It is Time for This Nonsense to Stop!

[Michele 1]

My entire addition to this thread (so far, who knows what will happen later...) is that there is a law already in place (passed many years ago)(and at least in CA, where the suit was brought and tried) which makes it illegal to force a child to say "under God" during the pledge (or even be forced say the pledge in the first place)...and if the child should choose to not say it, or be forbidden by the parent from saying it, there is NO action taken to make a child say it. It's an "opt out" kinda thing.

Therefore, if there already is a law in place which addresses this issue, why the suit?

Have any of you seen the man who brought the lawsuit? He is a Dr and a lawyer, divorced, non-custodial parent. He brought the suit originally in the wrong jurisdiction, and refiled in the correct one once he found out which jurisdiction his daughter's school was located in. Methinks there is more to this than meets the eye - although just what, I cannot say. Furthermore, this man tried to sue President Bush and the Federal Gubmint to remove the words "So help me God" from the swearing in ceremony at the Inaugural Address...and he is suing or has sued to remove the words "In God We Trust" from the currency (hmmm...I think that's the case. I could be wrong). I suspect there is far more to this man and the situation which meets the eye...but he is free to express himself as he sees fit. So'm I.

And here's how I see it. He's an ass. He is trying to make any expression of a faith in a higher power - be it God, the Trees, or the Four Elements - illegal. Why should my expression be limited because he gets uncomfortable when he hears anything regarding God? The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion, and protects me if I express myself as a religious person in the manner I choose. The Constitution does NOT guarantee that I will have a life free of uncomfortable things; free from hearing things I don't want to hear (freedom of speech guaranteeing I will hear things I don't want to hear, for example), and most certainly does not guarantee that it will protect me from struggles and hardships in a society which is often at odds and conflicting. The pursuit of happiness - PURSUIT, mind you - does not promise that I will actually achieve it. And if I don't achieve it, then either I have to work harder or give up. It is not incumbent upon the Government to make me a happy camper - just assure that I have the fair chance to work towards being one. What the Constitution does promise me is the opportunity to pursue a life free of religious persecution (within the confines of secular law - i.e. I don't get to make human sacrifices on the top of a pyramid in my backyard to make sure we get rain this year, etc...).

I have a right to state my religious/spiritual/faith as I see fit, which may to include the words "Under God"....and you have the right to not say it, if you choose. But don't muffle me when I choose to say it.

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[freebird 0]

It is just a big change and a shock..................The very reason this country was founded was to leave a country that was ruled by religion..............I see what your a getting at but totally banning the Pledge seems a bit much............

[nicknitro71 0]

I've read them all! I think many of you are missing the point.

First religion and politics should be separated.

Second everybody should respect everyone’s beliefs or not beliefs.

Third moral and religion have nothing to do with each other. I am atheist and many of the finest people I’ve met in my time were atheist or they were smart enough not to judge anybody in spite of their beliefs.
F
ourth “In God We Trust” in the US currency is as wrong as it get, read the first point.

Finally I am very glad about the decision the SC has made!

Cool

Memento Audere Semper

903

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

1. You are not legally mandated to attend it, or have your children attend. If you want to send your child somewhere else, or even teach him/her yourself, you are free to do that. It is _your_ decision, not the government's.

Not entirely true. Not every community has passed legislation regarding home schooling or charter schooling and not everyone can afford a private school (just to show that I'm not a flaming liberal, I agree with school vouchers to attend private school).

In the State of PA there is a state law regarding mandatory attendance at school between certain ages. If you don't have the means to send your child to private school they are LEGALLY REQUIRED to attend public school.

Quote

2. If it bothers him/her, they don't have to say it. I have never, ever heard of anyone expelled (or even hassled) because they would not say the words "under god."

I distinctly remember kids getting picked on in elementary school for leaving the room during a teacher led prayer. Or being out of school during a jewish holiday. Or not saying the pledge because they were a Jehovah's witness, or any number of things. Kids can be very cruel, and it's hard for children to do what they think is right, or their parents have told them is right, in the face of being different than others.

Quote

Schools do that. They require kids to memorize and recite things, and they often contain references to god. Heck, in elementary school we had to sing christmas and chanukah songs around christmas time.

Memorizing things for the sake of education in literature, or history, etc. is not something I have a problem with. Or singing a song to entertain people or to learn about others faiths is fine as well. But placing your hand over your heart and making a pledge (definition: A solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something) is different than singing a song. And when it is part of a daily morning ritual, that's a little more ingraining in your psyche than once a year or for a report.

Quote

Every year there was one parent who didn't want their kid singing in some song or other, and they sat out that song. It was never a big deal.

How do you know? Were you that kid? I was good friends with a Jehovah's witness and they were teased incessently throught elementary and middle school.

Quote

Like Sebazz, I went to an all-catholic high school. One of my friends, Uneal, was Hindu. He was there for the education.

1. High school is a different creature than elementary and middle school. Kids are a lot more capable of rebelling against the status quo. In younger years it's very difficult for kids to do anything that makes them stand out as different.
2. In both cases (Sebazz and your friend) they made a choice to go to that school for the opportunity knowing what the ramifications to their beliefs were, and not having a problem with that. I went to a private Christian school as well for the same reasons. But noone forced me too.

[quade 4]

Quote

we do not need people that do not believe in god making the decsions why do they get the advantage?

I assume this is actually two separate statements.

If I may ask, why do you believe that we do not need people that do not believe in God making decisions? For instance, I'm pretty sure that Gahndi was a pretty good leader, but I'm also pretty sure that his religion wasn't the same as yours. Does that make him any less valuable to humanity?

Also, what advantages do you believe are being given to the people that don't share your beliefs?

Or have I completely misinterpreted your original statements? If so, could you make them a bit more clear for me?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,107]

>Therefore, if there already is a law in place which addresses this
> issue, why the suit?

I agree; despite the legal issues, it is simply not that big a deal. Let kids say it if they want to. Or not. Doesn't matter much.

>Why should my expression be limited because he gets
> uncomfortable when he hears anything regarding God?

It is not. The decision, as made by the judges, is valid - we may make no law respecting any one religion, or even type of religion, and therefore we can't even imply that Americans are all monotheistic (i.e. one nation under god.) If we were coming up with a new pledge, it should not contain such a statement. It is not right to misrepresent someone who believes in three gods in the name of patriotism, or for our government to come up with a document that specifically excludes his religion from those who are "true" americans.

That being said, I think that changing the _current_ pledge is going overboard. Make the words optional, like you suggested, and the problem is solved _without_ two months of pointless argument.

>I have a right to state my religious/spiritual/faith as I see fit, which
> may to include the words "Under God"....and you have the right to
> not say it, if you choose. But don't muffle me when I choose to say
> it.

Even if the pledge is changed, you will always have the option to add those words, even say a prayer afterwards. Your right to do that is protected. No one is proposing anything that will change that (fortunately.)

[antimike 0]

***I guess, the real crux of the pledge is..."I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands." Anything after that is fluff. ***

Not totally true, I don't care one way or the other just real entertaining reading peoples thoughts. But how does the old version sound "One Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

[billvon 3,107]

>I distinctly remember kids getting picked on in elementary school for
> leaving the room during a teacher led prayer. Or being out of school
> during a jewish holiday.

And I got picked on for having a big nose. Nothing you can do will stop children from picking on each other, and trying is an exercise in futility.

>Kids can be very cruel, and it's hard for children to do what they think
> is right, or their parents have told them is right, in the face of being
> different than others.

This is a failure in parenting, not an issue to be addressed at the school level. Every child _is_ different from every other one, and learning enough self-esteem to be OK with that is one of the most important lessons every child learns - and that education does not take place primarily in school.

>How do you know? Were you that kid? I was good friends with a
> Jehovah's witness and they were teased incessently throught
> elementary and middle school.

I was friends with two of them, one a catholic kid whose parents would not allow him to sing jewish songs. I thought that was sort of foolish - I sang them knowing full well it was just a song and did not alter my beliefs (such as they were back then.)

>2. In both cases (Sebazz and your friend) they made a choice to go
> to that school for the opportunity knowing what the ramifications to
> their beliefs were, and not having a problem with that.

Well, no, his parents made him go. I didn't get that much of a choice myself.

[PhillyKev 0]

[reply
Not totally true, I don't care one way or the other just real entertaining reading peoples thoughts. But how does the old version sound "One Nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all"

[freebird 0]

I feel sorry for those of you who think there is no higher power that wants us to know that we are more that a bunch of cells tissues ..............Im not trying to offend...It just baffles me

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I was friends with two of them, one a catholic kid whose parents would not allow him to sing jewish songs. I thought that was sort of foolish

Hmmm....so you judged him to be "foolish" because he did something differently than the rest. I think you kind of just proved my point.

I agree with what you're saying, Bill, but what I sympathize with is those who don't. I've never had a problem saying the pledge, singing jewish songs, etc. And if I have children they will be raised to respect and learn about others beliefs. But the issue is that it IS offensive, appalling, and even AGAINST their faith, to some people. And there's no reason they should be legally required to be put in a situation where that comes into play.

You said yourself that congress should make no law that establishes a pretext of religion. Then you go on to say that removing the words from the pledge goes overboard. The thing is, those words were added to the pledge by an act of congress. In essence they passed a law establishing god as divine ruler of the country. That is a direct violation of the first amendment and is being corrected. I don't see that as overboard at all.

[jfields 0]

Just what you all wanted... me in a serious thread...

I would be happy if the Pledge of Allegiance were to be returned to its original form. I'd also be fine with the references to God being removed from our currency. I'm not suing anyone over it, but a small part of my sympathizes. In public school, I got sick of having to partake in the religiously-oriented activities of the majority.

Government has no business messing with religion. It is a no-win proposition, as recognized be the country's founders. They saw that the only perfectly equitable governmental solution to religion was to separate them. Rather than this move being "anti-religion", it is vehemently the opposite. It is a strong pro-religion stance that guarantees that everyone has the right to practice religion (or not to practice) in their own way without hindrance from the government itself.

State-sponsored religions (of any kind) segregate the population based on religious belief. There become classes of theological haves and have-nots based on the official acceptance of that particular religion or sect. Similarly, a government stance of atheism (ex.: former Soviet Union) is discriminatory as well, against all religions. While I'm not a constitutional scholar, I'd say the intent for our country was that they government should have no official religion, and no prohibitions against individual citizens practicing any religion.

We have strayed from this position of absolute equality and emphasis on personal choice during our history. It swings back and forth, and right now the anti-terrorism wave of patriotism has inadvertently lumped God in with the flag, where it doesn't belong.

There all sorts of examples throughout history of when a nation's meddling in religious affairs brought on incredible human suffering. You could look at Germany and the Jews, the USSR and most everything, England and Protestants, etc. I'd rather live in a country that keeps itself out of religious issues for the very fact that have any governmental stance one way or the other about specific religions is a sure way to screw things up. On this issue, it is best to do nothing at all as a nation.

The actual citizens of the nation can worship as they please, due to the non-intervention policy of the nation as a whole. If a particular group of students in.. say.. a high school wants to have a Buddhist's Club or a Young Christians Club after school, that is fine as long as doesn't use school funds or school property. If they do either, how could we fairly exlude the Satan Worshippers Club when they ask for money or the school auditorium? Government shouldn't be in the position of dictating what religions are "right" or "valid", hence the separation of church and state.

Yes, I am rambling, but this issue is an important one where we are headed in the wrong direction.

[quade 4]

Quote

I feel sorry for those of you who think there is no higher power that wants us to know that we are more that a bunch of cells tissues ..............Im not trying to offend...It just baffles me

Well, actually, it is somewhat offensive.

It's an insult to the reasoning power of humans.

It's kind of like the conspiracy theory folks that say our technology was handed down to us by aliens at Roswell. It insults the hard work and research of the people that actually invented things like the transistor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jfields 0]

I agree with Quade. I'm actually pretty proud to be "a bunch of cells tissues". I believe that we have evolved to be pretty power thinking creatures with amazing capabilities. In my opinion, it cheapens our humanity to attribute our successes to something else.

[billvon 3,107]

>Hmmm....so you judged him to be "foolish" because he did
> something differently than the rest.

Well, no, I thought his parents were sorta foolish. He did too. "Yeah, well, you know my mom . . . "

>You said yourself that congress should make no law that establishes
> a pretext of religion. Then you go on to say that removing the words
> from the pledge goes overboard. The thing is, those words were
> added to the pledge by an act of congress.

Correct, they did something silly in the name of patriotism.

> In essence they passed
> a law establishing god as divine ruler of the country.

Oh please. If you are honestly saying that the US congress was thinking of placing some governmental power in the hands of a specific god when they added those words, you're imagining things. They wanted to make us 'better' than the commies.

>That is a direct
> violation of the first amendment and is being corrected. I don't see
> that as overboard at all.

I agree that congress was wrong to add those words. I do not think that it should or should not be corrected; I think that it's simply not worth the effort. We have way more important things to do, and spending tens of millions of man-hours first debating, then changing everything from the pledge to money to the signs on government buildings is going overboard.

[billvon 3,107]

>Just what you all wanted... me in a serious thread...

No, that was a good post.

[billvon 3,107]

>I feel sorry for those of you who think there is no higher power that
> wants us to know that we are more that a bunch of cells
> tissues

There are at least some of us who believe we are far more than a bunch of cells, even if we don't think a higher power wants us to believe anything like that.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Third moral and religion have nothing to do with each other.

This is a popular saying among atheists. (and for good reason) But it is critically dependent on your world view and what you define morality (and religion) to be. (obviously) Therefore, this idea is up for grabs. Philosophers have argued over that issue for centuries. My take, after careful study, is that religion and morality (not religion as a belief system but as a relationship with a real God) are necessarily connected and I can support that assertion if need be. (with the basic idea being that u need to bind yourself to an eternal power in order for all the categories of good and evil to be available to you)

Now, I do know some so called Christians who live like heathens and I also know some very intelligent atheists who live with a supremely higher moral code than the average population. (i suspect this has to do with intelligence more than any particular religious choice though) So I do agree that one can live a fairly moral life as an atheist, but ultimately it is incomplete. (God changes the inside of a man where the outward acts of religion or duty fall utterly short.)

Remember, ought implies can, and no one can be morally perfect in *this* lifetime. Something to think about.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So I do agree that one can live a fairly moral life as an atheist, but ultimately it is incomplete.

I agree that one can live a fairly moral life believing in fairy tales, but ultimately it is delusional.

Note - that is my opinion, I don't try to claim it to be fact.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Note - that is my opinion, I don't try to claim it to be fact.

So do you even believe your *own* opinion? If you don't claim it to be fact, why would you even bother to say that belief in God is equivalent to believing in "fairy tales" and is "delusional"? Are you worried about defending your own ideas so you just stick that tag line in? If it is because you are a skeptic, why even bother saying anything that would be suspect by your own system and therefore pointless to even say?

Don't be afraid to stake a claim.

[PhillyKev 0]

Because my post was meant to be sarcastic parody of yours. You can't prove your belief to my satisfaction and vice versa. That's why it's called belief and why there is a difference of opinion in this matter. If either side were proven fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I recognize that I could be completely wrong in my belief. But that doesn't make it any less valid. If there were some reason for me to believe differently I would be open to changing my opinion. In other words, I'm open minded.

I don't pass judgment on people because of what they believe. It appears from your post that you do.

[rhino 0]

The judge that started it is asking for a re-hearing on the subject.. lol

Too much heat on his rear.. lol

[freebird 0]

Mabe aliens have been here before us...how the heck do we know they wre not here.........How would we know if we were not evolved yet?

[freebird 0]

mabe the dinasoars ate the aliens..............

Let me say this....you can not prove it is or it is not..but is dose not hurt to believe in something that stands for what is good . It is important to have hope ...........In it just feels like we will be missing something deep within ourseleves.....

[Sinkster 0]

No, I think your problem is that I really honestly do believe that God is real and am willing to act upon that. A belief is often described as an idea that one is willing to act upon. What you want me to do is simply stay silent or include some tag with my posts to tell the world that really what I am saying is just as pointless err I mean as "equally valid" as what everyone else is saying.