Judge: School Pledge Is Unconstitutional

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Easy enough problem to take care. Remove two words and carry on.

------------------------------------------------------
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer 13 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday, a decision that could put the divisive issue on track for another round of Supreme Court arguments.

The case was brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected last year by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.

"Imagine every morning if the teachers had the children stand up, place their hands over their hearts, and say, 'We are one nation that denies God exists,'" Newdow said in an interview with AP Radio after the ruling.

"I think that everybody would not be sitting here saying, 'Oh, what harm is that.' They'd be furious. And that's exactly what goes on against atheists. And it shouldn't."

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

The order would not extend beyond those districts unless it is affirmed by the 9th Circuit, in which case it could apply to nine western states, or the Supreme Court, which would apply to all states.

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.
(CONTINUED)
http://tinyurl.com/dr94h

[TheDave]

See this is something i just don't understand... who cares if we say "One nation under God". Why is this such a big freaking deal? I suppose if this gains momentum the next target will be the "In God we Trust" on currency. Dems better be real careful getting behind this...

[W*GS]

See this is something i just don't understand... who cares if we say "One nation under God". Why is this such a big freaking deal? I suppose if this gains momentum the next target will be the "In God we Trust" on currency. Dems better be real careful getting behind this...

I'm an atheist and honestly I don't give a rip.

[TheDave]

I'm an atheist and honestly I don't give a rip.

Yeah, I'm agnostic and i don't care...

[elsid13]

As a side note the phrase was not added to pledge until the 1950s, because of those godless commies. Any smart individual running from office will stay so far away for that its a non issue.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

See this is something i just don't understand... who cares if we say "One nation under God". Why is this such a big freaking deal? I suppose if this gains momentum the next target will be the "In God we Trust" on currency. Dems better be real careful getting behind this...
But we are a country of many religions, so if you allow one to impart their religion in the classroom you have to allow all to.

[TheDave]

But we are a country of many religions, so if you allow one to impart their religion in the classroom you have to allow all to.

I don't understand how using a generic word "God" promotes one relegion over another?

[epicSocialism4tw]

See this is something i just don't understand... who cares if we say "One nation under God". Why is this such a big freaking deal? I suppose if this gains momentum the next target will be the "In God we Trust" on currency. Dems better be real careful getting behind this...

Thank you for giving me some hope, Dave, that there are people out there who are reasonable.

The issue is over what philosophy a given local community can use to develop their children. Christianity and Judaism have been important in some communities in the country. Many communities in American history have used bible-based morals to provide a sense of right and wrong for the development of children.

The "under God" statement means to those who subscribe to that philosophy that they are subject to a law higher than themselves that binds the community. Even an atheist who does not subscribe to this philosophy can appreciate the value of a consistent system of morals, whether they agree with them or not is a different issue, but there is value in a morally driven commitment and Deistic foundation to local communities. All an atheist has to do is to wonder about the existence of God and not participate in that part of the oath.

What we have is the movement of individuals to legally change the existant laws that support a local community. I guarantee you that a community of a sizeable majority of atheists wont say oaths to God. There is no importance. There are issues deeper here than what is being said in the public on the surface. If you could care less about it, its a good indicator that it is an issue that two groups of people care about. The small groups of activist atheists and the overwhelming majority of deist citizens who want the influence of their own community philosophy in their kids' life. They want the village to help to raise the child, which is natural.

What you are talking about here is a small group of activist citizens attempting to legally dictate popular philosophy for the entire country, which is built of a majority of citizens who take severe offense at being forced to remove the moral influence of their community from the place where children are taught about the world. In its place, an "everything is cool as long as it makes you feel good" philosophy is being advocated, which makes the situation worse.

Let people have their communities. Attempting to remove religion from religious societies is an irresponsible venture and one that will only result in even more division in the country.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I don't understand how using a generic word "God" impart one relegion over another?
Is it a worldwide generic word?

[TheDave]

Is it a worldwide generic word?

to the best of my knowledge it is in the U.S.? If it's not, someone educate me...

[Rohirrim]

Yawn.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

to the best of my knowledge it is in the U.S.? If it's not, someone educate me...
I don't know that's why I asked. Would other nationalties and races would demand that if you can say God we must also say Allah, Budda, etc...?

From the Qur'an... "Allah, there is no god save Him, The Living, The Eternal.

[epicSocialism4tw]

But we are a country of many religions, so if you allow one to impart their religion in the classroom you have to allow all to.

That's a very simplistic view of a complicated problem.

Are you going to go into Godsvillage, Alabama and force an overwhelming majority of Christian citizens to add Allah to their moral teaching?

The US is made up of local communities. Applying federal pressure to those communities to adopt a drastically different philosophy is not practical and smacks of religious intolerance. Saying in essence that no matter what your community wants to teach its children, you cant teach them anything outside of secular humanism in the public forum. That is dangerous. You are then pushing the millions of Christians in the country to the fringe of society. If you are a liberal, that should be scary to you because the next step is even more political involvement from the churches as they try to win their rights back. That means a severe shift in political platforms to appeal to that huge and powerful block that comprises a majority of citizens in this country, and thus, less and less attention to things like environmental issues and such and more attention to religious freedom issues. If too many things like this stick in the legal system, the silent majority will become quite a bit more politically involved.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's a very simplistic view of a complicated problem.

Are you going to go into Godsvillage, Alabama and force an overwhelming majority of Christian citizens to add Allah to their moral teaching?

The US is made up of local communities. Applying federal pressure to those communities to adopt a drastically different philosophy is not practical and smacks of religious intolerance. Saying in essence that no matter what your community wants to teach its children, you cant teach them anything outside of secular humanism in the public forum. That is dangerous. You are then pushing the millions of Christians in the country to the fringe of society. If you are a liberal, that should be scary to you because the next step is even more political involvement from the churches as they try to win their rights back. That means a severe shift in political platforms to appeal to that huge and powerful block that comprises a majority of citizens in this country, and thus, less and less attention to things like environmental issues and such and more attention to religious freedom issues. If too many things like this stick in the legal system, the silent majority will become quite a bit more politically involved.

Exactly! So just drop it altogether so we won't exclude and discriminate against any religion. Religion is fine in the churches where belongs. Demanding that children in public schools say "in God we trust" is not fine.

[epicSocialism4tw]

I don't know that's why I asked. Would other nationalties and races would demand that if you can say God we must also say Allah, Budda, etc...?

From the Qur'an... "Allah, there is no god save Him, The Living, The Eternal.


Muslims believe that their god is the same one that spoke with Abraham, who is YHWH God of the Jews and the Christians.

All three religions are more or less subject to the same God-YHWH.

I went to elementary school in Oklahoma, where we were taught the religious beliefs of Native Americans and said the pledge with "under God" in it. We were never taught the Bible though. I think that this is what you see in many communities where there are many people of more than one tradition. There are avenues that these other minority religions can have influence in their schools and communities.

It would be irresponsible to change the laws so that those influences cannot enter where kids spend a majority of their time and develop a sense of self and community.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Exactly! So just drop it altogether so we won't exclude and discriminate against any religion. Religion is fine in the churches where belongs. Demanding that children in public schools say "in God we trust" is not fine.

Well, you are talking about a minority of people in a community. They should not be able to dictate popular philosophy.

[TheDave]

I don't know that's why I asked. Would other nationalties and races would demand that if you can say God we must also say Allah, Budda, etc...?

From the Qur'an... "Allah, there is no god save Him, The Living, The Eternal.

BB, i don't know either... Along the lines that you bring up, what would be the problem for the kid in the front row to say "one nation under Budda" or the athiest to remain silent for a moment after uttering "One nation..."? To me it just seems like a very generic term. I hope this one goes away quickly before the "Libs are trying to kill the Pledge" remarks start.

[TheDave]

Exactly! So just drop it altogether so we won't exclude and discriminate against any religion. Religion is fine in the churches where belongs. Demanding that children in public schools say "in God we trust" is not fine.

Did anyone ever see the south park where they were trying to create a christmas celebration that didn't offend anyone? I think they ended up with an aluminum pole...

[epicSocialism4tw]

BB, i don't know either... Along the lines that you bring up, what would be the problem for the kid in the front row to say "one nation under Budda" or the athiest to remain silent for a moment after uttering "One nation..."? To me it just seems like a very generic term. I hope this one goes away quickly before the "Libs are trying to kill the Pledge" remarks start.

That's what is already happening, Dave. It's nothing but a firestarter devisive issue that will further push Americans to the poles. Not cool.

Q

[epicSocialism4tw]

Did anyone ever see the south park where they were trying to create a christmas celebration that didn't offend anyone? I think they ended up with an aluminum pole...

Thats funny Hilarious!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

BB, i don't know either... Along the lines that you bring up, what would be the problem for the kid in the front row to say "one nation under Budda" or the athiest to remain silent for a moment after uttering "One nation..."? To me it just seems like a very generic term. I hope this one goes away quickly before the "Libs are trying to kill the Pledge" remarks start.

Wouldn't work in TX or the other southern states. This, I can guarantee you!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Wouldn't work in TX or the other southern states. This, I can guarantee you!

That's not true.

That kid would probably be the only one in his grade class that would abstain, and that would make it an issue with the other kids.

Do you want to make an issue for every other kid in that class except for the one abstainer? It doesnt make any sense to do that in a democracy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

That's not true.

That kid would probably be the only one in his grade class that would abstain, and that would make it an issue with the other kids.

Do you want to make an issue for every other kid in that class except for the one abstainer? It doesnt make any sense to do that in a democracy.

Sure is, I got it straight from Billy Bob! He said any kid starts spouting "in allah we trust" and we have a BIG problem!!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Sure is, I got it straight from Billy Bob! He said any kid starts spouting "in allah we trust" and we have a BIG problem!!


Who are you talking about? A generic stereotyped country fellow?

Anyway, you are making the point that I stated in another post that local communities determine local philosophy. We are not talking about racism or another terrible social issue, but about whether or not we are allowed to teach morals to our children in the public forum.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Who are you talking about? A generic stereotyped country fellow?

Anyway, you are making the point that I stated in another post that local communities determine local philosophy. We are not talking about racism or another terrible social issue, but about whether or not we are allowed to teach morals to our children in the public forum.
We are talking about EVERYONE'S right, that's the problem. Nothing wrong with teaching morals. Religion is not required to do that.

mor·al
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.

[epicSocialism4tw]

We are talking about EVERYONE'S right, that's the problem. Nothing wrong with teaching morals. Religion is not required to do that.

mor·al
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4. Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
5. Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
6. Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty.


What are your ten commandments? Are they more effective than the real ones? What makes your morals important? Why should anyone adhere to your morals? What gives your morals authority? Why should people listen to them?

Contrary to eutopist beliefs, doing "whatever feels right to you" is a terrible moral standard.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

What are your ten commandments? Are they more effective than the real ones? What makes your morals important? Why should anyone adhere to your morals? What gives your morals authority? Why should people listen to them?

Contrary to eutopist beliefs, doing "whatever feels right to you" is a terrible moral standard.

I have no commandments! I don't ask anyone to "adhere" to my morals.

Now, why should anyone have to listen to your "morals" or "commandments"?

Because you think they should?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I have no commandments! I don't ask anyone to "adhere" to my morals.

Now, why should anyone have to listen to your "morals" or "commandments"?

Because you think they should?

If you dont adhere to the ten commandments, then what are your ten commandments? Do you have ten morals that you can point to specifically that would help to teach a child how to act the right way?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If you dont adhere to the ten commandments, then what are your ten commandments? Do you have ten morals that you can point to specifically that would help to teach a child how to act the right way?
Why do you need 10? Is it possible that 7 or 5 or even 2 might work?


------------------------------------------------
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this **** up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bull**** list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bull****. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital fidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and fidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:







Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
http://tinyurl.com/4dpvv

[epicSocialism4tw]

Why do you need 10? Is it possible that 7 or 5 or even 2 might work?


------------------------------------------------
Here is my problem with the ten commandments- why exactly are there 10?

You simply do not need ten. The list of ten commandments was artificially and deliberately inflated to get it up to ten. Here's what happened:

About 5,000 years ago a bunch of religious and political hustlers got together to try to figure out how to control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so they announced that God had given them some commandments, up on a mountain, when no one was around.

Well let me ask you this- when they were making this **** up, why did they pick 10? Why not 9 or 11? I'll tell you why- because 10 sound official. Ten sounds important! Ten is the basis for the decimal system, it's a decade, it's a psychologically satisfying number (the top ten, the ten most wanted, the ten best dressed). So having ten commandments was really a marketing decision! It is clearly a bull**** list. It's a political document artificially inflated to sell better. I will now show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a little more workable and logical. I am going to use the Roman Catholic version because those were the ones I was taught as a little boy.

Let's start with the first three:

I AM THE LORD THY GOD
THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE GODS BEFORE ME

THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN

THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH

Right off the bat the first three are pure bull****. Sabbath day? Lord's name? strange gods? Spooky language! Designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious nonsense like this apply to the lives of intelligent civilized humans in the 21st century. So now we're down to 7. Next:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience, respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. You're down to six.

Now in the interest of logic, something religion is very uncomfortable with, we're going to jump around the list a little bit.

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

Stealing and lying. Well actually, these two both prohibit the same kind of behavior- dishonesty. So you don't really need two you combine them and call the commandment "thou shalt not be dishonest". And suddenly you're down to 5.

And as long as we're combining I have two others that belong together:

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTRY

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

Once again, these two prohibit the same type of behavior. In this case it is marital infidelity. The difference is- coveting takes place in the mind. But I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife because what is a guy gonna think about when he's waxing his carrot? But, marital fidelity is a good idea so we're gonna keep this one and call it "thou shalt not be unfaithful". And suddenly we're down to four.

But when you think about it, honesty and fidelity are really part of the same overall value so, in truth, you could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments and give them simpler language, positive language instead of negative language and call the whole thing "thou shalt always be honest and faithful" and we're down to 3.

THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR"S GOODS

This one is just plain ****in' stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going! Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "o come o ye faithful", and you want one too! Coveting creates jobs, so leave it alone. You throw out coveting and you're down to 2 now- the big honesty and fidelity commandment and the one we haven't talked about yet:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Murder. But when you think about it, religion has never really had a big problem with murder. More people have been killed in the name of god than for any other reason. All you have to do is look at Northern Ireland, Kashmir, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the World Trade Center to see how seriously the religious folks take thou shalt not kill. The more devout they are, the more they see murder as being negotiable. It depends on who's doin the killin' and who's gettin' killed. So, with all of this in mind, I give you my revised list of the two commandments:

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his ****in' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:







Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.
http://tinyurl.com/4dpvv

You are going to have some serious problems getting real parents to buy into any of that hogwash.

I asked you to come up with 10 commandments. Or even 5. That you could use to emphasize points with in Literature and philosophy classes in school. You also have to be able to create a mode of discipline and behavior that works to grow good kids out of the public school system.

I hear a bunch of whining about the Judeo-Christian morals in schools, but there are really no other legit options being presented. All that these people want is to remove christian philosophy from schools.

Social Darwinism sure isnt a philosophy that develops a functioning good community unless you are a proponent of the human cannibalistic feeding frenzy.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You are going to have some serious problems getting real parents to buy into any of that hogwash.

I asked you to come up with 10 commandments. Or even 5. That you could use to emphasize points with in Literature and philosophy classes in school. You also have to be able to create a mode of discipline and behavior that works to grow good kids out of the public school system.

I hear a bunch of whining about the Judeo-Christian morals in schools, but there are really no other legit options being presented. All that these people want is to remove christian philosophy from schools.

Social Darwinism sure isnt a philosophy that develops a functioning good community unless you are a proponent of the human cannibalistic feeding frenzy.
Bunch of crock but believe what you want to. No amount of commandments guarantees a person grows up to be a law abiding, responsible adult.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and away from my children and we won't have any problems at all. It's very simple!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Bunch of crock but believe what you want to. No amount of commandments guarantees a person grows up to be a law abiding, responsible adult.
Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and away from my children and we won't have any problems at all. It's very simple!

All I am asking is for you to come up with a legit alternative. Something that can give people hope and legitimate guidance into becoming a responsible adult who can contribute to society and recognize law regardless of tax bracket and social standing.

All you have to do is ignore that part of the pledge in your school and we wont have any problems at all. Its very simple!

[epicSocialism4tw]

Do you know about Social Darwinism?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

All I am asking is for you to come up with a legit alternative. Something that can give people hope and legitimate guidance into becoming a responsible adult who can contribute to society and recognize law regardless of tax bracket and social standing.

All you have to do is ignore that part of the pledge in your school and we wont have any problems at all. Its very simple!
Again, you say I have repeat I believe in god in public school and I say I don't.
Again, you also believe the only way to "proper and moral adulthood" is through religion and I say it isn't.

One more time, this is America. You're free to practice your religion on your time and in your own place but I don't want to hear about it.

Do you understand? Can you respect MY rights?

[TheDave]

Do you know about Social Darwinism?

Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinisim was popular in the late nineteenth century to then end of World War II, although some have claimed that contemporary sociobiology could be classed as a form of social Darwinism. Proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others used it to justify racism and imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

[orangenblue2]

As a side note the phrase was not added to pledge until the 1950s, because of those godless commies. Any smart individual running from office will stay so far away for that its a non issue.

Another interesting tidbit...

"In God We Trust" was added to all coins and currency in 1955. Pretty interesting for a country founded on a secular Constitution and a belief in the separation of church and state...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinisim was popular in the late nineteenth century to then end of World War II, although some have claimed that contemporary sociobiology could be classed as a form of social Darwinism. Proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others used it to justify racism and imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

That is the philosophy that some people want to teach your children. I call it "human cannibal feeding frenzy."

[TheDave]

That is the philosophy that some people want to teach your children. I call it "human cannibal feeding frenzy."

Trust me, Social Dawinism is not going on in any school that i know of...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Again, you say I have repeat I believe in god in public school and I say I don't.
Again, you also believe the only way to "proper and moral adulthood" is through religion and I say it isn't.

One more time, this is America. You're free to practice your religion on your time and in your own place but I don't want to hear about it.

Do you understand? Can you respect MY rights?


I dont know if you are understanding my direction here. No one is impeding on your rights. It is the opposite, you intend to impede on the rights of the majority.

I asked you to come up with a better system to instill moral compasses into children in primary and secondary schools. You need a prevailing philosophy to do that. You have not shown me in any way that you know of another complete philosophy that can teach children morality. You would probably have to purposely choose a new religion as science does not have a functional moral philosophy. The philosophy of evolution is tenatively Social Darwinism, which is not really considered a community building philosophy. It's one that should be severely limited so that we do not walk over one another more than we already do.

So, we know that you despise religious philisophy (or should I say religion itself [maybe just Christianity] because the idea of religious philosophy is foreign to you)...so what is your answer?

Is it just "Dont impede on my rights!" ?? Do you know what that means? You have the right not to participate. You dont legislate to amend the constitution and remove rights from the majority because a few people feel funny when they abstain from acknowledging God in the pledge. Did you know that in Athens, they would kill you for not acknowledging their Gods? Feel lucky that our government is benevolent and does not force anything on you. You have the right to abstain.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Trust me, Social Dawinism is not going on in any school that i know of...


Its Secular Humanism which has some of the same concepts as Social Darwinism.

[TheDave]

Its Secular Humanism which has some of the same concepts as Social Darwinism.


Secular humanism is that branch of philosophy that advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality in addressing issues of a worldview centred upon human beings. The term was originally coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "Christian humanism".

Secular humanism is distinguished from the broader category of humanism in that the secular humanist prefers free inquiry over dogmatic wisdom—upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting revealed knowledge and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith. Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists and Confucians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism


Vs....


Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinisim was popular in the late nineteenth century to then end of World War II, although some have claimed that contemporary sociobiology could be classed as a form of social Darwinism. Proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others used it to justify racism and imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism


Sorry boss, but i don't see any similiarities between the two.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So, we know that you despise religious philisophy (or should I say religion itself [maybe just Christianity] because the idea of religious philosophy is foreign to you)...so what is your answer?

.
You keep missing one point. It was the final commandment I posted it earlier. I'm not the least bit interested about your explanations or ideas of religious philosophy. Which means any other ideas you have on the merits of religious teachings or practice go in the same trash bin as far as I'm concerned so, once again, keep your religious beliefs and ideals to yourself and I won't have to remind you to do that.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Secular humanism is that branch of philosophy that advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice and equality in addressing issues of a worldview centred upon human beings. The term was originally coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "Christian humanism".

Secular humanism is distinguished from the broader category of humanism in that the secular humanist prefers free inquiry over dogmatic wisdom—upholding the scientific method for inquiry, while rejecting revealed knowledge and theistic morality, though not necessarily faith. Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, rationalists, skeptics, and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists and Confucians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism


Vs....


Social Darwinism is a social theory which holds that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not only a model for the development of biological traits in a population, but can also be applied to human social institutions. Social Darwinisim was popular in the late nineteenth century to then end of World War II, although some have claimed that contemporary sociobiology could be classed as a form of social Darwinism. Proponents of Social Darwinism often used the theory to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality. Others used it to justify racism and imperialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism


Sorry boss, but i don't see any similiarities between the two.


They are branches of the same tree. Secular Humanism uses science to supply the framework for its philosophy as with SDarwinism. They both use the same cosmogeny and cosmology. While one is undoubtably more compassionate than the other, the Darwinism cannot be ignored as Darwinism is central to progressive science and the movement forward in all biological and cultural avenues and social philosophy building. This cant be ignored as both of these young philosophies move forward (or die).

If you believe in evolution as an answer to the "why" question of creation, you attribute the creation of the universe to a "Great Randomness" as this is as far as your truth gathering mechanism can see...anyway...I dont want to teach a class here...you guys get back to me if you want further discussion.

[epicSocialism4tw]

You keep missing one point. It was the final commandment I posted it earlier. I'm not the least bit interested about your explanations or ideas of religious philosophy. Which means any other ideas you have on the merits of religious teachings or practice go in the same trash bin as far as I'm concerned so, once again, keep your religious beliefs and ideals to yourself and I won't have to remind you to do that.


Well, we'll leave the concern over teaching right and wrong to the people who care enough to find out what is right and what is wrong and let you stand by and complain. ::)

[TheDave]

They are branches of the same tree. Secular Humanism uses science to supply the framework for its philosophy as with SDarwinism. They both use the same cosmogeny and cosmology. While one is undoubtably more compassionate than the other, the Darwinism cannot be ignored as Darwinism is central to progressive science and the movement forward in all biological and cultural avenues and social philosophy building. This cant be ignored as both of these young philosophies move forward (or die).

If you believe in evolution as an answer to the "why" question of creation, you attribute the creation of the universe to a "Great Randomness" as this is as far as your truth gathering mechanism can see...anyway...I dont want to teach a class here...you guys get back to me if you want further discussion.

Bud I'm not trying to be rude, but that amounts to nothing more than a bunch of over the top philosophical crap. Because they both have their genesis in science has nothing to do with the their current state or how these social engines are being applied. I understand that you are a very religious individual, but you need to stop equating secular to evil... As for this great "Why" question you so often bring up... mix in some actual science with your philosophical readings and you will see that true science answers the "why" the "How" and the "What" of most subjects very well.

but as usual we have all strayed far from the topic at hand.... as far as leaving the phrase "One nation under God" in the pledge of alliagience... there we both agree that it should remain.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Bud I'm not trying to be rude, but that amounts to nothing more than a bunch of over the top philosophical crap. Because they both have their genesis in science has nothing to do with the their current state or how these social engines are being applied. I understand that you are a very religious individual, but you need to stop equating secular to evil... As for this great "Why" question you so often bring up... mix in some actual science with your philosophical readings and you will see that true science answers the "why" the "How" and the "What" of most subjects very well.

but as usual we have all strayed far from the topic at hand.... as far as leaving the phrase "One nation under God" in the pledge of alliagience... there we both agree that it should remain.


Ill have to disagree on science answering the "why" unless, like Einstein, as you advance in knowledge you become more aware of God. I loves me some physics and neurophysics and genetics and soforth...they a great set of tools for me to see into the universe, but when I feel small after the study, randomness doesnt make me feel spiritually full.

But alas, we do agree on the point at hand. Discussion is useful as well.

[ClevelandBronco2]

I'm an atheist and honestly I don't give a rip.

Yeah, I'm agnostic and i don't care...

Yeah, and I'm a devout Christian and I suspect that Jesus wouldn't have given a rip either. I'm pretty sure he wasn't a guy in search of a flag.

[Spider]

Again, you say I have repeat I believe in god in public school and I say I don't.
Again, you also believe the only way to "proper and moral adulthood" is through religion and I say it isn't.

One more time, this is America. You're free to practice your religion on your time and in your own place but I don't want to hear about it.

Do you understand? Can you respect MY rights?
HERE HERE ........ this is what turns most people away from Religion , the cramming it down your throat tactic .......... Most Christians will not respect you rights , they will hammer you , and when you speak out say leave me the hell alone , then you are attacking his religion , you hate christians ...ect.... My Advice BB is just agree with any Christian, they wont stop forcing thier religion on you and stepping all over your rights .........

[Spider]

Yeah, and I'm a devout Christian and I suspect that Jesus wouldn't have given a rip either. I'm pretty sure he wasn't a guy in search of a flag.
Hilarious! Devout Christian huh ........ Ha! devout hypocrit maybe ... but then there is a fine line between the 2

[BKK]

Did anyone ever see the south park where they were trying to create a christmas celebration that didn't offend anyone? I think they ended up with an aluminum pole...

This is the problem to me, I believe that regardless of where anyone immigrated to the USA from, they need to assimilate. The pledge of allegiance, Christmas and many other things adopted in our past history are our traditions and cultural heritage. There are people out there who wish to tear it down and turn the good ole' USA into a generic, PC country, so everyone who immigrates here can feel comfortable. The reason I enjoy traveling to other countries is because of the different cultures and sometimes odd, to me, traditions make it interesting, if I like a particular one enough I might try and stay and work, or even if I dont and the money is right I will stay and work around it, but I have never tried to change what was already their culture. I say let them adapt.

[enjolras]

All I am asking is for you to come up with a legit alternative. Something that can give people hope and legitimate guidance into becoming a responsible adult who can contribute to society and recognize law regardless of tax bracket and social standing.

All you have to do is ignore that part of the pledge in your school and we wont have any problems at all. Its very simple!

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Yep, it comes from religion, but it doesn't compel one to be religious. It's simply a brilliant statement in both simplicity and relevance.

[epicSocialism4tw]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Yep, it comes from religion, but it doesn't compel one to be religious. It's simply a brilliant statement in both simplicity and relevance.

My point exactly enjolras. If you teach children this idea, then it is important to also show them where the idea comes from and why it is relevant. This is why you include teaching religious philosophy in schools. It has as much academic value as any other genre of information. It teaches you how to hone your sense of reality and help to form or refine your own belief system. But, this information is outlawed or made into fringe information available to students through elective courses in high school or beyond.

Science courses should keep focused on systems and laws and keep away from controversial issues like cosmology unless there are opposing views taught as well. Its a simple solution to an easy problem, but somewhere along the line the curriculum designers became reliant on science to tell people that they are a product of random processes and that they have to fight to one-up their neighbor to ensure their own survival and that they will eventually die.

The point is this...there are other viable philosophies and none is more true than the other by modern accepted philosophical standards. It boils down to which one that you want taught in your school. In San Francisco, Secular Humanism makes sense because it fits the demographic. In Abilene, TX it makes more sense to teach from intelligent design perspective because it suits the majority. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, people.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My point exactly enjolras. If you teach children this idea, then it is important to also show them where the idea comes from and why it is relevant. This is why you include teaching religious philosophy in schools. It has as much academic value as any other genre of information. It teaches you how to hone your sense of reality and help to form or refine your own belief system. But, this information is outlawed or made into fringe information available to students through elective courses in high school or beyond.

Science courses should keep focused on systems and laws and keep away from controversial issues like cosmology unless there are opposing views taught as well. Its a simple solution to an easy problem, but somewhere along the line the curriculum designers became reliant on science to tell people that they are a product of random processes and that they have to fight to one-up their neighbor to ensure their own survival and that they will eventually die.

The point is this...there are other viable philosophies and none is more true than the other by modern accepted philosophical standards. It boils down to which one that you want taught in your school. In San Francisco, Secular Humanism makes sense because it fits the demographic. In Abilene, TX it makes more sense to teach from intelligent design perspective because it suits the majority. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship, people.


Thank goodness for the foresight of our founding fathers and our constitution.
Since it's my right as an American citizen to NOT have religion forced on myself or my children here's what the choices will be when the SC has to decide the issue since thirty-five states require schools to include recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance during the school day.

Either eliminate the pledge completely or include "there is only one god and he is Allah", and all other peoples gods, etc... or "under god" will have to be removed.

[orangeatheist]

You see, this is what ticks me off. Not you, personally, angry; just this way of looking at the issue:

The "under God" statement means to those who subscribe to that philosophy that they are subject to a law higher than themselves that binds the community.

Exactly. And for those who don't subscribe to that philosophy it makes us feel as though (when it's inserted into a pledge of loyalty toward your country of birth) that we really don't belong here. We don't subscribe to this philosophy. Where do the non-theists fit in?


Even an atheist who does not subscribe to this philosophy can appreciate the value of a consistent system of morals, whether they agree with them or not is a different issue, but there is value in a morally driven commitment and Deistic foundation to local communities. All an atheist has to do is to wonder about the existence of God and not participate in that part of the oath.

So why can't the oath go back to its pre-McCarthy era form and the theists recite it (just as millions of theists recited it before the words 'under God' were inserted) and silently think of their god (be it Yahweh, Jeshua, Allah or Krishna) while doing so? Why does mention of a deity have to be overt?


What we have is the movement of individuals to legally change the existant laws that support a local community.

And it was a movement in the early 50's --to separate "us" from the "godless Communists" whether the "godless non-Communist Americans" liked it or not--that got the "under God" inserted into the original oath in the first place. What's wrong with returning the oath to its original form? Theists didn't seem to mind reciting the oath without inserting god in the 1930's and 40's when we were fighting the "godless Nazi's" and the "demon-worshipping Japanese".


I guarantee you that a community of a sizeable majority of atheists wont say oaths to God. There is no importance. There are issues deeper here than what is being said in the public on the surface. If you could care less about it, its a good indicator that it is an issue that two groups of people care about. The small groups

What does the size of a group have to do with this?


of activist atheists and the overwhelming majority of deist citizens who want the influence of their own community philosophy in their kids' life. They want the village to help to raise the child, which is natural.

And I submit that this "deist" community was much larger prior to the 1950s and has dwindled since (not sizably, but enough). And this same "deist" community did not feel set upon, or infringed upon, to insert "god" into their oath to the United States largely because it probably did not occur to them that they needed to recognize their deity's involvement in the affairs of American life. They assumed it. Why can't deists today do the same? Why does "god" need to be mentioned in a pledge to honor country? Why is this community's belief in a deity have to be worn on its sleeve? Did not Christ instruct his followers: "...whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Matthew 6:6?


What you are talking about here is a small group of activist citizens attempting to legally dictate popular philosophy for the entire country, which is built of a majority of citizens who take severe offense at being forced to remove the moral influence of their community from the place where children are taught about the world. In its place, an "everything is cool as long as it makes you feel good" philosophy is being advocated, which makes the situation worse.

So, what you are saying is "under God" instills, or reminds us, of our moral foundations? Are you implying that someone like me, a non-theist, is morally bankrupt and the fact that I take offence at being told that my country is one country, under a God which I consider to be a remnant of a superstitious time in humanity's past, an anchor which keeps us blinded to our shared humanity and causes some people to strap bombs to themselves and kill innocents, makes me somehow less ethical than the "majority" of people like you? Are you saying I, and the rest of the non-theists, can't be moral without recognizing a deity?

And I cannot believe the hypocricy of saying that a "small minority" of people are trying to "dictate" a "popular philosophy" on the "majority" in our country when the majority (moral?) are the ones forcing the minority to "sit down and shut up". Amazing.


Let people have their communities. Attempting to remove religion from religious societies is an irresponsible venture and one that will only result in even more division in the country.

So why are we trying to encourage a more secular society in Iraq? Let all the people worship as they will. Why not just let an Islamic society spring up there as well. Be like Iran. I mean, if "removing religion from religious societies is an irresponsible venture" why not let the Islamists have their Islamic state and be done with it? Or, are you saying only a certain kind of religious society is acceptable? Your particular religion, perhaps?

[epicSocialism4tw]

First off, thanks for the thoughtful post. Its nice to see thought in action. You raise some good points and have obviously considered your own belief system in depth. I commend you for that.

The post was quite long, and it's late so I'll try and counter some of the main points of your debate...

Obviously my main argument is centered around the idea of Democracy. In a representative democracy, the active populace can (in theory) influence lawmaking. In the American Democracy, local governments are the foundation that the federal government leans upon. Local governments are made of local people. People of certain creeds and traditions. Coastal fishermen, farmers, mountain people, ranchers, oilmen, etc. Industry and culture meet and different classes of people interact in a common community. Local peoples are quite varied from one coast to the other. Different things are valued in their respective communities. Philosophies are widely varied and can be nearly opposite from one another. There is a healthy balance in a representive democracy where you can allow local governments to do a majority of the legislating. Unfortunately, our nation has grown more federalized and while attempting to become fully internationalized, has pushed local governing into a severely reduced role in many areas. Here is the crux of my rationale. There are areas of the country where a vast majority of the people depend on their local community (friends, neighbors, teachers, etc) to help support their families. If there are such areas that are highly devoted to Christian philosophy as their local moral philosophy, they should have the right to determine what their children learn in school. We are really talking about more than just the pledge here. About curriculum and the display of religious symbols in public places. Just as thought there are moral philosophies in other places that differ and are included in schools (see my Native Indian reference in a post above), a local community should be allowed to teach their children Christian philosophy and include Christian influence in their public places. It is part of the nature of that place. Regardless of what your beliefs are, by legislating against them from the outside you are essentially telling them what is okay and not okay to believe in America. You are also discriminating against those schools and communities by removing religious freedoms. You are telling people that it is not okay to be a Christian in any public forum and removing tax dollars and job opportunities from local communities that are influenced by Christian philosophy. That is discrimination of philosophy and something that the ACLU should be livid about. This is why you are seeing the Christian voter block come alive. The "sleeping giant" if you will. The Christian vote is probably the largest block in the country. You cannot legislate around them like they are foolish and not expect backlash. They have been taught by their pastors and priests not to depend on this world and not to become wrapped in its controversies, but it their inaction has caused the illusion that they are not there and the legislation from outside of their communities is finally having an impact there that they can see and do not approve of.

[epicSocialism4tw]

The idea that you can create a law that usurps the majority vote is one that stands in opposition to the idea of representative democracy and smacks of tyranny.

(Keep in mind here that we are talking about what billions of people regard as the path to good living and the way to become more humble, responsible, considerate, caring, intelligent, accountable, benevolent, emotionally balanced, etc...you would think that we were talking about something akin to abortion by the way the media portrays Christianity)

In what way is removing a system of morals that advocates the above a thing that erodes a community? There are always outliers. There are always antisocials. Why should the government attempt to replace that philosophy with another by legislating against it? There is a devious undercurrent here...it smells like federal lobbyists.

With the recent events regarding terrorism, people who are uneducated or ill-informed have equated Modern American Christianity and Militant Islam. This is simply non-sequitir reasoning. It doesnt make a whole lot of sense. The two religious philosophies have very little in common outside of the fact that they are deistic religious philosophies. They are very different. Applying reasoning that Christians and militant Islamic jihadists are close to the same thing in essence (in regard to applied religious freedoms) is just silly. It doesnt take a whole lot of thought to come to that conclusion. Unfortunately, those murderers might be ruining it for the good guys in your backyard.

People that subscribe to Christian-based moral philosophy have had to endure the removal of many of their freedoms over the past 30-40 years. They are forced to endure morally questionable content on television (internet is a whole different ballgame), radio, and film, as well as written media. They have been forced to work on the Sabbath by corporations and to have their other family time disappear. They have had to watch their holidays become commercialized jokes that dont even represent the meaning of the holiday any longer. They have watched their curriculum become warped into something that they dont want their children to learn (but they cant get those tax dollars back). They have watched the federal government remove their cultural symbols from their courthouses because of some single person and an issue in interpreting law. They have watched abortion become available to their children without their consent. They have watched the government remove God from the places where their children learn about the world and put in condom application and oral sex classes.

These people are watching their rights slip away. Soon you all might have the chance to get rid of Christianity in our country. You might kill all of us for what we believe or put us in jail. I think that it might be a little better as Einstein or Ghandi would say for you to learn how to let people enjoy their own culture and live their lives without being interrupted by ill-willed interlopers from the fringe.

[W*GS]

The idea that you can create a law that usurps the majority vote is one that stands in opposition to the idea of representative democracy and smacks of tyranny.

No.

Thwarting the majority is precisely what our system is designed to do. It's because 50% + 1 can't run roughshod over everyone else is what keeps it intact.

Majoritarian tyranny is still tyranny. My inalienable rights (and yours, and everyone else's) are not subject to a popular vote.

[epicSocialism4tw]

No.

Thwarting the majority is precisely what our system is designed to do. It's because 50% + 1 can't run roughshod over everyone else is what keeps it intact.

Majoritarian tyranny is still tyranny. My inalienable rights (and yours, and everyone else's) are not subject to a popular vote.


Its all relative, WGS.

[orangenblue2]

Its all relative, WGS.

BS... America is one nation under a Constitution. This Constitution sets up a representative democracy, but it was specifically amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights to uphold individual and minority rights. There is no "majority rule" as you keep calling it, on Constitutional matters. I'll give you an example. When a majority of people from a certain area voted to segregate blacks, it was declared illegal . This "majority" has no flippin' right whatsoever to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion. The policy of the US Govt. should be one of neutrality in regards to religion. The sooner you and people like yourself realize this, the closer we as a country can come to becoming what our Forefathers envisioned. Oh, and by the way...these forefathers were a mix of atheists and Deists, certainly not Theists...

[epicSocialism4tw]

BS... America is one nation under a Constitution. This Constitution sets up a representative democracy, but it was specifically amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights to uphold individual and minority rights. There is no "majority rule" as you keep calling it, on Constitutional matters. I'll give you an example. When a majority of people from a certain area voted to segregate blacks, it was declared illegal . This "majority" has no flippin' right whatsoever to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religion. The policy of the US Govt. should be one of neutrality in regards to religion. The sooner you and people like yourself realize this, the closer we as a country can come to becoming what our Forefathers envisioned. Oh, and by the way...these forefathers were a mix of atheists and Deists, certainly not Theists...

Thanks, you just made my point.

[orangenblue2]

Thanks, you just made my point.

Whatever that means... :kiddingme

[errand]

I'm an atheist and honestly I don't give a rip.

Exactly....if saying "under God" bothers one that much...how about just not saying those two words?

[orangeatheist]

Exactly....if saying "under God" bothers one that much...how about just not saying those two words?

My position exactly. Just bring the pledge back to its pre-McCarthism era form (deleting those two words) and then no one gets bothered.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

My position exactly. Just bring the pledge back to its pre-McCarthism era form (deleting those two words) and then no one gets bothered.
Yep.
I wonder what the religious right's view would be if the pledge included the words "not under god". Would they asked for those words to be removed?

[Garcia Bronco]

Is there a law stating that the plegde must be recited? What exactly is the court calling "Unconstitutional"?

[Garcia Bronco]

But we are a country of many religions, so if you allow one to impart their religion in the classroom you have to allow all to.


I agree...which God does the pledge refer to exactly?

[Garcia Bronco]

Thank you for giving me some hope, Dave, that there are people out there who are reasonable.

The issue is over what philosophy a given local community can use to develop their children. Christianity and Judaism have been important in some communities in the country. Many communities in American history have used bible-based morals to provide a sense of right and wrong for the development of children.

The "under God" statement means to those who subscribe to that philosophy that they are subject to a law higher than themselves that binds the community. Even an atheist who does not subscribe to this philosophy can appreciate the value of a consistent system of morals, whether they agree with them or not is a different issue, but there is value in a morally driven commitment and Deistic foundation to local communities. All an atheist has to do is to wonder about the existence of God and not participate in that part of the oath.

What we have is the movement of individuals to legally change the existant laws that support a local community. I guarantee you that a community of a sizeable majority of atheists wont say oaths to God. There is no importance. There are issues deeper here than what is being said in the public on the surface. If you could care less about it, its a good indicator that it is an issue that two groups of people care about. The small groups of activist atheists and the overwhelming majority of deist citizens who want the influence of their own community philosophy in their kids' life. They want the village to help to raise the child, which is natural.

What you are talking about here is a small group of activist citizens attempting to legally dictate popular philosophy for the entire country, which is built of a majority of citizens who take severe offense at being forced to remove the moral influence of their community from the place where children are taught about the world. In its place, an "everything is cool as long as it makes you feel good" philosophy is being advocated, which makes the situation worse.

Let people have their communities. Attempting to remove religion from religious societies is an irresponsible venture and one that will only result in even more division in the country.


this is a lucid...well thought post...REP!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Is there a law stating that the plegde must be recited? What exactly is the court calling "Unconstitutional"?
37 states require classroom recital of the pledge. If you ask me it kinda loses it's impact when kids know they have to say it every day.