitution although the bible has clear points on it.)

The Founding Fathers were Deists (well, some of them), but you can't tell me that they WEREN'T "inspired" by the Ten Commandments and Judeo-Christian ethics. Jefferson, for instance, was a huge student of the Bible. I am not saying it is the only inspiration. But when you take into account that frankly, the large percentage of "Christians" (maybe I should say churchgoers) in the nation at the time and the Christian heritage that every Founding Father was brought up in (Anglican for Washington and Jefferson, Puritan for Franklin and Adams, etc.), you can at least agree with me that the Ten Commandments were one of the inspirations for the Founding Fathers.

Luigi, I was referring to your comments about adultery, covetousness, and lying. But again, that is really more of a moral question and off-topic, so I won't go any further.

I'll acknowledge that the founding fathers may have been influenced in some ways by biblical things, just as I'll acknowledge they may have been influenced by non-biblical things. I suspect many things from many different sources (ideally, the best aspects of those sources) were distilled by the f.f.'s in their attempts at making a better country from scratch.
At this point, I don't quite understand why there's such a focus on how much they were influenced specifically by the Bible. (Which version, by the way?) I hope it isn't because anyone advocates that the US, or more specifically its courts, should abide by Christian doctrine alone.

No, I don't, but I don't like denying that this country does not have a Christian heritage. A rich one and a deep one. "May have been influenced in some ways"-I'd say definitely.

I was being deliberately understated in my last post; of course I realize there is a strong Christian heritage in the US.
My concern is that some people (and I'm not saying this about you, MikeC) think that "freedom of religion" pertains only to Christianity, and/or that Christianity is the only religion of worth in the US. Similarly, I'm concerned with people who think that Christianity has some sense of "officialness" about it because of it's prominence in the US. (Again, I'm not saying that you're saying that, Mike, it's more of a general comment on my part.)

really and jefferson was such a student of the bible that he rewrote and edited out all mention of Jesus' divinity and turned him into just a regular guy who was a great talker. Look up the Jeffersonian bible sometime.

Oh yeah, Jefferson was a huge deist that didn't believe in Jesus' divinity. But he was still an avid scholar of it; of course, Jefferson was an avid scholar on the Bible, ancient Russian military history, and every episode of "Clarissa Explains It All."

AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION'S BIRTH (which is what I was referring to), it was not 2 and 1/2. I AM NOT saying that this is the situation today. I AM NOT advocating them in this particular board. I AM NOT saying the Constitution is based on the Ten Commandments. I AM saying that the Founding Fathers based much of their conception of the nation's legal code on Judeo-Christian ethics.

But how can you say that laws aginst murder and adultry are Judeo-Christian when almost all other societys have them as well and had them long before we got involved?

Because those societies, at least the ones whose heritage the Founding Fathers arose from (European), were also based on Judeo-Christian ethics.

I think what Fitz' point is, Mike, is that even paganistic societies, the Norse, Greeks and Romans for examples, often had laws prohibiting at least murder, if not also adultery. In others words, the prohibitions against murder and adultery are not solely Judeo-Christian values. (I do see - and agree with - your point about the Founding Fathers though, Mike.)

Because prohibitions on murder and poaching on your wife are very self serving and survivalistic rules. To have sons to carry on your blood and family line you want to make sure you are the only one dipping in the pond and if you have people just offing each other for every little whim without some kind of rules that society gets pretty thin pretty quick. The ones on murder are still very useful and all so are still enforced quite heavily. With the decreased need for "bloodline purity" as it where and the increase in effective contraception the adultery one is not as enforced. I mean even anal retentive uptight Ohio decriminalized adultery back in the 80s and made it into a civil case tort thingie.

Because prohibitions on murder and poaching on your wife are very self serving and survivalistic rules. - R

Well, duh. (No sarcasm meant, R.) But that's not the point. The point is that they are not merely facets of Judeo-Christian tenets. They are fairly universal. In other words, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife" do not belong strictly to a Judeo-Christian theology, regardless of the logic behind them.

Brian Fitzgerald: But how can you say that laws aginst murder and adultry are Judeo-Christian when almost all other societys have them as well and had them long before we got involved?

MikeC: Because those societies, at least the ones whose heritage the Founding Fathers arose from (European), were also based on Judeo-Christian ethics.
Luigi Novi: Except that Brian's question (as far as I interpret it) was talking about the existence of other societies that were did not have contact with the Judeo-Christian faith, and formed such laws independently of that religion, in some cases, I believe, even before the Biblical writings.

It can be argued that these values which are not limited to Judeo-Christian theology, but found in all (or at least most) societies, can still be traced back to God. Maybe such values can be seen as originating independently of Jewish or Christian faith, but if so, they typically derive from some religious system nevertheless. If MikeC's original argument (that seems so long ago, now; I may have forgotten ) was that the phrase "One nation, under God" can apply to the US because our values are derived from religion, does it matter that those values aren't uniquely Christian? They still originate from somebody's belief in what God wants from them.

My point was that this country has a Christian heritage (yes, it has a heritage of a lot of other things too) and in fact, its legal system is "inspired" by Judeo-Christian ethics (and yes, other things as well).

Yes, certainly, there were other societies that developed the Judeo-Christian ethics before there were Judeo-Christians. That's not my point; my point is what inspired the Founding Fathers.

Topic drift aside, being first a Buddhist working in classrooms where the pledge was said every darn day and then an atheist working in classrooms where the pledge was said every darn day I'm painfully aware of the issues involved here.

Back to the original point, the issue with "under God" in the Pledge is that it is teaching every generation of children that the social norm is a belief in the Christian God. School serves a lot of purposes beyond just learning one's ABCs and one of its other very important roles is teaching children what our society values.

The Pledge of Allegiance, by including "under God", teaches a very specific thing: "This is God's country". Should MJ an I move to Canada?

Wow, a post by Mark Morgan.

You're asking a very interesting question, Mark, and I'm not trying to sound flippant, but couldn't you make the point that our society does value "God"? That's all it saying, God. Not what God, not the Christian God or the Islamic God or the Supreme Being of anything, but God. I'm actually pretty stringent on separation of church and state (I will fight against officially sanctioned school prayer hard), but I dunno; I just fail to see how including the phrase "under God" is a violation of this. I don't know if that made any sense, but I'm hungry right now, so I'm going to eat lunch and come back and think about this again.

Here's the thing that gets me is that lots of people arguing for the "under God" have an argument that contradicts itself. First they say that it's not an endorcement of religion by the schools or a violation of church and state. Than they say that the liberals are so aweful because they are taking God out of the classroom. Well if the government is putting God in the classroom teaching requirements isn't that an endorcement of religion?

Mike, re your 10:55, no it doesn't make sense, because it implies that EVERYONE in the society would 'value "G-d"'.

Buddhists and Atheists do not.

Let's assume Mark is a teacher in a classroom. How, in good conscience, can he lead the class in the Pledge?

We beat the "godless commies", now let's return the Pledge to the pre-1954 wording.

Here, here. I second that motion.

Duke Earl of Grey: Maybe such values can be seen as originating independently of Jewish or Christian faith, but if so, they typically derive from some religious system nevertheless.
Luigi Novi: Religion did not invent these things. It was merely the first human institution to formally codify them, as Michael Shermer points out in The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule.

Duke Earl of Grey: You're asking a very interesting question, Mark, and I'm not trying to sound flippant, but couldn't you make the point that our society does value "God"?
Luigi Novi: And who speaks for the entire “society”? Only those of one particular religious affiliation? What about those who believe in a God other than the Judeo-Christian God? Or pantheism? Or agnostics and atheists? The problem with the pledge (and your suggestion) is that it attempts to form an inherent connection between a belief in God and Americanism, and I find that connection to be false. Theists may see such a connection as inevitable, but that’s simply because they’re arbitrarily connecting the two, IMO.

MikeC: No. If you say "Oh my God!", are you endorsing religion? At the most, you are endorsing the notion of a Supreme Being.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about an exclamation on the part of an individual, Mike. We’re talking about a school-sponsored activity.

MikeC: Hey, I think there should be a large separation of church and state. But I don't believe the Pledge is a violation.
Luigi Novi: Do you think it would be if it contained “Buddha” or “Allah” or Japanese wind spirits instead of “God”?

Hey, Luigi, that was not Duke Earl of Grey that said the second statement you quoted, but me. I'm sure you realized that.

Let's take these statements one at a time going in reverse order.

1. Yes, it would be a violation if it contained "Allah" because Allah is a particular religion's god. If the pledge said "Jesus Christ," "Jehovah," or the "Virgin Mary," I would be similarly opposed. It just says God. What kind of god are they talking about? I don't know.

2. Yes, it is a school-sponsored activity. My point in mentioning "oh my god" is that merely stating "God" does not imply an endorsement of a particular religion.

3. Okay, that's your opinion and I respect that. I guess we disagree (what a surprise!).

4. Scott, yeah, I know not every person respects God. But I would argue religion is a very important aspect of this nation, for everyone. The ability to have freedom to worship your Supreme Being of Choice (or not to worship, I guess) is a keystone belief; God is important. In saying "under God," we are not saying "I believe in God and follow this particular religion," we are saying "this nation has a deep religious heritage that continues to this day which I choose to respect even if I do not necessarily believe in it." Any teacher or student has the right not to say those particular words in the Pledge, I guess, but is it that repellent to recognize that God (again, this nebulous concept "God") is an important part of American society?

I realize that everyone is going to call •••••••• on my last paragraph, but that's what I believe. It might be time to effectively call the argument because we're getting into impasse mode.

Mike I'm calling ******** on your last paragraph, because of the capitalized G-d. It refers to a SPECIFIC version of a supreme being.

I apologize for sounding very argumentative in these last few posts, but for some reason, this is a pet issue with me. Bear with me.

2. Yes, it is a school-sponsored activity. My point in mentioning "oh my god" is that merely stating "God" does not imply an endorsement of a particular religion.

How is me hypothedicaly taking the Lord's name in vain the same as making kids recite a loyalty oath that says that the USA is a nation under God.

1. Yes, it would be a violation if it contained "Allah" because Allah is a particular religion's god. If the pledge said "Jesus Christ," "Jehovah," or the "Virgin Mary," I would be similarly opposed. It just says God. What kind of god are they talking about? I don't know.

Isn't Allah just the Arabic word for God? While we're on the subject isn't Jehovah just the Latan word for God?

1. Yes, it would be a violation if it contained "Allah" because Allah is a particular religion's god. If the pledge said "Jesus Christ," "Jehovah," or the "Virgin Mary," I would be similarly opposed. It just says God. What kind of god are they talking about? I don't know. - MikeC

Now, I'm not trying to be an a-hole, here, but honestly that "What kind of god are they talking about? I don't know" is a bit disingenuous to me. The mere fact that it is almost overwhelmingly Christians who are opposed to deleting the "one nation under God" line tends to prove to me that it is a reference to the Judeo-Christian God. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that in 1954, when the phrase was appended to the Pledge, that it was meant as a nebulous, pick-a-god-any-god reference. It's very reasonable to assume that they had one diety - any only one diety - in mind when they added the clause.

Now, personally. I don't care if it's in the Pledge or not. And I'm not a believer. But those words, "ONUG" are meaningless to me. I could say them on a daily basis and they still wouldn't bother me. It's just not something I can get worked up about. I tend to have the attitude of let sleeping Christians lie. As long as they don't try to legislate me into being a Christian, Buddhist, Sikh, whatever, I'm happy to let go their merry way into the temple, church or shrine of their choice. But that's just me.

On the other hand, how about a comprise? In honor of George Clinton, let's change it to "under nation a groove."

No. If you say "Oh my God!", are you endorsing religion? At the most, you are endorsing the notion of a Supreme Being.

Hey, I think there should be a large separation of church and state. But I don't believe the Pledge is a violation.

MikeC: 1. Yes, it would be a violation if it contained "Allah" because Allah is a particular religion's god. If the pledge said "Jesus Christ," "Jehovah," or the "Virgin Mary," I would be similarly opposed. It just says God. What kind of god are they talking about? I don't know.
Luigi Novi:

1. The letter “g” is capitalized, and there’s no article in front of it, Mike. It is therefore obvious that it’s a proper name, not a common noun, and therefore a reference to the Judeo-Christian God. It’s as specific as “Allah.”

2. Specificity of religion is irrelevant. This is a common argument I’ve heard from people like Hannity and O’Reilly, and it’s utter bunk. The idea that the Constitution says you can respect an establishment of non-denominational spirituality, but not a specific religion, is obtuse. The government has no business having an opinion on the subject at all (much less encouraging one in public schools) one way or the other. It should instead be neutral on the subject.

MikeC: 2. Yes, it is a school-sponsored activity. My point in mentioning "oh my god" is that merely stating "God" does not imply an endorsement of a particular religion.
Luigi Novi: And I’m pointing out that we’re not talking about merely “stating” God. We’re talking about a formalized group activity organized by school staff where children are directed to recite a pledge recognizing the existence of spiritual beings. Public schools have no business doing this. That’s not the same thing as a teacher muttering “Oh my god,” because she’s not directing the kids to repeat after her.

MikeC: 3. Okay, that's your opinion and I respect that. I guess we disagree (what a surprise!).
Luigi Novi: So you do believe that there is an inherent connection between Americanism and a belief in spiritual beings?

MikeC: But I would argue religion is a very important aspect of this nation, for everyone.
Luigi Novi: How can it be a very important aspect of the nation for everyone if everyone doesn’t believe in it? It is not important to me. Therefore, it is not important to everyone. Q.E.D.

MikeC: The ability to have freedom to worship your Supreme Being of Choice (or not to worship, I guess) is a keystone belief; God is important. In saying "under God," we are not saying "I believe in God and follow this particular religion," we are saying "this nation has a deep religious heritage that continues to this day which I choose to respect even if I do not necessarily believe in it."
Luigi Novi: Mike, you are more than free to come up with whatever arbitrary interpretation of that phrase you want, but it’s hardly what it means. The meaning of “one nation under God” is fairly clear, and it is hardly "this nation has a deep religious heritage that continues to this day which I choose to respect even if I do not necessarily believe in it." “One nation under God” has nothing to do with “heritage.” It is a clear endorsement of the idea that belief in spiritual beings is inherently connected with Americanism. It only becomes one of “heritage” if you deliberately twist the meaning of the words away from their common and intended usage.

Moreover, this country’s “deep religious heritage” consisted of church membership at time of the Revolution that was only 17%. It was 34% at the turn of the century, and is 60% today. The notion that the country was more religious back then than now is a myth, when in fact the opposite is true.

MikeC: Any teacher or student has the right not to say those particular words in the Pledge, I guess, but is it that repellent to recognize that God (again, this nebulous concept "God") is an important part of American society?
Luigi Novi: Given that it is not an important part of American society, but rather an important part of the lives of certain Americans, the answer is obvious.

Why is it a not a part of individuals’ lives but of “America”? Just because some people are religious, and they’re American, means that there is a connection between the two? That’s a non sequitur, and it’s paralogia. You could just as well say that guns are an important part of American society because of their role in the Revolution, and because of the fact that many people own them. Should we change the Pledge to say “one nation under our firearms”? The confusion here is between something that is a part of many individuals’ lives, and the notion that it is therefore, ipso facto, part of the country they live in.

You ask if it’s repellent to recognize that. For agnostics and atheists, what do you think the answer is? Do they not count in your version of America? Are they so unimportant a segment of American society that we should just ignore them, and fashion a pledge containing a line that is only reflective of theists, even if that line was not originally in the pledge? Rather than choosing not to say those words, which would make the pledge divisive rather than unifying (which pledges pertaining to nationalism should), why not have one whose wording is not reflective of religion at all, so that it is inclusive of everyone?

Benn: On the other hand, how about a comprise? In honor of George Clinton, let's change it to "under nation a groove."
Luigi Novi: Or hell, let’s honor L. Frank Baum, and change it to “one nation under the rainbow.”

You could just as well say that guns are an important part of American society because of their role in the Revolution, and because of the fact that many people own them. - LUIGI NOVI

Actually, I thought that was pretty much the NRA's position on the subject.

Luigi Novi: Or hell, let’s honor L. Frank Baum, and change it to “one nation under the rainbow.” - LUIGI NOVI

Don't you mean "...over the rainbow"?

1. It just says "God." What did Jefferson mean when he referred to "God" (capital G) in the Declaration of Independence? What do Presidents mean when they say "so help me God" at the end of their oath?

2. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." What does this mean? Apparently you and I have different interpretations because I do not believe uttering the phrase "one nation under God" is an establishment of religion. You disagree. Impasse.

3. You said I believe that there is "an inherent connection between Americanism and a belief in spiritual beings." I believe that religion is a key part of this country, yes. I'm not saying that "If you're not religious, you're not an American."

4. Your statement "how can it be a very important aspect of the nation for everyone doesn't believe in it?"--by this logic, nothing is important. Shall we omit the line about "pledging allegiance to the flag" because some people like Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the flag?

5. While I do appreciate the fact that you can come up with the clear and correct interpretation and I cannot, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the Pledge. I admit I was a little stretching, but I still cannot see that the statement "one nation under God" is makes an inherent connection between being an American and believing in a spiritual being. Also, church membership statistics do not present the entire side of the story. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, our country has a deep religious heritage.

When President Eisenhower entered the phrase "under God" into the Pledge, he said "we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future..."

6. I recognize what you are saying, Luigi, and I can understand it. But I do not see this as a violation of church and state interests, to merely recognize the fact that God is an extremely important aspect of this nation now and in the past. I would appreciate that you do not use phrases as "obvious" because, well, frankly, it is not obvious. In the original California court ruling, one of the judges said that the phrase "under God" has "no tendency to establish religion in the country." The Senate voted 99-0 in favor of the Pledge as it currently is.

7. You have stated that the Pledge is divisive. Well, let's get rid of that divisive currency--"In God We Trust." And those divisive national songs--"God Bless America," "America the Beautiful," and the "Star Spangled Banner." Let's get rid of those divisive prayers that open up Congressional meetings. Let's tell Presidents not to make divisive statements like "God bless America." My point here is not to be an jack-ass (well it is a little), but to point out that there are plenty of other references to "God" on our national scope. The Pledge is not some isolated little litany that mentions God; it is in fact, merely recognizing something that is recognized in countless other facets of our nation.

8. Well, that was very long-winded and I'm sure unsatisfactory to you. As I've said, I think that we're basically at an impasse here, so it might be time to move on to our next battle of wits. BTW, you'll be happy to know that I was called "too liberal" by my friend last night. The pain of being a moderate...

...change it to “one nation under the rainbow.” Luigi

Isn't the pledge devisive enough? That suggestion could be taken as an "establishment" of the "religion" of gay rights (or [Jesse] Jacksonian minority rights) or, depending on where the listener thought the sarcasm in the suggestion was directed, a slam at those rights and their champions.

Somewhere over the rainbow...there's another rainbow...

MikeC: It just says "God." What did Jefferson mean when he referred to "God" (capital G) in the Declaration of Independence?
Luigi Novi: He didn’t.

He referred to “Nature’s God.” The full sentence is:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

Given that Jefferson was not a Christian, but a Deist, a Freethinker, and a student of the European Enlightenment, and was openly critical of religion, he was not referring to the Judeo-Christian God, as were those who changed the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 to include his name.

Here is more information on the Declaration, which you can find here:

The Declaration of Independence gives important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of authority from divine proclamation.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.

None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not communicate with humans, either directly by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus Christ, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, and the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.

"1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:

""...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

For more quotes by Jefferson that indicate what he thought about religion in general and Christianity in particular, go here.

MikeC: What do Presidents mean when they say "so help me God" at the end of their oath?
Luigi Novi: You’d have to ask them, Mike. And the person who first wrote that oath. If I were made President, I would not swear by that oath, any more than I would if I were testifying in court. I’d only swear by a secular one.

MikeC: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." What does this mean? Apparently you and I have different interpretations because I do not believe uttering the phrase "one nation under God" is an establishment of religion. You disagree. Impasse.
Luigi Novi: We’re not talking about uttering it. We’re talking about public school staff paid by tax dollars formally directing public schoolchildren (i.e.: kids that are not your own kids, and therefore are not under your authority with regard to religion) to utter it. Not the same thing. By directing children that are not your own to recite a recognition that there is a inherent connection between Americanism and spirituality, the state is directing others into stating religious/spiritual beliefs.

MikeC: You said I believe that there is "an inherent connection between Americanism and a belief in spiritual beings." I believe that religion is a key part of this country, yes.
Luigi Novi: In what way? Why does it being a key part of your life automatically mean that it is therefore a key part of the entire country you live in?

MikeC: Your statement "how can it be a very important aspect of the nation for everyone doesn't believe in it?"—
Luigi Novi: What I actually said was, “How can it be a very important aspect of the nation for everyone if everyone doesn’t believe in it?”

MikeC: by this logic, nothing is important.
Luigi Novi: No. By that logic, only things that are inherent to Americanism, and important on a national level should be in its national pledge. Religion is not important on a national level. It is only important on an individual level. Again, why does something that is important on an individual level only become “not important”? What is important to you is only important if you can tell my kids to recognize your God? It’s not enough for you personally to recognize it in your home, your church, your mind and heart, your life, etc.? Not every American believes in spiritual beings. How, therefore, can it be a universal concept across all Americans?

MikeC: Shall we omit the line about "pledging allegiance to the flag" because some people like Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the flag?
Luigi Novi: What do you mean they “don’t believe in the flag”?

The flag represents all Americans, including Jehovah’s witnesses. Religion does not.

MikeC: While I do appreciate the fact that you can come up with the clear and correct interpretation and I cannot, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of the Pledge. I admit I was a little stretching, but I still cannot see that the statement "one nation under God" is makes an inherent connection between being an American and believing in a spiritual being.
Luigi Novi: If you admit you were stretching, and that my statement was the “clear and correct” definition, then why is it necessary to “agree to disagree”? Can you explain, from your concept of vocabulary and/or word usage, how that line means what you said earlier it meant? Or can you tell me what source you are using to argue that when the Pledge was altered to include it in 1954, that those responsible for it mean what you stated it meant?

MikeC: Also, church membership statistics do not present the entire side of the story. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, our country has a deep religious heritage.
Luigi Novi: Whether I choose to acknowledge it or not is based precisely on whether you can establish it through something resembling an argument or explanation utilizing historical research into the background of the country’s founding.

You have not done this.

Therefore, your “this is true whether your admit it or not” statement is merely rhetorical. Something does not become true by mere FIAT. You have to establish it.

So I ask you again. What exactly does “deep religious heritage” mean, how do you establish it, and what exactly is its relationship to Americanism? Your reasoning, thus far, seems to be: “I am religious. I am American. Therefore, religiosity and Americanism are inherently connected.” This sort of reasoning (involving two premises and a conclusion) is called a syllogism, and in this case, it’s a false one. Many of the Founding Fathers wore wigs and held slaves. And they were American. By the same logic, therefore, you could say that wearing wigs and slavery are inherent aspects of Americanism. In order for your statement about religion to not be just as explicitly fallacious, you have to not only demonstrate religion’s history in this country, or even that the Founding Father’s participation in it, but demonstrate that it had an integral role in its creation (and was not simply an incidental aspect of the culture). Any research into the beliefs of the Founding Fathers, and their intentions, shows that it had none.

MikeC: When President Eisenhower entered the phrase "under God" into the Pledge, he said "we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future..."
Luigi Novi: And he was wrong, because what he actually was saying was that he was OPINING such a transcendence. Not reaffirming it. To reaffirm it, you first have to establish it. When and how did Eisenhower establish this connection? To my knowledge (and I could be wrong here), he never did so, any more than you did. He, like you, are merely assuming a connection between the two, as if such a connection is inevitable, without providing any historical explanation for it.

MikeC: I recognize what you are saying, Luigi, and I can understand it. But I do not see this as a violation of church and state interests, to merely recognize the fact that God is an extremely important aspect of this nation now and in the past.
Luigi Novi: You only insist on this connection because you believe in God. In your bias, you want to connect the two.

MikeC: I would appreciate that you do not use phrases as "obvious" because, well, frankly, it is not obvious. In the original California court ruling, one of the judges said that the phrase "under God" has "no tendency to establish religion in the country." The Senate voted 99-0 in favor of the Pledge as it currently is.
Luigi Novi: And they were wrong, as they all use the same logical fallacies and religious revisionism historical myths that you have used here, which I have debunked.

MikeC: You have stated that the Pledge is divisive. Well, let's get rid of that divisive currency--"In God We Trust."
Luigi Novi: Agreed.

MikeC: And those divisive national songs--"God Bless America," "America the Beautiful," and the "Star Spangled Banner."
Luigi Novi: This is yet another Straw Man used by anti-Separation of Church and State theists with regard to the Pledge.

We are not talking about songs. For that matter, we’re not talking about statues, or signs, or decorations, or any of these things, even the pledge mutilated by McCarthyism. What we’re talking about is whether U.S. tax dollars are used to spread these things in the PUBLIC ARENA by paying for them, and/or directing others to recognize them. This is the big distinction advocates of this fallacy pretend not to understand. If some kid walking down the hall wants to sing those songs, or wear a cross or a Star of David, or for that matter, recite a mutilated Pledge of Allegiance, he has every RIGHT to.

What we’re talking about is whether the state is endorsing these things, in particular by organizing the kids themselves and directing them to recite such things. The songs themselves are neutral with respect to SoCaS, and therefore, do not violate it. There’s no reason to “smite” all visual records of these things from existence. Only telling someone else’s kid to sing it would violate SoCaS. Ditto for a mutilated Pledge, courtroom oaths that reference God, the Ten Commandments in the courtroom, etc.

As for currency, since everyone is forced to use it (it’s not like theists have them custom-made with the “God” motto on it), and it is manufactured with tax money, then yes, that phrase should be removed from it.

MikeC: Let's get rid of those divisive prayers that open up Congressional meetings.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Are you going to tell me now that those prayers also don’t refer specifically to the Judeo-Christian God?

Or, to reverse your ironic statement, let’s keep those prayers, and just ignore all those jews, wiccans, agnostics, atheists, muslims, and other non-Christians present at those meetings, because hey, they don’t count.

MikeC: Let's tell Presidents not to make divisive statements like "God bless America."
Luigi Novi: Another Straw Man. One individual stating his religious beliefs, in and of itself, does not force others to recite that they share it. My tax dollars aren’t being spent when the President mentions his beliefs, nor are my kids being directed to repeat after him, any more than they’re required to repeat his opinion of the latest movie that just opened, or that new book that just came out. Religious beliefs should remain personal, not national, and a President making such a statement is perfectly appropriate, because it is most certainly a PERSONAL statement.

MikeC: My point here is not to be an jack-ass (well it is a little), but to point out that there are plenty of other references to "God" on our national scope. The Pledge is not some isolated little litany that mentions God; it is in fact, merely recognizing something that is recognized in countless other facets of our nation.
Luigi Novi: And as I have pointed out, in each of these cases, there was either no SoCaS violation, in which case your statements were moot, or they were SoCaS violations, in which case I agree they should be removed from government-funded/directed status.

A couple of things.

First, when refering to "God", as in the pledge it refers to the judeo-christian God, but somehow when "God" as in "Natures God" it's talking about something else?? Apartly it is possible to have a non specific meaning to "God"

Secondly, I was under the impression that it wasnt law that the teachers HAD to recite the pledge, (t least in michigan they stopped doing it while i was in school)

*history rant* Of course Jefferson and Washington were diests, EVERY so called "educated" person was. In fact, it was a modern passing way everyone was viewing the world. Simply put, they thought that there was a God, AND that he created everything, they just beleived that he then set up a bunch of laws for it to work by, put a lid on it, and let it go along it's merry way. They viewed God as a clock maker, he wound us up, and then let us go. This is the reason we were able to make scientific progress, because we thought that GOD established rules for us to. *end history rant*

You miss a point Luigi, that Christians Do strive for everyone to reconize their God, mainly because they beleive that they have the one true God, and they present many arguments for it, but we are not in a debate about religion, but one about politics. To me it all comes back to the phrase which has been misused for much of our nations history,

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

In this i agree with MikeC, the pledge really is not talking about anyone specific, and in a "repeat after me" type setting the fact the the letter g is capitolized makes no differance, because the kids have no idea whether or not it's capitolized. Also, even if they did, will most of these kids know that the capitol G means the judeo-christian God, probably not unless they are from a judeo-christan family where their parents or church would have let them know that.

I would assume that most other religions could/do do the the same thing ("Mommy, what does it mean when i say 'under God'", "It's talking about god dear, you know, [insert name of prefered religion's god]"). To me, this fits perfectly well with the Free excercise clause in letting families deciede what it means for them, in fact, it forces kids to start thinking early about the ontological question of if there is a god or not, it's good learning =) (thats a smily fact for those who dont know)

oh yeah, and please Luigi, please dont break apart my post and respond to it section by section, i find that REALLY annoying to try and read. it also gives an unfair advantage to the writer as a typist and allows you to make the other poster say things he didn't, all in all, it's bad discussion board form.

Okay, I didn't think I could get away with the "agree to disagree" thing, but it was worth a try. Let's go!

1. Yes, Jefferson was a deist and he said "Nature's God." But he was referring to a God. A capital-letter God. I have NEVER said that the United States was founded on the Christian religion; I have clearly said that religion has always played a key and important role in United States history and has been recognized by the United States government (not established, which is illegal, but recognized). And as you may have guessed, I think that the interpretation of Romans is faulty. I believe that the Bible tells us to respect authority, but it is not telling us to blindly obey all commands from the earthly government. But that really is more for Religious Musings.

2. Look, I'm not asking you to convert to Christianity or become a theist. I'm asking you to recognize that religion is a very important part of a large percentage of Americans' lives. In saying that this nation is "under God," we are recognizing that. We are not recognizing that there is an "inherent connection between Americanism and spirituality." I have never said this. I HAVE said that "religion is a key part of this country." This is true. Look around society, in the past and present, and view the impact that church/religious beliefs has. It's tremendous. To say that religion does not play a large or key role in society is incorrect. Sorry for misquoting you; that was a typo.

3. A Jehovah's Witness believes the flag is a graven image; that's what I meant (at least as recently as I can remember they did). They would disagree with you regarding the flag. Remember Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, the NBA player who wouldn't salute the flag? He'd disagree with you regarding it.

4. I was being sarcastic when I said you had the clear and correct definition. I don't. But you have not offered to me any more evidence than I have regarding the fact that we both have DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of what the Pledge is. You called it clear and correct; I don't think it's either clear or correct, that's why I think we need to agree to disagree. You could look at the original intent of the Knights of Columbus that fought to get it changed (yup, Judeo-Christian ethics to fight the Commies), but since the Cold War is over, those motives are moot. Must we interpret everything based on its original motives even when the original motive is completely irrelevant? Is there no evidence to contradict what I feel that the Pledge means TODAY?

5. I could offer a lot of examples regarding our country's religious heritage. In fact, I did. They're on the bottom of my last post. We have "in God we trust" written on our money. Presidents say "So help me God" when they're sworn in. Congressional sessions are opened with prayer. Our national anthem is actually a religious song. Every President except Jefferson was a member of a church (not saying that they're Christian, just that they were members of a church). We have a National Day of Prayer, a Presidential Prayer Breakfast. The President organizes national, multi-denominational and multi-faith services at the National Cathedral. Numerous colonies were founded by religious groups, such as the Puritans, the Quakers, the Pilgrims, and the Anglicans. Thomas Jefferson was a deep religious thinker who wrote his own version of the Bible, felt proud about obtaining religious freedom (prouder than being President) in Virginia, and mentioned "nature's God" in his Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln said "this nation under God" in his Gettysburg address. Do these examples prove anything? No, just that throughout our history, there is a rich religious heritage. That is all I am saying. I am not saying "Religion is great! It should be adopted by everyone because I say so!" I am saying that religion is/has/was an important facet of America.

6. You say I have a bias. Perhaps I do. Might I suggest you have a bias for the opposite reasons?

7. I don't have the original transcript of Eisenhower's speech, so I'm not sure what else he said.

8. Well, if 99 members of the Senate are wrong as well as a California circuit judge, what do I know then?

9. The national anthem is played before every high school sporting event. Isn't that a state-sponsored activity?

10. I'm sure the pre-congressional session prayers do refer to a Judeo-Christian God. That's not really my point. My point is that somebody, whether a poor misguided soul like myself or not, finds religion to be such an important facet of American life that they would like to pray before beginning a national session of government. President Bush had a rabbi and a Muslim cleric at the national services for the 9/11 victims; was that divisive because this was a state-sponsored activity?

11. Your tax dollars are most certainly going to fund the President, so any statement that he says does have some relevance to you.

12. So if they are separation of church and state violations, then basically you are saying that our entire country is one hulking mass of a church and state violation? Would that be a fair interpretation--after all, our everyday currency is a violation and our national representatives violate it every day.

I hope you don't think I'm being obnoxious or a jack-ass; it's just that I think we have diametrically different views on this matter, and I apologize if I sound mean.

And we might need a second board...

Note: I am not commenting on the merits of either side here: I'm just clearing up a couple of points

What do Presidents mean when they say "so help me God" at the end of their oath? MikeC

You’d have to ask them, Mike. And the person who first wrote that oath. If I were made President, I would not swear by that oath, any more than I would if I were testifying in court. I’d only swear by a secular one. Luigi

When Madison wrote the oath into the Constitution, it did not have that phrase on the end. It still does not have that phrase. When the Chief Justice recites the oath for the president-elect to repeat, he does not include that phrase. George Washington ad-libbed it when he first took the oath in 1788, and it has become tradition for all later presidents to ad-lib it, as well.

Shall we omit the line about "pledging allegiance to the flag" because some people like Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in the flag?

What do you mean they “don’t believe in the flag”?

The flag represents all Americans, including Jehovah’s witnesses. Religion does not.

I think what Mike is trying to reference is the fact that it goes against their religion (their understanding of the second Commandment -- no graven images/idols) to represent and honor/pledge to a concrete symbol or anything else other than God himself). To Witnesses, the Pledge, with or without the controversial phrase, is a state imposed abridgement of their religious sensibilities, and therefore violates the separation of Church and State. They contented themselves, however, with merely gaining the right to abstain from the pledge. Mike's point seems to be that other groups can abstain from declaring the phrase, rather than "force" the rest of the country to accept their religious/non-religious (philosophical) viewpoint.

9. The national anthem is played before every high school sporting event. Isn't that a state-sponsored activity?

But the verses that are sung do not have any "religious" content. The verses that do are not sung.

11. Your tax dollars are most certainly going to fund the President, so any statement that he says does have some relevance to you.

It is difficult to separate our beliefs and values into "religious," "political," "legal," etc. (as seen by the overlap on the three Musings Boards. And when we elect someone President, we want someone with strong convictions politcally. Someone who believes in what he has been elected to do. If we agree on the political actions, a disagreement the religious or philosophical basis for that decision can be overlooked as a personal veiwpoint.

If the President goes to church on Christmas or Easter he is doing so as an individual, he is not forcing the entire contry into the service with him.

This is quite possibly the most fiery deabtae that I've never been a part of. I should come to the Peanut Gallery more often. This is fun.

Wow. Not only does this thread get Morgan to leave a post here, but it's brought about the return of Vargboy. Without the kewl-speak. 'Mazing.

First, when refering to "God", as in the pledge it refers to the judeo-christian God, but somehow when "God" as in "Natures God" it's talking about something else?? Apartly it is possible to have a non specific meaning to "God"

Yeah, that I can agree with. But what you said afterwards is contradictory. And I quote:

In this i agree with MikeC, the pledge really is not talking about anyone specific, and in a "repeat after me" type setting the fact the the letter g is capitolized makes no differance, because the kids have no idea whether or not it's capitolized. Also, even if they did, will most of these kids know that the capitol G means the judeo-christian God, probably not unless they are from a judeo-christan family where their parents or church would have let them know that.

This is b.s. Sorry. It contradicts your first statement, Varg. Just as it's foolish to "possibl(y)...have a non specific meaning to 'God'", it is foolish to pretend the letter "gee" is not meant to be capitalized. No one could that foolish to believe it is non-specific. You want it to be non-specific? How about saying "one nation under a god." I do not believe that the hypothetical situation you expouse ("'It's talking about god dear, you know, [insert name of prefered religion's god]').) is one that is realistic. Not when the phrase is "one nation under G/god." Only one diety is called "God" and that is the Judeo-Christian one. I believe it is almost impossible not to understand that "god" (with a little gee) means "God" (with a big gee) in the phrase. I've no doubt that is the line of logic that the Christians who want to keep the phrase in the Pledge want to push, but it's a faulty line of logic. (BTW, how many people who are not of the Judeo-Christian faith are pushing to keep the phrase in the Pledge? Hm?)

And finally, I agree with Mike. Religion has had a great affect on our country's history and its heritage. It is wishful thinking to feel that religion does not, nor has it ever, helped shaped the fates of the peoples of our planet. It is a part of the fabric our lives, whether you believe in it or don't. (And I don't believe, either.)

Vargo: You miss a point Luigi, that Christians Do strive for everyone to reconize their God, mainly because they beleive that they have the one true God, and they present many arguments for it…
Luigi Novi: And how have I missed this point? If anything, my point is that the Christians who insist on maintaining the mutilated version of the Pledge and feel it’s appropriate for public school children to be directed in reciting it are trying to do just this.

Vargo: To me it all comes back to the phrase which has been misused for much of our nations history, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" In this i agree with MikeC, the pledge really is not talking about anyone specific, and in a "repeat after me" type setting the fact the the letter g is capitolized makes no differance, because the kids have no idea whether or not it's capitolized. Also, even if they did, will most of these kids know that the capitol G means the judeo-christian God, probably not unless they are from a judeo-christan family where their parents or church would have let them know that.
Luigi Novi: So you’re saying it’s okay for public school staff to direct Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, sikh, atheist and agnostic children into reciting the Pledge because the kids don’t know any better?

If their parents are not raising them as Christians, then obviously, it is not the place of public schools to direct them to recite such things. Teachers have the power to influence what children think and believe, and directing them to recite such a thing, and to repeat it every day for ten months out of the year for 13 of the first 17 years of life (grades K-12) has a powerful affect on children’s developing viewpoints, and is therefore a form of indoctrination into belief. To argue that, “Oh, they don’t know what that word ‘God’ means,” as if non-Christians are too ignorant to know about others’ religious beliefs, and as if this notion, even were it true, would mitigate the fact that it’s a SoCaS violation, is obtuse.

Vargo: I would assume that most other religions could/do do the the same thing ("Mommy, what does it mean when i say 'under God'", "It's talking about god dear, you know, [insert name of prefered religion's god]"). To me, this fits perfectly well with the Free excercise clause in letting families deciede what it means for them, in fact, it forces kids to start thinking early about the ontological question of if there is a god or not, it's good learning =) (thats a smily fact for those who dont know)
Luigi Novi: And where do you get the idea that families need the state to “force” the kids to start thinking about this? That is the family’s decision, not the state’s. Moreover, what if the families are agnostics or atheists, and have already decided this question for their kids, and have decided that they wish to raise their kids without any believe in supernatural beings? Having the kid recognize that the nation is “under god” every day helps this? Wouldn’t families just as easily be able to deal with this point on their own? For that matter, wouldn’t families of varying religious persuasions be able to do it better, since the Pledge isn’t applicable to all of them?

Vargo: oh yeah, and please Luigi, please dont break apart my post and respond to it section by section, i find that REALLY annoying to try and read. it also gives an unfair advantage to the writer as a typist and allows you to make the other poster say things he didn't, all in all, it's bad discussion board form.
Luigi Novi: I form my responses in a way that I feel works best for me. When I respond to individual statements in the form of sentences or comments, it’s because I like to answer each one individually/directly, particularly if I feel that doing so en masse doesn’t convey my responses to each point as well.

For example, Mike asked me about mentions of God in both the Declaration of Independence, and the President’s Oath of Office. Since my response to the former was pretty long and involved, I didn’t feel it appropriate to simply tack on the less-verbose response to the latter at the end of it. So I quoted those two points by him separately, in order to custom my responses to each one. Indeed, Mike himself numbered the different sections of his post, and where possible, I responded to those sections as he wrote them. I do not see why this would be “annoying to read,” and while I do not mean to be rude when I say this, Vargo, I don’t really feel much motivation to change my entire quote-and-rebuttal style, one which has served me well and seems to be fine for everyone else here who reads my posts, just to accommodate the whims of one poster who I rarely see visit here, much less speak to me.

But most importantly, this style, in and of itself, hardly allows me “to make the other poster say things he didn't”, which is a pretty serious charge, one which you haven’t bothered to illustrate with even one example. If you could provide one, I’d be interested to read it.

MikeC: Look, I'm not asking you to convert to Christianity or become a theist. I'm asking you to recognize that religion is a very important part of a large percentage of Americans' lives.
Luigi Novi: Now that’s a statement that’s reasonably true! But that’s an entirely different statement from one that alleges that religion is therefore a inherent part of the country’s identity.

MikeC: In saying that this nation is "under God," we are recognizing that. We are not recognizing that there is an "inherent connection between Americanism and spirituality." I have never said this. I HAVE said that "religion is a key part of this country." This is true. Look around society, in the past and present, and view the impact that church/religious beliefs has. It's tremendous. To say that religion does not play a large or key role in society is incorrect.
Luigi Novi: See, this is the kind of paragraph that I usually like to respond to in pieces, since there are several different ideas in it that I need to respond to separately. But at the risk of giving Vargo a conniption…

When you say “we are recognizing that,” that might be what it means to you, but it is not what it says, and hardly what it was originally intended. That wording does indicate that a belief in supernatural beings is connected with being American, and that’s false.

I also continue to dispute your assertion that religion is a “key part” of the country, more because I’m trying to understand what you mean by it than anything else. “Key part” meaning what? The fact that Founding Fathers were of some sort of religion (to answer the first part of your elaboration on this point), and the fact that they founded a country, means that the two are therefore connected? And that religion therefore has a causal relationship to that founding? Again, this connection is arbitrary. It’s a syllogism without proof. You can talk about Jefferson writing his own Bible all you want. But what you haven’t demonstrated is that his writing his Bible has a connection to his helping to found the country. This is where your assertion breaks down. I mean, didn’t the founders of all nations pretty much have spiritual beliefs? In what way, therefore, did religion play any greater role in America’s founding than in France’s, or Italy’s, or Brazil’s, etc.? There are many aspects to person’s life. Jefferson was a writer, a slave-holder, a Freethinker, an amateur scientist (it’s been said he would’ve become a scientist had he not gone into politics), etc. In what way, therefore, are these other things not “key parts” of our country’s “heritage”? Why single out religion?

The second part of your elaboration on this point deals with the “impact that church/religious beliefs” have, such as the things you mentioned, like Presidential Oaths, currency with God’s name on it, etc., but this is circular reasoning. Many of these things did not exist when the country was founded, and have crept into the zeitgeist only because theists have wanted to portray this connection. So to then point to them and say, “Look, there’s a connection,” is to pretend that these things were always there. But if this connection was integral, inevitable, and historical, then why, for example, did the Pledge of Allegiance not originally contain the words “Under God” in it?

Religion has impact on ALL countries. Take Italy. It contains Vatican City. But does that mean that religion is therefore a “key” part of the country? Or its daily life? Or its founding?

MikeC: Sorry for misquoting you; that was a typo.
Luigi Novi: Yes, I know. Don’t sweat it.

MikeC: A Jehovah's Witness believes the flag is a graven image; that's what I meant (at least as recently as I can remember they did). They would disagree with you regarding the flag. Remember Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, the NBA player who wouldn't salute the flag? He'd disagree with you regarding it.
Luigi Novi: They may feel it is a graven image, but it is a symbol of the country, a country of which they are a part. The flag represents that country, and its people, (even if some of them choose not to salute it), as does the original Pledge. The altered Pledge does not, because non-theists do not see the country as being under a god, nor would they necessarily buy your euphemistically PC interpretation of that phrase.

MikeC: But you have not offered to me any more evidence than I have regarding the fact that we both have DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS of what the Pledge is.
Luigi Novi: Well me, I’m just going by proper vocabulary and word usage. I see nothing in “under God” that must mean “heritage,” or the other stuff you stated was part of your interpretation. I would question whether your interpretation was what Eisenhower had in mind, or if most Americans think it doesn’t mean the Judeo-Christian God.

MikeC: You could look at the original intent of the Knights of Columbus that fought to get it changed (yup, Judeo-Christian ethics to fight the Commies), but since the Cold War is over, those motives are moot. Must we interpret everything based on its original motives even when the original motive is completely irrelevant? Is there no evidence to contradict what I feel that the Pledge means TODAY?
Luigi Novi: Mike, I’m sorry, but it’s not moot. The Knights fought to get a reference to a spiritual/religious character inserted to a Pledge whose theme was one of nationalism, won, and it remains. To keep there is to continue to ratify their viewpoint. That the Cold War is over does not make it moot. The only pertinent “evidence”, IMO, is what that verse really means, in terms of its original intent, which in the absence of any deep revolution in vocabulary in the past 50 years, remains the same today, not the more PC-friendly reconfigured meaning to which you choose to attribute to it.

MikeC: I could offer a lot of examples regarding our country's religious heritage. In fact, I did. They're on the bottom of my last post.
Luigi Novi:

Somewhere over the rainbow...there's another rainbow...

Yeah, that’s really a deep and profound explanation of this subject!



Okay, seriously, as I stated earlier, those things are wrong, except where people are merely stating personal beliefs. Presidents, after all, are allowed to hold such beliefs.

MikeC: Do these examples prove anything? No, just that throughout our history, there is a rich religious heritage. That is all I am saying. I am not saying "Religion is great! It should be adopted by everyone because I say so!" I am saying that religion is/has/was an important facet of America.
Luigi Novi: And again, I’m asking what does that mean? What does “important facet” mean? If it merely means that it is an important part of the lives of many individual citizens, then what does that have to do with the country?

MikeC: You say I have a bias. Perhaps I do. Might I suggest you have a bias for the opposite reasons?
Luigi Novi: Sure. But the quality of my position ultimately rises or falls on the reasoning and/or evidence I provide, and yours. And if I were the type of person to simply run on preconceptions, then I’d still be a Christian, wouldn’t I?

MikeC: Well, if 99 members of the Senate are wrong as well as a California circuit judge, what do I know then?
Luigi Novi: What you know is either true/reasonable, or not true/not reasonable. It does not rise or fall solely on what a majority of the Senate believes. Sometimes the minority is right, Mike.

MikeC: The national anthem is played before every high school sporting event. Isn't that a state-sponsored activity?
Luigi Novi: The national anthem does not contain references to God. It is exactly what the Pledge was before it was altered: An piece about the country, its flag, and how it has provided succor during times of war.

MikeC: I'm sure the pre-congressional session prayers do refer to a Judeo-Christian God. That's not really my point. My point is that somebody, whether a poor misguided soul like myself or not, finds religion to be such an important facet of American life that they would like to pray before beginning a national session of government.
Luigi Novi: Again, we’re not talking about praying before beginning a national session of government. We’re talking about members of government leading others to do the same on government time and government’s penny. If you wanna pray, why not keep it a private/individual aspect of your life?

MikeC: President Bush had a rabbi and a Muslim cleric at the national services for the 9/11 victims; was that divisive because this was a state-sponsored activity?
Luigi Novi: Many or most of the 3,000 victims may have been theists themselves, and since the services were held for them, it was perfectly appropriate.

MikeC: Your tax dollars are most certainly going to fund the President, so any statement that he says does have some relevance to you.
Luigi Novi: My tax dollars fund his doing his job. They do not fund, nor have any pertinence to, him making mention of his personal beliefs in a public speech, so his doing so does not violate SoCaS. SoCaS doesn’t mean you can’t hold beliefs or mention them to others in public.

MikeC: So if they are separation of church and state violations, then basically you are saying that our entire country is one hulking mass of a church and state violation? Would that be a fair interpretation--after all, our everyday currency is a violation and our national representatives violate it every day.
Luigi Novi: Currency is a not a country. Currency is just currency. It is here that you again employ a logical fallacy—implying not only a connection between two disparate things, but implying that they are one and the same. They are not. It is wrong to put references to spirits on currency. That has nothing to do with the “country” being one big violation, because the status of the country is not tied to how its currency is decorated. Remove those references, and the country will still be there tomorrow when you wake up.

MikeC: I hope you don't think I'm being obnoxious or a jack-ass; it's just that I think we have diametrically different views on this matter, and I apologize if I sound mean.
Luigi Novi: No, I don’t think that. I think you’ve conducted yourself with politeness, and I commend you and thank you for that. I have not perceived any obnoxiousness or other equine tendencies from you during this thread, and I have enjoyed participating in it with you. I can only hope that I myself have come off that way, and if I have, I apologize as well.

All right, my turn again. I'll let Vargo discuss the points he made so as not to put words in his mouth; I'll just start with the points you made towards me.

1. I single out religion as a key part because "religion" is more than just "Well, I like blue cheese" or "I believe that the government should raise taxes." For the people that have religious beliefs, their beliefs are the dominant facet of their lives. They live based on what they believe is morally right or wrong or what their Supreme Being approves/disapproves of or how some action will affect their eternal destination.

2. Getting into the point you made about circular reasoning, this is one of those things that is actually really weird. You state that many of these things (including the Pledge) were added after the country's founding (true). To me, however, this does not deflate my point. Some DID exist when the country was founded; the others were added later for various reasons--it doesn't matter when they were added for this point, it matters that it shows that religion, rightly or wrongly, was viewed as an important part of this nation by the government. And yeah, religion DOES have a key part in Italy's life; after all, it is the birthplace of the Roman Catholic Church.

3. I still disagree about you regarding the original motives. Would it make you feel any better if we took it out and put it right back in with different motives? Eisenhower probably would disagree with my interpretation (although he did say "transcendance of religious faith in our heritage"), but again, his original motives are irrelevant because the situation has changed. Many Americans probably do feel it refers to the Judeo-Christian God, but that would be their interpretation of the phrase.

4. If religion is an important facet in the lives of many individual citizens, then it IS an important facet of America. I know you'll respond with a counter-argument about, I dunno, "guns are an important facet in the lives of many individual citizens, then wouldn't you say guns are an important facet of America?" Sure! But are guns as important as religion? No.

5. My point was not in quoting the Senate's 99-0 vote to prove that I was correct because the Senate was behind me. My point was to show that this is NOT a black-and-white issue which I am obviously incorrect in. I am not a lone crackpot presenting a view that is extremist and not shared by anyone.

6. The national anthem does contain references to God, but as Tom correctly pointed out, only the non-God verse is sung at sporting events. But it's still a religious song, I would counter.

7. My point was not whether the country would magically blow up if we removed the words "In God we Trust" from our currency; my point was that the Pledge is not some isolated little blip on the radar of Church and state violations, according to your logic. Our entire currency and the actions of our national leaders are violations; those are pretty big parts of America. Is the Pledge then an aberration or is it merely a logical continuance? Is your beef not with the Pledge per se but with the unduly theist influence on a society which is supposed to have a separation of church and state? Do we actually have fundamentally different conceptions of what kind of country it is we should be living in?

If so...cool.

Well, I should get to church. Awaiting your rebuttal, sir.

"guns are an important facet in the lives of many individual citizens, then wouldn't you say guns are an important facet of America?" Sure! But are guns as important as religion? No.

Guns are my religion, so I'll thank ye ter keep yer opinies to yerself!

Rats, that posted incorrectly! I meant to post under the name of "Pastor Bill of the Holy Order of the NRA", but somehow slipped up. As for guns, well, I did own one of those Daisy BB guns as a kid...

Aww, and here i was wondering if anyone would even remember me

Allow me to clairify, The first part of the rant was just me being confused by the arguments allowed. It was me reinforcing MikeC's point about that "G"od can be multifacted, and not just refering to the judeo-christian God. As far as my second section of highlighted text, i think alot of people refer to a being of god without really making it the God of the bible, it happens all the time. Most people believe in A god, and refer to it as simply God, such as the agnostics, who believe that there might be A god, but they dont care to know anything about him (or her depending on your point of view or preferance). Oh course, the Judeo-christian god is not simply known as God, but is known as Yaweh, or Jehovah, or some other names. If we wanted to be proper and declare a religion as a state religion we would say, "One nation, under Jehovah...." as it is, God is the proper name for a single diety who rules over all of us, and who that is depends largly on your point of view (I'm not even gonna touch athiests)

Luigi, I am not claiming that young children of other religions are anymore ignorant than christian kids. As long as it isn't specific, it is an adaptable phrase that can fit any number of religions, and parents can choose to embrace this instead of fight it. As for the issue of forcing the kids into an ontoligical argument, and "forcing" them into thinking about this, schools force kids to think about big issues all the time, and here is a news flash "IT'S THEIR JOB!!" Schools are supposed to prepare kids for life, part of a life is solving large questions such as that, because they are quesitons that every person will have to face sometime in their life, "Is there a God?" "Where do i come from?" "What is the meaning of life?" and so on and so forth. The Christian community (as well as other religions) already thinks that the public schools system is answering there questions for the students. The answer they give does not make the religious community happy, because they say there is no god, you came from evolution, and there is no meaning to life!! Now if thats not flying in the face of religion, and establishing a state sponsered religion (atheism), then i dont know what is.

And here I told myself I wouldn't get involved.

My 2¢, though.

Luigi brings up a good point about the fact that someone else is teaching the children in public schools. That being the case, if my children attend public schools, it is my strongly held desire that their education be completely and totally secular (I'm in a battle with Morgan over public shooling vs home schooling). As far as I'm concerned, the only people on this planet who should be teaching my children about religion are their parents, and anyone who is specifically asked to by said parents. Not my parents, not Morgan's parents, not some random stranger who just happens to get the job of teaching them. Morgan and me. Anyone we choose to explicitly ask, for whatever reason. That is it.

So yes, I'm in favour of reverting the Pledge to the original form. Vargo does point out that people do tend to question their spirituality, even at a young age. But I completely disagree that it is up to the public schools to answer those questions - it's up to the parents and the religion in which the parents choose to raise their children.

However, Vargo, I'm afraid I must politely sneer at your comparing scientific theory to atheism (but it's a very polite sneer!). As someone once pointed out, we've not yet been able to reproduce a self-sustaining thermonuclear fusion reaction, but that doesn't mean that Sol really is the chariot of Helios.

Does this mean that you prefer not to have ANY mention of religion in school, not even in history?

Strawman, Mike.

Discussion of religion in context is fine. The Pledge, however, states in essence, "The US is under G-d, therefore I am under G-d". Two quite separate things.

Near as I can tell, that's a yes, Mike.

Interesting discussion, despite the derailment into evolutionary biology. For the record I'm one of those people who thinks "In God We Trust" is a silly thing to have on our money (perhaps MJ and I should rely esclusively on credit cards?) but we were talking about the Pledge, weren't we?

Sure we were. Here's the thing: the Pledge is a way of saying "This is how we say we are Americans". Pledging allegiance to the flag is an obvious way to show loyalty to the country. The Pledge is followed by uncontroversial commentary on liberty, justice, and un-dividedness. These are fundaments of American principles that all could agree with, one should hope. What message does this send to children who recite the Pledge? That America values, above all else, liberty, justice, unity.

Then stuck right in the middle of it is the troublesome statement "Under God". Is this really saying "God is somewhat important"? Or "the concept of religion is important"? Or "We are a country with a strong religious history"?

Or is it not instead saying "We value God as a value equal to liberty, justice, and unity"? As an atheist married to a Wiccan am I not to take to heart the clear message that I am less valuable to America than my mom, who goes to church? After all, the Pledge places her on the same high platform as "justic for all", whilst I stand here below of some depressingly lesser value.

Either the American flag represents me or it doesn't and via the Pledge as currently written I am no part of this country.

Balderdash!

And now I'm gonna have to get started. Oy.

The Christian community (as well as other religions) already thinks that the public schools system is answering there questions for the students. The answer they give does not make the religious community happy, because they say there is no god, you came from evolution, and there is no meaning to life!! Now if thats not flying in the face of religion, and establishing a state sponsered religion (atheism), then i dont know what is. Vargo

Like Machiko, I have to disagree. When public schools teach evolution, they do leave God out of the equation, but that's different from saying he doesn't exist. And I've definitely never had a teacher tell me that there's no meaning to life. Thus, I'd suggest that you slightly misunderstand what's being taught in school.

And to build on what Machiko said, Science is not a religion. Science does rest on a number of beliefs (that the Earth is round, for example), but these beliefs can be empirically proven or disproven. Thus, the bedrock of scientific "belief" is knowledge. Religious beliefs, however, can seldom be empirically proven; their acceptance is based on faith. If science were a religion, then people would be sitting around claiming a belief in, say, Relativity, just because they feel it to be true. In reality, there have been experiments that have proven the validity of Einstein's theories, thus, people don't have to take it on faith?

Have I made any of this clear?

I wasn't making a strawman argument, Scott. Machiko quite specifically said "the only people on this planet that should be teaching my children ABOUT religion are their parents..." A discussion of religion in context would be teaching children about religion; what I was trying to do was narrow down what she precisely thought. Mr. Morgan's rather cryptic "yes" comment reinforces this.

I still do not see the Pledge as making any distinction between "who's more American--those that believe in God and those that don't." The Pledge is recognizing the importance of religion/God in America, yes.

Vargo, MJ, Mark Morgan, MikeC, ScottN...This is really getting to be an old school, Nitcentral reunion debate. Now all we need is for Matt Pesti and Matt Patt to make an appearance and the gang's all here again. Will wonders never cease?

(And now I'll shut up. Sorry for being off-topic.)

Don't forget Jwb and MarkN. And um, Peter.

Benn: And isn't it pleasant to have a debate on a subject as inflammatory as this without the ad hominems and flames?

Shut your trap!

Just oiling my traps...

Unfortunately, Mike, Morgan has a tendency to misrepresent me ("Just a little!" he says).

I have no problems with religion being taught in a secular manner. That is, "The basis of Islam is..." or "Judaism's fundamental beliefs are..." or some such thing. As long as no one religion is being touted as better than another, or telling my child(ren) that "the only good American is one who believes in [insert religion of choice]."

Which, essentially, is what the Pledge is saying. "The only good American is one who is loyal to country and the Christian God." By that, I'm a bad American, just because I have no faith in the Christian God.

Moderator? I think we could use a new board.

Guys, I will make another post as soon as I get a chance...

I don't think that the Pledge is making any allegations against being a "good" American or a "bad" American. It's not that being a "good" American is believing in and worshiping God, but a "good" American can be respectful and recognize the importance of religion and God in this country. A "good" American can disapprove of the country's ideals and the direction it is going, but he or she can be respectful towards the flag.

I personally think the highlight of the last few mosts was Luigi making a quick little 2 line post..amazing!!

Anyway, about the topic of teaching evolution in schools. Teaching "fact" about something that has not been able to be repeated is pure scientific bunk, part of science is being able to recreate something. Also, my science text books from High School told me two very conflicting things. Number 1, matter does not spontaneosly create, and number 2, that matter did create itself out of nothing in order for evolution to take place. So evolution violates one of the founding princibles of science. Simply put, at very least, evolutionists should acknowladge that there was something that initally created matter that allowed for evolution to take place. Following that to a conclusion, you can assume that yes, there is indeed a God. Which science AND public schools tell us there isn't.


In regards to the whole "no meaning in life thing" thats more of an implied thought to evolution. "You came from a monkey, and all your here to do is have fun and die, there is no afterlife, and maybe a million years after you die your species will evolve into something greater." Thus there really is no more meaning that what you make out of life, or (if you prefer) there is no concrete meaning of life.

Sorry for my off topic rant, in regards to the flag and the actual debate that is going on in this board, it was not my intention to imply that it was the teachers job to do the actual teaching of religion and or God, but simply to encourage the Student to find out these answers, prod them into some critical thinking if you will.

We've probably all got some responses about evolution, but let's move over to Religious Musings for that, shall we? Let's reserve this to the Pledge/church and state issue, just for clarity's sake.

Hi, guys and gals! So...what'd I miss? ;)

I copied and pasted Vargo's last post to the Creation vs. Evolution thread in RM, too.

Thanks Mike

Vargo 2, eh? Is this like a DS9 kinda thing?

Moderator? Another board please?

MikeC: I single out religion as a key part because "religion" is more than just "Well, I like blue cheese" or "I believe that the government should raise taxes." For the people that have religious beliefs, their beliefs are the dominant facet of their lives.
Luigi Novi: First of all, you don’t know this. Second, you again miss my question: What does something being a dominant facet in your life has to do with being a dominant facet of the country you live in? This appears to me to be the equation on which that line in the Pledge is based, and I fail to see the logic in it. If there were plenty of non-theists who helped founded the nation (perhaps more than theists), and many who are part of the country today (though not as many), then could you just as well say that lack of a belief in any gods is an “key part” or “important facet” of the nation?

MikeC: You state that many of these things (including the Pledge) were added after the country's founding (true). To me, however, this does not deflate my point. Some DID exist when the country was founded; the others were added later for various reasons--it doesn't matter when they were added for this point, it matters that it shows that religion, rightly or wrongly, was viewed as an important part of this nation by the government.
Luigi Novi: What it shows is that theists wanted to pretend that it played a greater role in it and its founding, and portray it as something not mutually exclusive from the country’s identity by inserting those things after the fact, when in fact those things merely reflected current attitudes about religion, rather than inherent properties of it.

MikeC: And yeah, religion DOES have a key part in Italy's life; after all, it is the birthplace of the Roman Catholic Church.
Luigi Novi: How does the other pertain to the one?

MikeC: I still disagree about you regarding the original motives. Would it make you feel any better if we took it out and put it right back in with different motives?
Luigi Novi: I’d feel better if it were returned to its ORIGINAL version, when it was about nationality and the flag, and didn’t allege a connection between those things and God.

MikeC: Eisenhower probably would disagree with my interpretation (although he did say "transcendance of religious faith in our heritage"), but again, his original motives are irrelevant because the situation has changed. Many Americans probably do feel it refers to the Judeo-Christian God, but that would be their interpretation of the phrase.
Luigi Novi: The fact that Cold War is over does not mean the situation with respect to that line has changed. It was intended as the Judeo-Christian God. It still means that, and probably to most people who support it remaining, rather than “many.” With respect to those who do not believe in spirits, it remains a discriminatory aspect about a rite that shouldn’t be, and originally wasn’t.

MikeC: If religion is an important facet in the lives of many individual citizens, then it IS an important facet of America.
Luigi Novi: How? And if you want a more ingrained cultural more than blue cheese and higher taxes, how about arts and entertainment? Just about every single American devotes a considerable amount of their time to movies, novels, sports, TV, theater, comedy, humor, music, etc. Everything you said about religion, its “impact,” etc., applies to this as well. I’m sure the Founding Fathers and the citizens enjoyed a good play or book. I’m sure that just as satire and politically-oriented entertainment like editorial cartoons pervade and influence society today, so too did they back then. So why not include a line about “under arts and entertainment” in the Pledge? Why not put it on our currency? Have courtroom witnesses and Presidents swear by it? When you think about it, this sounds kind of silly. The fact that these things influence how lives, our opinions, our values, etc., does not mean that it’s a “key part” or “important facet” of the nation, at least not in the way codified by the insertion of a line to that effect in the nation’s Pledge of Allegiance.

MikeC: The national anthem does contain references to God, but as Tom correctly pointed out, only the non-God verse is sung at sporting events. But it's still a religious song, I would counter.
Luigi Novi: One reference to God does not make it a “religious song,” as it is more one of nationalism, like the Pledge. I have never heard the version with the God reference sung, and I far prefer the version I’m more familiar with. Moreover, sporting events are not state-sponsored, and in ones that are, I would be opposed to the inclusion of such a line. Even then, however, the audience is not directed to repeat it the way a schoolchild is.

MikeC: Our entire currency and the actions of our national leaders are violations; those are pretty big parts of America.
Luigi Novi: Currency? When it contains “In God We Trust,” yes it is. Actions of our nation leaders? In some cases, yes. A President merely mentioning how his religious beliefs give him emotional strength during a speech? No.

MikeC: Is the Pledge then an aberration or is it merely a logical continuance? Is your beef not with the Pledge per se but with the unduly theist influence on a society which is supposed to have a separation of church and state?
Luigi Novi: Both. I believe the former is an example of the latter. I don’t see how it’s a “logical continuance.”

MikeC: Do we actually have fundamentally different conceptions of what kind of country it is we should be living in?
Luigi Novi: That, or at least whether things like the current Pledge is consistent with it.

Vargo: It was me reinforcing MikeC's point about that "G"od can be multifacted, and not just refering to the judeo-christian God…Most people believe in A god, and refer to it as simply God, such as the agnostics, who believe that there might be A god, but they dont care to know anything about him (or her depending on your point of view or preferance).… (I'm not even gonna touch athiests)
Luigi Novi: And why is this? Children of atheists in public schools don’t count? Moreover, while you acknowledge that the definition of agnosticism varies, agnosticism is generally, I think, the absence of any belief in supernatural beings. That such people have children in public schools, and do not want the state telling them that they have to associate the country with God is at the heart of the matter, regardless if you want to “touch” them or not.

Vargo: As long as it isn't specific, it is an adaptable phrase that can fit any number of religions, and parents can choose to embrace this instead of fight it.
Luigi Novi: You mean that have to embrace it or fight it. Again, it is not the place of the state to give this “option” to the parents. The parents can take care of that aspect of their children’s upbringing themselves.

Vargo: As for the issue of forcing the kids into an ontoligical argument, and "forcing" them into thinking about this, schools force kids to think about big issues all the time, and here is a news flash "IT'S THEIR JOB!!" Schools are supposed to prepare kids for life, part of a life is solving large questions such as that, because they are quesitons that every person will have to face sometime in their life, "Is there a God?" "Where do i come from?" "What is the meaning of life?" and so on and so forth.
Luigi Novi: Wrong.

Schools do not “force” kids into thinking about this. Schools teach kids about other cultures and religions, they do so only in classes devoted to this (social studies, history, geography), and from an objective viewpoint. Teaching students that “5,000 years ago the Egyptians, who built these pyramids, believed in these gods,” is not the same thing as “the U.S. is one nation under these gods,” and to equate the two, and to equate directing kids to repeat that pledge with “answering their questions”—when no such “questions” are even being asked during this exercise—is at best, intellectually dishonest. There’s a difference in teaching a student what people of a certain religion believe, and directing them to repeat a reference to God, which is an implicit way of telling them what to believe.

Vargo: The Christian community (as well as other religions) already thinks that the public schools system is answering there questions for the students. The answer they give does not make the religious community happy, because they say there is no god, you came from evolution, and there is no meaning to life!! Now if thats not flying in the face of religion, and establishing a state sponsered religion (atheism), then i dont know what is.
Luigi Novi: This is exaggerated rhetoric. First of all, public schools do not state that there is no god, much less that there is no meaning in life. The schools are simply neutral on this question. (I’m sure, however, that individual teachers, when asked by students, are capable of having a heart-to-heart with them in which they explain their personal beliefs). Neutrality is not a religion, nor is neutrality “atheism.”

Second, atheism is not a religion at all. It is the absence of such beliefs.

MikeC: I still do not see the Pledge as making any distinction between "who's more American--those that believe in God and those that don't." The Pledge is recognizing the importance of religion/God in America, yes.
Luigi Novi: If non-theists and atheists have had a profound impact on America too, then shouldn’t Pledge theoretically recognize the belief that God doesn’t exist? Or negative attitudes about religion, which at least some of those atheists had?

Vargo: I don't think that the Pledge is making any allegations against being a "good" American or a "bad" American. It's not that being a "good" American is believing in and worshiping God, but a "good" American can be respectful and recognize the importance of religion and God in this country.
Luigi Novi: And what if certain people don’t think it’s important, and even think that it’s often been bad? Are they, therefore, bad Americans?

Vargo: I personally think the highlight of the last few mosts was Luigi making a quick little 2 line post..amazing!!
Luigi Novi: Don’t get used to it, buddy. I’m makin’ up for it…



Vargo: Anyway, about the topic of teaching evolution in schools. Teaching "fact" about something that has not been able to be repeated is pure scientific bunk, part of science is being able to recreate something.
Luigi Novi: First of all, no it is not. The definition of science is not arbitrarily just made up by one guy on a message board. In science, there are the experimental sciences, and the historical sciences. The historical sciences most certainly deal with past phenomena, such as cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, geology, human history, etc. These disciplines cannot “recreate” dinosaurs, asteroid impacts, extinct peoples, etc., but they are regarded as valid sciences that are equally able to show causality as the experimental sciences. Evolution is a proven scientific principle that has been proven by the historical sciences.

Second of all, evolution HAS been replicated in laboratories, and observed in the wild.

Vargo: Also, my science text books from High School told me two very conflicting things. Number 1, matter does not spontaneosly create, and number 2, that matter did create itself out of nothing in order for evolution to take place. So evolution violates one of the founding princibles of science. Simply put, at very least, evolutionists should acknowladge that there was something that initally created matter that allowed for evolution to take place. Following that to a conclusion, you can assume that yes, there is indeed a God. Which science AND public schools tell us there isn't.
Luigi Novi: The problem here is that you have read something that you don’t understand, and rather than simply admit “I don’t understand this,” and actually ask a teacher or other expert to explain it to you (you didn’t indicate that you had done this), you have decided to simply conclude arbitrarily that “Oh well, if I don’t understand it, then evolution must not work.” This sounds like an Argument from Incredulity, and if you think about it, it’s pretty darn arrogant. I mean, really, Vargo, because you don’t get it means that it’s wrong? Did you even try to look it up or ask someone about it? It’s sounds to me that you may simply have been looking for things to use as potential problems with the principle on an a priori basis, rather than sincerely trying to understand it in a Spinozian fashion. Evolutionists should “acknowledge” a solution to problem that exists for you only because you don’t understand it? That sounds more like your own personal dogma than any understanding of how science works.

Matter does not spontaneously create, and it did not spring out of nothing for evolution to take place. I could be wrong, but if you could cite the passage that states that evolution first occurred because matter “sprung out of nothing,” I’d like to read it.

Vargo: In regards to the whole "no meaning in life thing" thats more of an implied thought to evolution. "You came from a monkey, and all your here to do is have fun and die, there is no afterlife, and maybe a million years after you die your species will evolve into something greater." Thus there really is no more meaning that what you make out of life, or (if you prefer) there is no concrete meaning of life.
Luigi Novi: You are confusing something implied with something inferred. For this to be implied would require either that this be a deliberate message by those who established evolution (it wasn’t), or that there is a clear causal chain of implication in evolution itself (which there isn’t). In fact, you have merely inferred this; that is, it is your own interpretation of it. Evolution does not require any meaning or lack of meaning, as the meaning to life is something each person interprets themselves, and does not necessarily require religion or God. Agnostics and atheists can have a personal meaning to life, after all.

Luigi - the quote after MikeC's that you attributed to Vargo is MikeC's.

I propose this new line, then, in the PoA, instead of "one nation under God":

"One nation, under God, by any of God's names in any language, except when it is under the gods, except for those who prefer to be under no god, and those who aren't sure if we're under a god or not, of any sort." I'd be quite fine with that.

Here I go again:

Note. I will not respond to any of the evolution points here; that will be discussed in RM.

1. I still think that religion, for those that have it, is a dominant facet of their lives. If the government said "Oh by the by, we're getting rid of theater in this country," people would get mad, they'd protest, they'd run campaigns, etc. If the government said "we're getting rid of religion in this country--from now on, people will not be able to pray or worship or in fact have any spiritual beliefs whatsoever," I think people (religious people anyway) would react a bit more strongly. Do we have things on our coins that say "In Milton Berle we Trust?" Did a roving band of Second City Players migrate to America to form a colony? Did Thomas Jefferson say how proud he was that he established an endowment to have Avenue Q tour nationwide? Do Presidents say "so help me Charlie Callas!" when they are sworn in. No, your statement that all of my examples equally apply to other things besides religion.

If it is an important facet of citizens' lives, it IS an important facet of this nation. I suppose you could say that non-theistic beliefs were important facets of this nation; would you prefer to use the pledge Machiko wrote? Is there something that wrong with respecting and recognizing an important part of this country that you do not happen to find important?

2. I still don't see what difference it makes when these things came into effect. If it makes you feel any better, I'll tweak what I said originally and say "While religion was important for the Founding Fathers, it became even more important for our nation through the years." There were a lot of things not considered as important by the Founding Fathers--shall we reinstate the 3/5 Rule and take away women's suffrage (gotta love strawman arguments)? No? Why? Because things have changed.

Also, way back when I mentioned blue laws and obscenity laws, you pointed out how those things changed because attitudes changed. These were in existence at the time of our nation's birth; it showed the importance that religion had at the time (and since blue laws and obscenity laws still exist...).

3. Your comment about Italy is akin to saying that religion is not important in Jerusalem or Mecca. Rome is where one of the most influential religions in the world formed; its headquarters are located in the continent if not quite the country. I think religion is pretty importnat over there.

4. I was referring when I said "actions of our national leaders" to prayer before Congressional sessions, being sworn in on Bibles, etc.

5. It is a logical continuance, actually. "In God We Trust" was on our coins long before "under God" in the Pledge. When you think about it, "in God we Trust" is a lot more explicit than "under God"--that's saying we actually "trust" and that means, I guess "obey," God. Compared to that, just saying "under God" seems somewhat moderate. I think the Pledge is consistent with our nation's history and the emphasis that has been placed on religion throughout our history. Now you may find that this emphasis is wrong and has always been wrong and you have every right to think so. But the Pledge's "under God" is not some loco aberration that came into being in the 1950s with no precedent. This nation, one way or another, has placed a lot of emphasis and importance on religion.

6. There is a big difference between thinking that something has often been wrong and not recognizing its importance. For instance, you may not like Ronald Reagan; you may think he was an evil evil man. But when we have a moment of silence for his memory and are in fact instructed to be silent, I think you should be able to be respectful and recognize his importance in our nation's history.

7. There's your example of what Vargo was saying when he said you make others say things they didn't say. You made Vargo say my entire statement!

MJ: Luigi - the quote after MikeC's that you attributed to Vargo is MikeC's.

There's your example of what Vargo was saying when he said you make others say things they didn't say. You made Vargo say my entire statement!
Luigi Novi: Ack! That’s the second time in as many days. That’ll be thirty lashes for me.*

MikeC: I still think that religion, for those that have it, is a dominant facet of their lives.
Luigi Novi: You still have not explained why, ipso facto, that means it’s part of the country’s identity.

MikeC: If the government said "Oh by the by, we're getting rid of theater in this country," people would get mad, they'd protest, they'd run campaigns, etc. If the government said "we're getting rid of religion in this country--from now on, people will not be able to pray or worship or in fact have any spiritual beliefs whatsoever," I think people (religious people anyway) would react a bit more strongly.
Luigi Novi: Both would be infringements of our rights, and I’m not sure the reaction would be that different in one case over the other.

But assuming for the sake of argument that it would, that people might behave with greater sensitivity to all things religion simply goes to how rational thinking tends to be suspended with respect to it for some people, which is, IMO, part of the problem. Your pointing to human behavior as validating an argument or position as logically valid, which is false reasoning, since I find that part of the American theistic psyche that changed the pledge and wants to maintain it—in blatant contradiction of Separation of Church and State, and equality of all people of all faiths or no faiths—to be precisely the problem. The manner in which the logic and objectivity of theists fails them with regard to religion and politics is precisely at the heart of the problem, so arguing that human behavior somehow proves that phrase a valid part of the pledge, and an accurate reflection of the country’s identity, is IMO, a fallacy.

MikeC: Do we have things on our coins that say "In Milton Berle we Trust?" Did a roving band of Second City Players migrate to America to form a colony? Did Thomas Jefferson say how proud he was that he established an endowment to have Avenue Q tour nationwide? Do Presidents say "so help me Charlie Callas!" when they are sworn in. No, your statement that all of my examples equally apply to other things besides religion.
Luigi Novi: You are again using circular reasoning.

Step1: “Let’s put these things on our currency/pledges/oaths, because we want to pretend religion has a greater relevance to the country’s unique identity than it really does.”

Step2: “Look at all those things are on our currency/pledges/oaths! See! That means religion is important!”

The things you speak of were not there when the country began. They were placed there later because of increased religiosity of the population, and the effect is the myth that they were a foregone aspect of the country, and its identity. They were placed there because of the very belief you are expressing, not in validation of it. All this proves is that those people were as wrong as you.

Of those things you mentioned, only the establishment of some colonies was something in which religion was a relevant part, an by the time the country was established in 1776, it was no longer one colony designed to provide a haven for one religious group.

MikeC: If it is an important facet of citizens' lives, it IS an important facet of this nation.
Luigi Novi: Why? What does a personal aspect of culture have to do with the nation?

MikeC: I suppose you could say that non-theistic beliefs were important facets of this nation; would you prefer to use the pledge Machiko wrote?
Luigi Novi: Again? I just told you which pledge I’d prefer. Didn’t you read it?

MJ’s proposed pledge was, as I read it, somewhat sarcastic/humorous. If I’m wrong, and she was being literal and serious, I’d criticize it as being too verbose and cumbersome. Simply removing “under God”, and returning it to the ORIGINAL VERSION (y’know, back when it was just about nationality, and not God), would be preferable. That way, the pledge does not show preference or bias with respect to either believers in a god, or non-believers in a god.

MikeC: Is there something that wrong with respecting and recognizing an important part of this country that you do not happen to find important?
Luigi Novi: As I’ve been stating, I do not find it an important part of the “country.” It’s an important part of individuals’ lives. That does not mean there is something about the country’s identity or history as a whole of which it is an integral part, and you have not established that it is, except to simply point to the very things instated on the landscape that I think are wrong.

MikeC: I still don't see what difference it makes when these things came into effect. If it makes you feel any better, I'll tweak what I said originally and say "While religion was important for the Founding Fathers, it became even more important for our nation through the years." There were a lot of things not considered as important by the Founding Fathers--shall we reinstate the 3/5 Rule and take away women's suffrage (gotta love strawman arguments)? No? Why? Because things have changed. Also, way back when I mentioned blue laws and obscenity laws, you pointed out how those things changed because attitudes changed. These were in existence at the time of our nation's birth; it showed the importance that religion had at the time (and since blue laws and obscenity laws still exist...).
Luigi Novi: So because religiosity in the country has increased, we should ignore the idea of treating believers and non-believers equally, and have a pledge that shows favoritism to only one of them? You could make the same argument for the Bill of Rights. But I believe in the Bill of Rights, and suffrage, and equality of all races, because those things are not only right, but in keeping with the country’s original stated principles, which it had not lived up to initially when it was founded, at least not completely. The Bill of Rights and 14th and 19th Amendments were progressions towards fulfilling the country’s stated principle of freedom and equality, as did striking down blue laws and obscenity laws. Putting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, and directing public school children to recite it, is a step in the opposite direction.

MikeC: Your comment about Italy is akin to saying that religion is not important in Jerusalem or Mecca.
Luigi Novi: Jerusalem has long been the homeland of a people of a single race or religion, and its current incarnation was founded as a refuge for people who were slaughtered for nothing more than their religion. Hence, religion was relevant in its founding. The U.S., on the other hand, should be neutral with respect to religion, so as to maintain its principle of freedom and equality for all different theists, and non-theists as well.

MikeC: Rome is where one of the most influential religions in the world formed; its headquarters are located in the continent if not quite the country. I think religion is pretty importnat over there.
Luigi Novi: Among the individuals. Not in the government or its laws. Only 40% of the population are part of a religion. My godparents don’t go to church, nor do any of my aunts, uncles, and cousins that I know of.

MikeC: I was referring when I said "actions of our national leaders" to prayer before Congressional sessions, being sworn in on Bibles, etc.
Luigi Novi: And I said above that some of these things are violations, as are these two you mention.

MikeC: It is a logical continuance, actually. "In God We Trust" was on our coins long before "under God" in the Pledge. When you think about it, "in God we Trust" is a lot more explicit than "under God"--that's saying we actually "trust" and that means, I guess "obey," God. Compared to that, just saying "under God" seems somewhat moderate. I think the Pledge is consistent with our nation's history and the emphasis that has been placed on religion throughout our history. Now you may find that this emphasis is wrong and has always been wrong and you have every right to think so. But the Pledge's "under God" is not some loco aberration that came into being in the 1950s with no precedent. This nation, one way or another, has placed a lot of emphasis and importance on religion.
Luigi Novi: I didn’t say anything about precedence. I believe I stated that both the mark on currency was wrong too, didn’t I?

MikeC: There is a big difference between thinking that something has often been wrong and not recognizing its importance. For instance, you may not like Ronald Reagan; you may think he was an evil evil man. But when we have a moment of silence for his memory and are in fact instructed to be silent, I think you should be able to be respectful and recognize his importance in our nation's history.
Luigi Novi: Agreed.

But I don’t hold the same is true for religion. Religion does not deserve any special treatment by our laws or government any more than any other aspect of our culture.

*The lashes will be made of licorice, and will be wielded by Jessica Alba.**


**Aw, hell. Forget the licorice.

MikeC: If it is an important facet of citizens' lives, it IS an important facet of this nation.


So sports should be part of the Pledge, because it sure as heck is an important facet of most citizens' lives.

Yeah, Mike, you're right. I did forget to mention Jwb, MarkN and "He-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless". Dash it all. I knew I was forgetting somebody. And hey! What about Julie and Margie?

And yeah, Scott, you're right, too. It is pretty amazing how peaceful this discussion has gone on. I knew we could do it. Proves "He-Who-Shall-Remain-Nameless" wrong, I think.

And now, I'll just shut up as I have nothing more to say. (Not that I've seem to have really contributed much to the conversation...)

If I’m wrong, and she was being literal and serious, I’d criticize it as being too verbose and cumbersome.

Geesh! Everyone's a critic these days!

I was, in fact, being quite sarcastic. Although, it would be funny!

I love this argument.

1. Scott, sports are an important facet of our nation, but see the argument that I made with Luigi regarding theater. There is a precedent for the government to recognize the importance of religion; there is none regarding sports.

2. I think our biggest impasse point is regarding the "theistic Psyche." Let me examine what you called my circular reasoning:

a. We (the people) believe that religion is an important part of this nation; we shall recognize it through various things--coins, oaths, pledges, etc.

b. Because this has happened, I would argue that it was validated as important. The "circular reasoning" could apply to anything that was not in existence during the time of the Founding Fathers (and I'm not arguing that religion's importance wasn't, mind you...). Nobody cared a hill of beans about a graduated income tax in the Founding Fathers' day, and then it popped up years later! Because graduated income tax proponents in this country have increased, we should ignore the idea of treating graduated income tax proponents and flat tax proponents equally? How is the graduated income tax an important part of this nation?

Why? Because people thought it was important, went through the necessary political channels, and got it established.

Now, as I've said, you have every right to believe that the people that got the "In God We Trust" and "under God" things were dead wrong. But that does not invalidate the fact that the government at the time went through with them, which recognized that it was indeed important to them.

3. I love this quote of yours--"You have not established that [religion] is [an integral part of this nation] except to simply point to the very things instated on the landscape that I think are wrong." I think this shows that we operate on totally different mindsets of thinking; I've shown you my evidence and you've responded with "But those are wrong and they're violations." And I know that the government can be wrong through long-standing precedents (Jim Crow laws, etc.), but for the various reasons expressed above, I think it's right in this case. At any way, there is a precedent.

4. I'll refrain from making any more points about Italy because I think it's kind of off topic.

5. Would you care to elaborate on your last point about religion not deserving any special treatment? This isn't what I said! I asked if it was wrong to be respectful and recognize religion's importance in our nation's history if you don't happen to believe in it, especially since there happens to be a series of precedents regarding the respect paid towards religion by government (which other aspects of our culture do not have). How is the forced "moment of silence" any different than saying "under God" (which is not required)?

---

Quote:

Would you care to elaborate on your last point about religion not deserving any special treatment?

---

So sports should be part of the Pledge, because it sure as heck is an important facet of most citizens' lives. ScottN

I am not reciting a pledge that includes "one nation, under the Yankees..."

I suppose I haven't chimed in yet, at least not to express any substantial opinion, and nor do I expect to now . First off, I frankly don't care one way or the other whether or not the Pledge in its current form is deemed unconstitutional. I think that maybe on a personal level I am somewhat sad that there has been such an uproar about a simple reference to God, as that says to me how fewer people these days believe in him or care about him. But that's just a personal feeling. Hey, Mom's apple pie couldn't care less about God, and that's about the most American thing there is, so I don't see why an atheist would be any less American.

The question the Supreme Court needs to deal with, I guess, is the interpretation of the phrase, "any law respecting an establishment of religion". Some would argue that an establishment of religion refers to a specific religious sect or organization, and say that the First Ammendment prohibits the government from abridging liberty in favor of such a particular religion. Others would argue that an establishment of religion means any endorsement of the validity of religion in general. Count me among the former, though I don't discredit the latter, as their argument has its merits.

So why do I not care one way or the other on this issue? The Pledge can stay the same, and I won't mind, because I can't really see how it is infringing upon anybody's liberty. As someone pointed out in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, no one is actually being forced to repeat the pledge if they don't want to for whatever reason. On the other hand, I can see how it would make many people, particularly atheists and agnostics, very uncomfortable. It obviously makes them feel excluded when they want to express their patriotism just as much as a religious person does. Additionally, I see how even if young children have reservations about saying the pledge, it might be difficult for them to stand up for themselves, or defy their teacher, as it might seem to them. So if the reference to God were omitted from the Pledge I'd be fine with that too.

But lastly, back to the "respecting any establishment of religion" phrase. As I said, I don't think the Pledge violates this principle. Perhaps this is because it in no way has ever affected my worship of God. My faith was never strengthened by any belief that the government was endorsing my religion. I'm not aware of ever believing that the government thought that way. So are people trying to change the Pledge to better protect their rights, or just because they find it offensive? Do we as a people have the right to never have to be offended by the government? This isn't rhetoric, I'm just wondering is all.

How is the forced "moment of silence" any different than saying "under God" (which is not required)?MikeC

But saying "under God" IS required, as it is currently part of the Pledge of Allegiance that schools teach kids to recite verbatim. And as Mark Morgan just summarized, "...it is a statement that God is a fundamental part of being an American. God is as important as liberty. God is as important as justice. God is as important as unity."
Most kids who learn the Pledge do so by rote, without truly understanding the importance or significance of the words they are repeating. Sadly, many adults scarcely ponder the Pledge's meaning either, unless a case comes up under public scrutiny.
Now, I realize many schools allow children to remain silent during the recitation of the Pledge, and certainly a child can choose not to utter the line "under God" if he or she is so inclined. But I personally think that there are better ways to acknowledge that religion has been an important and vocal part of American history than by putting allegiance to the country on the same level as allegience to any god.

I still say that is not exactly special treatment. Are we recognizing that religon is a very important part of America? Yes. Are we making any distinctions between those that are religious and those that are not? No. As I've said to Luigi, you may feel that this respect paid to religion is undue and the government should refrain from doing so whatsoever, but then, I believe that we're looking at fundamentally different conceptions of what we feel this nation should be.

Would it be better if we have the "under God" part be optional?

So are people trying to change the Pledge to better protect their rights, or just because they find it offensive?Duke of Earl Grey
While I know some people feel it's the latter, I certainly hope that the majority are doing so for the former. That's where I'd land, at any rate.

This multiple posting at the same (or nearly the same) time is getting confusing! Who's responding to whom at this point?
In all seriousness, though, some more interesting points have been raised. I'm going to take a break and ponder things for a while.

Lunch break.

Most kids who learn the Pledge do so by rote, without truly understanding the importance or significance of the words they are repeating. Sadly, many adults scarcely ponder the Pledge's meaning either, unless a case comes up under public scrutiny.

Precisely. When I was about 16 or so, I stopped saying the Pledge (though I did stand out of respect for everyone else) because I wasn't going to be loyal to a flag. When I was about 22 or so, I re-evaluated things, and realized I had missed "And to the Republic for which it stands". And started saying it, with feeling, rather than rote. Nowadays, I personally use the pre-1954 wording, and leave out the "under G-d" portion.

Most kids who learn the Pledge do so by rote, without truly understanding the importance or significance of the words they are repeating. Sadly, many adults scarcely ponder the Pledge's meaning either, unless a case comes up under public scrutiny.

My suggestion would be to stop saying the pledge everyday. Instead have a few hours of civil lessons where kids are taught what democracy means; what kind of gov't the US has (and compare it to other countries, too - the US has neither the best nor the only democracy on Earth!!); what's important for a democracy to work (that includes the duties of responsible, educated citizens); what every citizen can do to improve his/her country (so you can be proud for a reason, not because "the US is the best country on earth because my parents came here" - but what have you done to make it a good country?), and that there are other things beside military to serve the country and further democracy.

All these issues and a few more would serve democracy much better than mumbling sth. learned by rote without understanding.

I think that's called "civics" class. The Pledge is meant not as the be-all for civic responsibility duties but as a quick reminder of our nation's values. It is much like the Lord's Prayer; for a long time, that was the only prayer I ever prayed. Obviously if that is your only knowledge of religion it's nothing more than a learned by rote series of words. But I still like it even today because it's a quick encapsulation of my faith.

---

Quote:

[A] quick reminder of our nation's values.

---

Now you're just getting silly. By saying "we value religion," does this mean that those that are not religious are not valued? When I say "we value those that are soldiers," does this leave out those that are not soldiers and implies that they are not a part of this country? What the Pledge is doing is respectfully acknowledging that religion is one (one) of the values that this nation has and has always had.

And Canada is even worse, just read their first line of the 1982 Constitution Act:

"Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God..."

In interest of completness:

The oath one takes to become a U.S. citizen includes the words "so help me God." I assume they will allow you to revise the words if you wish, however.

The British citizenship oath says "swear by almighty God," although you can instead "affirm" if you don't want to pledge.

---

Quote:

By saying "we value religion. . ."

---

---

Quote:

"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.

---

The British citizenship oath says "swear by almighty God," although you can instead "affirm" if you don't want to pledge.

However, Great Britain is a religious monarchy. I believe that one of the monarch's titles is "Defender of the Faith".

The US is specifically a secular country, regardless of however much certain people might wish it to be otherwise.

Recall that there is no comma between "one nation" and "under God", rendering the meaning entirely different.

Yeah there is no comma, but how does that change the meaning?

I only brought up the England thing to dissuage Mr. Morgan from moving there.

I don't think you have to believe in God to be an American. It's just something that we say to recognize the importance and respect that religion has in our society. When a soon to be citizen is told to repeat after the official and say "So help me God," are we forcing our new citizens to believe in God? (I think they can choose not to say this, but you can choose not to say "under God" in the Pledge too) The United States is specifically a secular country, I guess, but "secular" does not mean never mention God or religion.

Not really. Presented as a list:

"the republic for which it stands

* one nation under God
* indivisible
* with liberty
* and justice"

or

"the republic for which it stands
* one nation
* under God
* indivisible
* with liberty
* and justice"

My point with this exercise? In either case it is saying that the flag represents an America that places God on the same important level as liberty, justice, and unity.

(I'm getting repetitive now. My apologies.)

For an interesting if different alternate discussion on the Pledge check out the First Amendment discussion in the Constitution section of PM.

And Canada is even worse, just read their first line of the 1982 Constitution Act:

"Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God..."

The Constitution Act, 1867, also guarantees denominational schooling - Ontario and some other provinces publicly fund separate Catholic school boards.

However, religion tends to be less of a political issue here, notwithstanding controversy over same-sex marriage and abortion. O Canada also has plenty of references to God and the French version is explicitly Christian, but no one really seems to care.

So, rest assured, we are much more laid back about this.

Here's my problem with "onuG": The full clause, as we all know, is "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Three of these things have one thing in common. They are functions of our Government. Our Government helps keep us a United States. It help maintain our liberty. It helps provide justice for all. It does not provide God or put this nation under God. Being under God - whatever god it may be - does not fall under the nation's or the government's list of things to do for its people. The "onuG" is put on an equal footing with elements that distinguished us (and still do largely) as a nation. That our people would be united. That we would have liberty. That the laws would be just and written for each individual. Being "under God" has nothing to do with our government or what set us apart from other nations.

And now, I'll let this discussion go back to big boys: Luigi and Morgan debating MikeC and Vargo.

I wonder if, when "onuG" was added to the Pledge, some people took offense, but decided not to say anything because they figured it wasn't really that big of a deal and no one would ever really make a big issue out of it. (Of course, the threat of being branded a "Commie sympathizer" may have kept them silent, too.)

I guess my major issue with the Pledge is that you have every right to take umbrage with the Pledge and try to have it changed (and I have every right to disagree with you, wink wink), but you cannot make it seem like the Pledge is some bizarre aberration and that our government NEVER acknowledges religion anywhere else. That's incorrect and has always been incorrect. Now you may feel that it is wrong and has always been wrong, but that's different.

I AM THE GOD OF AMERICA! BOW DOWN AND WORSHIP ME!

MikeC: I think our biggest impasse point is regarding the "theistic Psyche." Let me examine what you called my circular reasoning:

a. We (the people) believe that religion is an important part of this nation; we shall recognize it through various things--coins, oaths, pledges, etc.

b. Because this has happened, I would argue that it was validated as important. The "circular reasoning" could apply to anything that was not in existence during the time of the Founding Fathers. Nobody cared a hill of beans about a graduated income tax in the Founding Fathers' day, and then it popped up years later!
Luigi Novi: Nobody wants to put references to graduated income tax in our currency, anthems and pledges. If they did, it wouldn’t be a SoCaS violation, but I’d think it was a dumb idea.

MikeC: Now, as I've said, you have every right to believe that the people that got the "In God We Trust" and "under God" things were dead wrong. But that does not invalidate the fact that the government at the time went through with them, which recognized that it was indeed important to them.
Luigi Novi: “Them” who? The Knights of Columbus? Theists? Whether it was “important to them” is irrelevant, when doing this gives a clear appearance of the country favoring them over those who don’t share their spiritual beliefs.

MikeC: I love this quote of yours--"You have not established that [religion] is [an integral part of this nation] except to simply point to the very things instated on the landscape that I think are wrong." I think this shows that we operate on totally different mindsets of thinking; I've shown you my evidence and you've responded with "But those are wrong and they're violations."
Luigi Novi: My “mindset” merely recognizes that the very things you point to as evidence are simply the exact things that I’ve been saying are violations of SoCaS, just as the current version of the Pledge. How is it evidence to say, “Oh, you think that line in the Pledge is a SoCaS violation? Well, here’s three more! So there!” These things don’t mitigate my position; they’re simply other examples of the same problem.

MikeC: And I know that the government can be wrong through long-standing precedents (Jim Crow laws, etc.), but for the various reasons expressed above, I think it's right in this case. At any way, there is a precedent.
Luigi Novi: Precedence, in and of itself, does not mean that these things are not SoCaS violations. It simply means that the “under God” line in the Pledge wasn’t the first.

MikeC: Would you care to elaborate on your last point about religion not deserving any special treatment? This isn't what I said! I asked if it was wrong to be respectful and recognize religion's importance in our nation's history if you don't happen to believe in it, especially since there happens to be a series of precedents regarding the respect paid towards religion by government (which other aspects of our culture do not have).
Luigi Novi: No, you opined that one should be respectful of Ronald Reagan’s importance to our history as an example of how we should treat religion. I responded that I agree with your reasoning about Reagan, but don’t feel the same way about religion. Reagan was the President of the country, not merely the President of religion, or President of one group sharing a particular spiritual belief. Therefore, there would be nothing about putting Reagan on a coin or bill (whether he deserves to be is another argument) that would show favoritism to one group over another.

MikeC: How is the forced "moment of silence" any different than saying "under God" (which is not required)?
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall mentioning anything about a moment of silence. I recall mentioning—at least twice before—that I favored a return to the pre-1954 Pledge. Not a moment of silence. But to answer your question anyway, I’d point out that silence does not make any explicit mention of spirituality at all. “Under God” does.

Mark Morgan: I still say that's much, much more than just "respecting religion"--it is a statement that God is a fundamental part of being an American. God is as important as liberty. God is as important as justice. God is as important as unity. Not just a measure of respect, but placed exactly next to the highest and most noble concepts we have as a country.
Luigi Novi: Thank you, Mark. This is the precise point I’ve been trying to convey, and you hit upon the exact wording that evaded me.

Duke of Earl Grey: So why do I not care one way or the other on this issue? The Pledge can stay the same, and I won't mind, because I can't really see how it is infringing upon anybody's liberty. As someone pointed out in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, no one is actually being forced to repeat the pledge if they don't want to for whatever reason.
Luigi Novi: In the first place, in some areas (who knows, perhaps most), teachers might require the kids to say it.

In the second place, a child in a group of children feels enormous pressure to conform, especially when the teacher, the principal over the P.A. system, and the entire school is doing this. Standing out is not easy, especially if the child fears repercussions in the form of taunts from their classmates.

Lastly, the very nature of a Pledge that includes that line—and the suggestion that non-theists don’t have to mention it, makes the Pledge into a divisive and exclusive activity, which defeats the entire purpose of it. The Pledge is supposed to be a unifying activity, in that its words hold true for all Americans, precisely because it’s about being American. When you start including lines connecting Americanism with a belief in spirits, it ceases to have that quality, because not everyone believes in spirits, nor wants a belief in spirits elevated to the level of the most American and patriotic ideals mentioned in the Pledge.

You yourself touched upon both of these last two points in your post.

Duke of Earl Grey: So are people trying to change the Pledge to better protect their rights, or just because they find it offensive? Do we as a people have the right to never have to be offended by the government? This isn't rhetoric, I'm just wondering is all.
Luigi Novi: No. But I do think that the government should be neutral with respect to religion.

constanze: My suggestion would be to stop saying the pledge everyday. Instead have a few hours of civil lessons where kids are taught what democracy means; what kind of gov't the US has (and compare it to other countries, too - the US has neither the best nor the only democracy on Earth!!); what's important for a democracy to work (that includes the duties of responsible, educated citizens); what every citizen can do to improve his/her country (so you can be proud for a reason, not because "the US is the best country on earth because my parents came here" - but what have you done to make it a good country?), and that there are other things beside military to serve the country and further democracy.
Luigi Novi: Yes, exactly. This touches upon what Vargo was saying about the schools need to get the kids to ask questions about the world they live in and to answer them. The only difference is that Vargo was implying that the Pledge, in and of itself, served this function, which is absurd. Your suggestion makes a lot more sense, constanze.

MikeC: The Pledge is meant not as the be-all for civic responsibility duties but as a quick reminder of our nation's values.

Mark Morgan: A reminder which, helpfully, leaves out myself, my wife, and my friend ScottN.

By MikeC: Now you're just getting silly. By saying "we value religion," does this mean that those that are not religious are not valued?
Luigi Novi: Depends on who you mean by “we.” We, theists? Or we, the nation? If it’s the nation, which is what your statement quoted here seems to mean, then yes, that is certainly the message it appears to convey, and I don’t think it’s “silly” for Mark to conclude this. Dismissing this as silly just shows how you are biased on this issue because the Pledge favors your group. Believing in God means that every time the government inserts some reference to God in things like the Pledge means that you get to feel that your views are being ratified and supported by those in power, with an almost “official” seal of approval. If you didn’t believe in God, it’s possible you might think otherwise.

MikeC: When I say "we value those that are soldiers," does this leave out those that are not soldiers and implies that they are not a part of this country?
Luigi Novi: The soldiers are Americans, are the fellow countrymen of all Americans, and represent all Americans. Statements about God do not.

MikeC: What the Pledge is doing is respectfully acknowledging that religion is one (one) of the values that this nation has and has always had.
Luigi Novi: The nation has no such value. It is some of its citizens who do. The nation’s unique values are freedom and equality primarily, and among others, the secular separation of church and state. Saying that the “nation” values religion, a statement that somehow implies an official position, contradicts that.

MikeC: The United States is specifically a secular country, I guess, but "secular" does not mean never mention God or religion.
Luigi Novi: No, it doesn’t. It means that the government should be entirely neutral on the subject.

Benn: The full clause, as we all know, is "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Three of these things have one thing in common. They are functions of our Government. Our Government helps keep us a United States. It help maintain our liberty. It helps provide justice for all. It does not provide God or put this nation under God. Being under God - whatever god it may be - does not fall under the nation's or the government's list of things to do for its people. The "onuG" is put on an equal footing with elements that distinguished us (and still do largely) as a nation. That our people would be united. That we would have liberty. That the laws would be just and written for each individual. Being "under God" has nothing to do with our government or what set us apart from other nations. And now, I'll let this discussion go back to big boys: Luigi and Morgan debating MikeC and Vargo.
Luigi Novi: Actually, I think that was a well-put comment, similar to the point Morgan made. The way you worded it made it sound to me like one of those “Which one of these items doesn’t fit?” multiple choice questions on aptitude tests:

Which one of these things is not a quintessentially American ideal, that pertaining to its founding and continued status in the global socio-political arena, makes it unique?
A. One nation
B. under God
C. Indivisible
D. Liberty and Justice

Student: “Ooh, I know! It’s B! Definitely B!”

MikeC: but you cannot make it seem like the Pledge is some bizarre aberration and that our government NEVER acknowledges religion anywhere else. That's incorrect and has always been incorrect. Now you may feel that it is wrong and has always been wrong, but that's different.
Luigi Novi: Of course it’s different. The government does acknowledge religion. The government is wrong to do so. These are two separate statements, and are consistent with one another. Who has been saying that the government doesn’t acknowledge religion? Isn’t this thread precisely about certain acknowledgements about religion that some of us here think are wrong?

The way you worded it made it sound to me like one of those “Which one of these items doesn’t fit?” multiple choice questions on aptitude tests: - Luigi

Actually, after I wrote the post, that Sesame Street song popped into my mind: "One of these things doesn't belong here/One of these things is not like the others."

"As for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Perhaps this will clarify some things. Suppose the pledge read:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under no God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And my argument is that the phrase "one nation under no God" is representing the secular heritage of this nation -- it's something we say to recognize the importance and respect that the secular ideal has in our society. And really, if you don't agree with it, you don't have to say it; so what's the problem?

I have a feeling that those arguing that "onuG" should stay would be arguing that "onunG" should go. Meanwhile, I suspect that Luigi, ScottN, and Morgan would still maintain that the extraneous phrase should go (I don't mean to put words in their mouths, however) since it violates the First Amendment

Well, "under no God" doesn't violate the First Amendment as far as I can tell. But anyway--

"Under No God" would be fine on a theoretically legal basis, but it just seems silly to me, not because of the atheistic/secular principles expressed, but because of the examples in our society that I've pointed out. If we are under no God, then why do we trust God on our all our currency? If we are "under no God," then why do we swear to God in most legal ceremonies? As our country stands NOW (which Luigi and probably a lot of people here don't like), "under No God" in the Pledge doesn't make sense.

Now to Luigi's points:

1. Ah, so it doesn't matter that it's important to others? I see. Should we force the schools to remain open on Christmas because my tax dollars go to fund it and by having it closed we're recognizing a religious holiday over other things (actually, I don't think any public school does officially close for Christmas--or am I wrong?) I'd like to really get the country to withdraw Columbus Day as an official holiday because I don't like having to find Columbus important. This moment of silence for President Reagan--I think he was an evil guy who doesn't deserve even a peep of silence, why am I being forced to be quiet and respectful?

The answer to all of these questions--Because it is important to a large amount of people in our nation.

2. Basically what I'm saying is that if all those things I cited are separation of church and state violations (which I don't think so), then our country has been violating them since basically day one (George Washington said "so help me God!" when he was sworn in; Jefferson wrote "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution closes with "in the year of Our Lord") with no one batting an eye. I find it hard to believe that they are separation of church and state violations.

3. All right, so let me replace Reagan with Martin Luther King Jr. who has his own national holiday. King was not the President of the United States; he was instead (gasp!) the leader of a group sharing a particular spiritual belief! Isn't giving him a national holiday and asking people for a moment of silence being discriminatory towards those that supported him (and King had a LOT of enemies)? Note: I don't think so, I'm just making a hypothetical statement.

(My point about the "moment of silence" that you referred to was actually referencing back to the Reagan example; I wasn't suggesting we should start each day with a moment of silence which I believe has been found unconstitutional)

4. You think that government should be neutral with respect to religion? What exactly does this mean? What constitutional bearing do you have to support this--the First Amendment--Congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion? What does this mean? Does this really mean what you're suggesting--that the country should be 100% neutral via never mentioning religion in any official government business? I don't know; I guess it could. It's pretty vague after all.

5. Might I suggest that you're being biased to feel offended every time God is mentioned? I said Mark was being silly because he was being silly and he himself has admitted to being silly; I didn't say his reasoning was silly, I said he was starting to get silly.

I completely disagree with you regarding religion, which I believe to be one of the values of the nation. Now you can be an American without having all of its values. I believe America values military service. Now I can be a pacifist and not want to serve in the military and basically think that's a crummy thing to value. Does that make me any less of an American? No! I believe America values religion. Now I can be an atheist and think that's a crummy thing to value. Does that make me any less of an American? No!

Let me go back to NSetzer's counter-example of saying a "nation under no God":

I don't agree with this statement and it offends my values. If I was a kid, I may choose not to say this particular aspect of the Pledge as it is my constitutional right to do so. But if this was voted on through the political process, I would be forced to tip my cap and recognize that, yup, I guess this is a value of the country that I live in.

That does lead me to the question that you all have been asking--"Does that mean that this country favors atheists over me, that having to be an atheist is a key component of being an American?" Which is a difficult question, which not actually living in this hypothetical country is difficult to answer, because it's hard to judge anything out of a few words.

6. So you admit that the government does acknowledge religion and is wrong to do so? There you go; that's the crux of my argument.

I say that the government is NOT wrong to acknowledge religion through these actions.

You say that it IS wrong to do so.

We have different conceptions over what our country should be. Which probably will never change.

This is a really good discussion though; I think any good discussion causes a re-evaluation of one's beliefs--not necessarily a change but a "Okay, WHY do I believe this again? What's supporting me?" You've done it for me, and I hope I've done it for you.

And please sir, I want a new thread.

"A peep of silence"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

3. All right, so let me replace Reagan with Martin Luther King Jr. who has his own national holiday. King was not the President of the United States; he was instead (gasp!) the leader of a group sharing a particular spiritual belief! Isn't giving him a national holiday and asking people for a moment of silence being discriminatory towards those that supported him (and King had a LOT of enemies)? Note: I don't think so, I'm just making a hypothetical statement. - MikeC

That is a bogus argument, sir. It is not - and you should very well know this Mike - for his religious beliefs that a holiday was made in honor of Dr. Martin Luthor King. It was, to state the obvious, his civil rights activism that a holiday was declared in his honor.

While I agree that religion is a value of this nation, it is not a facet of this country I pledge my allegience to. I pledge allegience to the fact that my country provides a unity of its people. I pledge allegience to the liberty my country provides me. I pledge allegience to the legal ideals of this nation. I do not pledge allegience to your God. I want to do that, I'll go to church. God may be a value of many of the people of this nation, but he is not necessarily a political principal that has made this country unique, upon which it was founded.

Instead of having people who do not like the "onuG" phrase stand silently doing its recital, how about if you Christians throw it in when reciting the Pledge? Or would that be too discriminatory?

"As for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Yes, of course, it was Dr. King's civil rights activism that earns him his recognition. I just found the description that Luigi wrote so matched it perfectly that I used it again. However, my argument isn't quite bogus. King's civil rights activism earns him national recognition. Is that discriminatory against those that didn't like King, those that he never represented and didn't believe in what he stood for at all. My point in bringing up King was to bring up a figure that didn't represent all of America but is still nationally recognized (as Luigi rejected my Reagan argument)--"Ah, but he was very important to America"--yes, so is religion--"Ah, but we don't pledge allegiance to Dr. King"--no we have a national holiday for him. That's why I brought it up.

Did I ever say God was a political principle? I said it was an important principles, a value, and a facet.

Yeah, I'm all for an optional "under God"; I mentioned it several posts ago. But that would be too discriminatory I suppose.

---

Quote:

I'm all for an optional "under God". . . .

---

I'm a personal sort of guy, Mark; I thought you would have realized that back when we had that really long debate on Creationism. You are arguing in personal terms all throughout this thread, just as I am, by the way.

I don't view the Pledge as a loyalty oath because that implies a strict contract--pretty big for a 5-year old as you said. I view the Pledge more of as a reminder, and I don't see it teaching schoolchildren that to be an American is to believe in God.

I think a lot of it goes back to what Duke of Earl Grey is saying; what EXACTLY does the First Amendment mean when it says don't make a law respecting the establishment of religion? Does the Pledge violate this?

And while I am arguing strongly here, in my heart, I feel roughly the same as I did regarding the Ten Commandments in schools (and I disagreed with that too, but that's a different argument). Taking the words "under God" out of the Pledge does not affect my personal faith one iota, so if that's what the Court wants and that's what the American people want, so be it. I'll continue to silently say it every time I say the Pledge anyway.

I believe America values religion. Now I can be an atheist and think that's a crummy thing to value. Does that make me any less of an American? No!

No, it doesn't, Mike. But the Pledge implies otherwise. The Pledge isn't saying, "one nation under God, but it's okay if you don't believe in God" - it's saying, "one nation under God" period. Thus, the implication remains that every single person in the US believes in God.

Which is quite untrue. The Pledge is discriminatory. "OnuG" sends the message that the US values its Christians above all other religions. It is sending the message that compared to you, Mike, I'm not as valued by the US. That Morgan isn't as valued, that Scott and Luigi and my mother aren't nearly as important to the US as you are. Because you're Christian and the rest of us aren't.

I still don't see how you can make these implications based on two words, but as everyone has pointed out to me, I seem to be biased in the matter.

To me, an implication has to be backed up by something other than the implication. Is there anything else to indicate that non-theists (I don't see the Pledge as a Christian Pledge as I've explained) are not as valued to the United States other than an implication based on two words in a non-legally binding statement of values? The Pledge DOES indicate that religion is a value of this nation; it DOES NOT (at least to me) indicate that those that do not share this value are not Americans.

Back to my original point--as I've said, you can be opposed to the Pledge as much as you like and have every right to have it changed via a democratic process, but the real question here (and with due to respect to talk of values and fairness that we have been discussing, the only question that the Court will care about) is does the Pledge constitute a church and state violation as expressed in the First Amendment? I myself would say no, but I recognize that the First Amendment is incredibly vague in discussing what is a church/state violation.

What defines a church/state violation? Perhaps we should ask the Court, although the Supreme Court itself has flip-flopped on this several times, so I'm not sure if its ruling would make anything definite.

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

That's basically all it says. The Court, many years after the First Amendment, finally decided that "Congress" meant not only the national government but state governments as well. The Court has never taken up, as far as I know, the issue of "In God We Trust" on money or prayers to open Congressional sessions or National Days of Thanksgiving or anything of that nature.

New board, master.

Dang, i go away for 2 days and everything piles up on me, no way to respond to all of this now, although i did like the meantioning of me as a Big Dog, i havent even been here a week =)

And as so often happens with theses boards, nothing has gotten solved, oh the life of posting on message boards.

However, to clarify an earlier point of mine, I did not intend to suggest that the pledge would serve the purpose in educating students about a civic responsibility, just that it could be an aid into the overall form and function that the schools use.

What about non school settings, what about the pledge in the "real world"? Do we have any thoughts about that, or are we just complaining because all our children are mindlessly "being duped" into saying that there is a God?

Many people feel deeply about this issue, possibly the majority of americans do. America IS indeed a very religious country, with a vast majority of americans ascribing to "A" god, belief in the supernatural is abundant. A minority of "scientific thinkers" still cling to the fragile believe that this universe was created out of nothing. To say that religion does not matter in this country is a complete fallacy. This being said, MikeC has a good point religion has played an important part to this society. Regardless of when "onuG" was put in, people today still respect it, and view it as important.

Since we have yet to even reach an agreement on the "specific god" argument, what would happen if we just subtly switched the "G" to a "g" would that make you any happier??

---

Quote:

[W]hat would happen if we just subtly switched the "G" to a "g" would that make you any happier??

---

---

Quote:

What about non school settings, what about the pledge in the "real world"?

---

---

Quote:

are we just complaining because all our children are mindlessly "being duped" into saying that there is a God?

---

Welcome back my friends to the board that never ends! (Where's the flamin' moderator? We need a new board.)

Since we have yet to even reach an agreement on the "specific god" argument, what would happen if we just subtly switched the "G" to a "g" would that make you any happier?? - Vargo

I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I can't hear the difference between a capital "Gee" and a little "gee". They sound the same to me. Thus, "God" and "god" would sound the same to me.

"As for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"