pajarito

All true Christians pray and ask for guidance in all aspects of life. GWB just has the courage to admit it publically. I admire and respect that. Also, they're allowed to attempt to get laws passed that fit their agenda just like anybody else who gets elected into public office.

Exactly... It may have been wrong all along in the opinions of some, including mine, but it doesn't become unconstitutional until made so. An aspiring attorney should realize that. I wonder who's the horse that needs to be led to water and shown how to drink?

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. It's not your Constitutional right in this country not to be offended or annoyed. If God isn't said out loud in Judaism, don't say it out loud. If you're Hindu, it can apply to whichever God you worship at the time. I have a friend of mine who I used to work with who was Hindu. He said that the particular God you worship is tied in closely with which cast your family was in and that you typically only worship that particular God directly. I'm sorry if the capitalized word God is closely associated with Christianity. It can still be applied pretty much across the board.

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.

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 You’re saying that their thought of religion being a part of government is outdated and could be compared to their lack of knowledge of healthcare as compared to today?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

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. 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.

Fair enough.

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?

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

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

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

Excellent shot! However, I don't see why it had to be recorded on video and shown to the general public. I think that's kind of inappropriate.

Billvon...I haven't read most of this B.S. but I'd like to be clear on something. Are you just not in favor of having an official language in this country at all?

[replyGod and religion are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Article “There are those who say God is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Find a dictionary and look up the words "oath", "Swear" or "Affirm" which run through the Founding Document. 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 U.S. Constitution From Websters Dictionary: OATH 1. A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with a reverent appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. ``I have an oath in heaven'' --Shak. An oath of secrecy for the concealing of those [inventions] which we think fit to keep secret. --Bacon. 2. A solemn affirmation, connected with a sacred object, or one regarded as sacred, as the temple, the altar, the blood of Abel, the Bible, the Koran, etc. 3. (Law) An appeal (in verification of a statement made) to a superior sanction, in such a form as exposes the party making the appeal to an indictment for perjury if the statement be false. 4. A careless and blasphemous use of the name of the divine Being, or anything divine or sacred, by way of appeal or as a profane exclamation or ejaculation; an expression of profane swearing. ``A terrible oath'' --Shak. Swear 1. To affirm or utter a solemn declaration, with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed; to make a promise, threat, or resolve on oath; also, to affirm solemnly by some sacred object, or one regarded as sacred, as the Bible, the Koran, etc. Ye shall swear by my name falsely. --Lev. xix. I swear by all the Roman gods. --Shak. 2. (Law) To give evidence on oath; as, to swear to the truth of a statement; he swore against the prisoner. 3. To make an appeal to God in an irreverant manner; to use the name of God or sacred things profanely; to call upon God in imprecation; to curse. [I] swore little; diced not above seven times a week. --Shak. Affirm 1. To make firm; to confirm, or ratify; esp. (Law), to assert or confirm, as a judgment, decree, or order, brought before an appellate court for review. 2. To assert positively; to tell with confidence; to aver; to maintain as true; -- opposed to {deny}. Jesus, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. --Acts xxv. 19. 3. (Law) To declare, as a fact, solemnly, under judicial sanction. See {Affirmation}

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.

Kerry must be so proud...

I DO NOT take credit for finding this article. It was brought up to me by someone else. I think it is interesting and is a good summary for the original topic of this thread concerning The Pledge of Allegiance. My favorite quote from it is, "The purpose of "separation of church and state," as William McLoughlin has said, was not to establish freedom from religion but to establish freedom for religion." 'Under God' Michael Newdow is right. Atheists are outsiders in America. BY SAMUEL P. HUNTINGTON Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT Article

You're as bad as Billvon. I believe what I said concerning that was that "I don't know." I admit there are things beyond my comprehension. That doesn't mean that some of those things aren't real.

Whatever.... The bottom line is that, if you want your child to recieve the best education possible with the most opportunities, you're more likely to get it in the private school system rather than the public school "experiment." ...Just my personal opinion...

I agree. The standard here is to speak the national language...English. If you speak another language...Great! However, it shouldn't be standard operating procedure for companies or the government to pander to those who don't fit all the requirements for naturalization or citizenship.

You’re correct in saying that the special needs children as well as those who might not speak English as their primary language will bring down the average of those schools which they attend. In private school, because they might not have as many children with special needs, they will probably have a higher caliber student as the average. By default, you’re going to get a higher level of education. My wife attended private school growing up. When she took the ACT to get into college, half her class, including her, scored 30 and above.

What you said: What I actually said: Biblical reference: http://www.carm.org/kjv/Gen/Gen_1.htm What you said: What I actually said: There is both figurative and literal language in the Bible. Paul wrote of one day to God being like 1000 years. Of course, the context of that passage has no bearing on creation. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily as absolute throughout the Bible as you’re trying to make it out to be. I think what I was saying, though, was that I really didn’t know. What I actually said concerning Biblical law: That’s not “picking and choosing” which laws to follow or not based on what I prefer. That’s following the instruction of the writers themselves. I don’t “intentionally” misinterpret anything in the Bible. I’m not saying that I don’t make mistakes but I try not to. I don’t think anyone can argue, however, that there is both figurative as well as literal language in the Bible.

My kids go to a non-denominational Bible based Christian private school. My daughter will be starting Kindergarten next year and my son will be in 3rd Grade. When we moved here from Augusta, he transferred from a much respected public school there to this private school here. He had quite a bit of catching up to do. This school exceeds the national average by a considerable amount in all areas of study. From my experience, it has been a very good decision and I support it. Of course, my opinion would be on a school by school basis. Overall, however, I think they tend to set higher standards.

Man....you are the "master" of deception and taking things out of context. I'm impressed. I don't believe you're reading everything everything I write. I don't have time right now to respond but I will soon. Also, are you speaking to me in your responses? If so, why do you use my name in the third person?