The Pledge of Allegiance stands!

[mr2mk1g 10]

So atheism is not a religion?

Is Buddhism a religion? They deny the existence of a supreme being… Should buddhists have to swear "under god"?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So atheism is not a religion?

Is Buddhism a religion? They deny the existence of a supreme being… Should buddhists have to swear "under god"?

I think we're trying to talk about whether "Under God" in The Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional or not. However, in reference to your question, I believe the Judge has the authority to alter the court oath to fit the religious beliefs of the individual. I believe that the "Under God" one is merely traditional. So, I would think that wouldn't be an issue if one simply brought up the complaint. However, the oath still stands and it is against the law to lie under oath even if the Atheist doesn't really believe and said it anyway. Again, I'm no lawyer so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

In reference to the article, I believe what it's trying to convey is that this country was founded by religious people (mostly Christians) who fully intended for religious principles to be ingraned deeply in government. They believed that its success and survivability depended on it. They didn't want government to establish or prohibit its practice (referring to any religion or lack thereof that you choose), however. Acknowledging the basic concept of "God" in government, which fits the vast majority of people in the world, is not unconstitutional and should stand.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I understand that the creators of America may well have intended it to be a Christian nation and even may well have instilled that into the constitution. I don't know the constitution so I wouldn't argue with that concept. But it seems perfectly logical in any case.

My point is mealy that the overriding principal of America was that it's supposed to be the land of the free. That includes freedom for religion as you rightly point out in your post. That's a very cool thing.

But where is the freedom for the person who wants to be a Buddhist? They live in a country where the oath of their country says "under god". To be included they have to pledge to be "under" something they do not believe in. That can't exactly make them feel particularly free to practice their religion.

As for people not being compelled to make the pledge.... is it not part of the immigration process? I understand you have to make the pledge at that point. Are Buddhists not welcome as immigrants?

I sympathise with the premise that the authors of the constitution thought America would be a Christian state but that does not necessarily mean that things that are manifestly Christian are automatically constitutional.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I understand that the creators of America may well have intended it to be a Christian nation and even may well have instilled that into the constitution. I don't know the constitution so I wouldn't argue with that concept. But it seems perfectly logical in any case.

God and religion are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

[pajarito 0]

[replyGod and religion are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

[PhillyKev 0]

From Dictionary.com

Oath:
1c Something declared or promised.

Swear:
4. Law. To give evidence or testimony under oath.

Affirm:
1 To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.
2 To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.
Law To declare solemnly and formally but not under oath.

Solemnly
Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.

[pajarito 0]

Until revisionists pollute the lexicographer's trade, the words mean: "To utter a solemn declaration, with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed." Francis Broadhurst

Websters vs. Dictionary.com

[PhillyKev 0]

Fine, be pedantic.

From m-w.com (that's merriam-webster)

Oath
(2) : a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words

Solemn
2 : marked by the observance of established form or ceremony

Swear
1 : to utter or take solemnly (an oath)
2 a : to assert as true or promise under oath b : to assert or promise emphatically or earnestly

Affirm:
1 a : VALIDATE, CONFIRM b : to state positively
2 : to assert (as a judgment or decree) as valid or confirmed
3 : to express dedication to

By the way, your definitions aren't on Webster's site. Did you look them up yourself or is this from something someone else wrote incorrectly.

[PhillyKev 0]

This argument is ridiculous anyway. Why? Because I don't care if they did form the country based on religion. It shouldn't be that way and if someone tries to make it that way, I'll do my best to stop them.

[pajarito 0]

I wonder, however, how the Founding Fathers defined those words or how they meant for them to be interpreted when they wrote them down.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

This argument is ridiculous anyway. Why? Because I don't care if they did form the country based on religion. It shouldn't be that way and if someone tries to make it that way, I'll do my best to stop them.

Guaranteed....you won't have my vote.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

This argument is ridiculous anyway. Why? Because I don't care if they did form the country based on religion. It shouldn't be that way and if someone tries to make it that way, I'll do my best to stop them.

Guaranteed....you won't have my vote.

Yep..and one of the reasons GWB doesn't have mine. I don't understand why any non-Christian would vote for him.

[Nightingale 0]

the first time around, he didn't run with the platform of "religious zealot".

[PhillyKev 0]

You're right, and I was seriously considering votiing for him. Then he announced who some of his cabinet would be. And there were self proclaimed religious zealots among them. That was what convinced me for sure not to vote for him.

[Nightingale 0]

I have a few friends who were die hard Bush supporters in the last election who will be voting for Kerry this time around.

Couple of them have changed their minds because of:

his stance on "faith based" work
his stance on school vouchers
his anti-homosexual agenda
his pro-war policies
his lack of diplomacy when dealing with the UN
his stance on environmental policies
the accumulation of such a large national defecit

I'm sure there are more reasons too. These are just the ones they've voiced to me.

[pajarito 0]

Are you using the term "religious zealot" in a general derrogatory manner or only in reference to GWB? Or, is it not meant to be derrogatory and are you just using it to specifically reference someone with strongly held religious beliefs and principals? I get the feeling that, when many here don't agree with someone that holds these beliefs, they paint them as an extreme "whacko." It just seems to be the popular thing to do these days. Many out there hold very strongly to their Athiest, Agnostic, or other beliefs just as well. Are they non-religious zealots? And just because you might not agree with them, would you target their non-belief in the same manner and paint them as and extreme "whacko?" Religion seems to be the primary focus of attack when it comes to the left attacking the right. Is it just me?

[Nightingale 0]

I used the term to mean one who not only holds strong beliefs (nothing wrong with that), but who tries to make others conform to his beliefs.

The dictionary defines a zealot as "one who is carried away by zeal" or "a fervent and even militant proponent of something" and "One who is zealous, especially excessively so."


I would consider an athiest who adamantly tries to deny religious folk the right to go to church a zealot as well.

[pajarito 0]

Fair enough.

• Quote

[PhillyKev 0]

GWB is a zealot. Ashcroft is a whacko. Anyone who spends public money to clothe a statue so as not to be defended is over the line.

[wmw999 2,588]

The founding fathers understood their world and their context. Because of less mobility and communication, there was a huge amount they didn't know. Do we clothe ourselves in the world of 18th century north America because that's what they had? Or eliminate only the parts that we don't like from the modern world (after all, they didn't know about penicillin or cleanliness in health care, either).

The world is bigger than they saw. That doesn't make them wrong by any stretch of the imagination. But it does make our interpretation of how they would react to this world only an interpretation. Ever.

I personally think that freedom of religion emphatically includes freedom from a state expression of others' religion. Since being fair means that others should be free from mine as well, that would imply that freedom means no deliberate exposure. Leave that to parents, families, schools (I think parochial schools and home schooling an an important part of parental choice), and the like.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

GWB is a zealot.

So am I. So are you. Otherwise, you'd be a "middle of the road" and ineffective leader. Neutral people accomplish nothing. You've got to take a stand for what you believe.

Quote

Ashcroft is a whacko. Anyone who spends public money to clothe a statue so as not to be defended is over the line.

I also thought that was rather silly and would not have done that myself. However, calling him or anyone else a "whacko" to justify my position and degrade their character would be just as silly.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

calling him or anyone else a "whacko" to justify my position and degrade their character would be just as silly.

I'm just calling it like I see it. Not trying to justify anything. And he seems to be able to degrade his own character. David Koresh, whacko. Pat Buchanan, whacko. Ashcroft, whacko.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

The founding fathers understood their world and their context. Because of less mobility and communication, there was a huge amount they didn't know. Do we clothe ourselves in the world of 18th century north America because that's what they had? Or eliminate only the parts that we don't like from the modern world (after all, they didn't know about penicillin or cleanliness in health care, either).

Sure…the founding fathers would have never foreseen that our culture after WWII would take a turn towards post-Christianity and that there would be an ever increasing number of people with no faith or belief in God. Therefore, we should change and take God out of everything. If they were around to see the context of our cultural situation, they would agree.

You’re saying that their thought of religion being a part of government is outdated and could be compared to their lack of knowledge of healthcare as compared to today?

Quote

The world is bigger than they saw. That doesn't make them wrong by any stretch of the imagination. But it does make our interpretation of how they would react to this world only an interpretation. Ever.

I don’t think that their belief in God or his importance would be any less today than it was back then. By your statements, I don’t think you give them enough credit for intelligence.

Quote

I personally think that freedom of religion emphatically includes freedom from a state expression of others' religion. Since being fair means that others should be free from mine as well, that would imply that freedom means no deliberate exposure. Leave that to parents, families, schools (I think parochial schools and home schooling an an important part of parental choice), and the like.

Acknowledging God is not oppressive and doesn’t prevent you or anyone else from worshiping any way they like. It is also not unconstitutional.

I respect your opinion, though.

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

Quote

David Koresh, whacko. Pat Buchanan, whacko. Ashcroft, whacko.

You show irrationality when you put David Koresh in the same sentence as the others. That’s kind of like comparing GWB to Hitler. It sounds more like an emotional rather than a cognitive response.

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

Acknowledging God is not oppressive

If you are a very orthodox Jew, you don't say the name of God out loud.
If you are a Muslim, it's far more common to call him Allah; God is a western name. It's not the same unless you can call God Allah.
If you are a Bahai' it's just not the same.
If you are Shinto which one?

Regardless, the word "God," particularly when capitalized, is pretty thoroughly tied up with Christianity, and to a lesser degree with Judaism. I don't think it's nearly as neutral as people who want "under God" to remain.

Would it be the same for you to pray to Allah? After all, it's just acknowledging a supreme being.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)