Enough is Enough!!! [Archive] - MartialTalk.Com - Friendly Martial Arts Forum Community

Bob Hubbard

06-27-2002, 01:47 AM

I'm pulling bits from Slashdot here...

As reported on the better site... (Score:5, Informative)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26, @05:43PM (#3772953)
Millions of American schoolchildren --- including almost all adults who grew up in the US --- have for two generations recited a daily pledge of allegiance in schools. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled that pledge to be a violation of the US Constitution. Social conservatives are outraged, liberals are smirking, and many of us are just stunned.
Background on the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

And to the republic for which it stands

one nation, indivisible,

with liberty and justice for all

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist activist in 1892. Heavily promoted by the magazine The Youth's Companion, at the time one of the largest weekly magazines in the United States (it was eventually merged into the magazine American Boy, which was owned by the Atlantic Monthly), which was also involved in a movement to place American flags over every schoolhouse in the country. By 1905, a majority of the non-southern states had passed laws requiring schools to fly the flag, and it was already customary at that time to require students to recite the pledge daily. Eventually, most states passed laws requiring the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance. (In some states, students are also required to sing the national anthem).

The wording of the pledge was codified into US law by Congress in 1942; in 1954, the wording of the pledge was changed by Congress, which added the phrase 'under God', making the line 'one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." This modified phrasing was adopted by schools across the country, and has remained intact to this day.

Background on the case

Michael Newdow, an atheist living in the state of California, sued the state on the ground that the California Education Code requirement that each school day begin with appropriate patriotic exercises including but not limited to the giving of the pledge of allegiance, and the school district's requirement that each elementary school class recite the pledge of allegiance daily compels his daughter to "watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God," and therefore constituted a state establishment of religion, prohibited by the first amendment (and, by extension through the fourteenth amendment, to states and school districts, which are sub-units of the states). His petition asked the court to order the President to modify the pledge to delete the offending section.

The decision

The 9th circuit analyzed the law establishing the pledge of allegiance using three legal tests used in establishment cases. (The Lemon test, which has mostly fallen into disfavor but has not been explicitly repudiated, requires government conduct to have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster government entanglement with religion. The "coercion test" requires that government conduct not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise. The "endorsement test" requires that government not endorse a religion and "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders".). The court ruled that:

The inclusion of the phrase under God in the pledge is an endorsement of religious belief.
Reciting the pledge as it is currently codified is to swear allegiance to monotheism.
The pledge as currently codified fails the coercion test.
The inclusion of the phrase under God was *explicitly* done to promote a religious purpose, and therefore the pledge as currently codified fails the Lemon test.
The court concluded that the 1954 act adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, and that the school district policy requiring daily recital is as well.
Future steps

The decision is only binding in the area covered by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - California, Arizona, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii - but would require school districts in that area to cease reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance. It is expected that the school district will appeal, in which case the decision will most likely be heard by the US Supreme Court sometime next year. A copy of the opinion is here [findlaw.com].

Sandor

06-27-2002, 01:55 AM

Don't do that... they'll miss out on the real flavor of the discussion that has been going on over there if you cull it out! ... then again maybe thats a good thing®

There were some really insightful posts in that discussion on all sides of the issue.

Peace,
Sandor

Bob Hubbard

06-27-2002, 02:06 AM

Definately. In all seriousness, check out slashdot's discussion. LOTS! of info etc up there.

http://slashdot.org

:asian:

tonbo

06-27-2002, 08:42 AM

....since we (the US) are now wrapped up in whether or not to remove the "Under God" section from the Pledge of Allegiance.....

.....do we remove the "In God We Trust" from our money, as well? Isn't *that* offensive to those who don't adhere to Christian beliefs? Is *that* phrase combining church and state?

C'mon....don't we have better things to argue about in this country? I, for one, would like to see my tax dollars better spent......

*shrug*

Peace--

fist of fury

06-27-2002, 09:19 AM

It's a shame that we waste our tax dollars on this. the thing that bugs me is that atheism and humanism is a religion so don't force that on me either. And to the state that we forcing children to beileive or admit that's there's a God because of the pledge well we've been forced to accept evolution as a proven scientific fact when in my opinion it isn't. They should teach evolution and creationism side by side and not force students to make a decision on way or the other both thier valid scientific arguments.
Besides this is a free country no one has ever been forced to say the pledge if you don't agree or like it don't say it no one to my recollection has been shot or imprisoned for not saying it. People
just better wwatch out and not let big brother make so many laws that we'll loose our freedom.

Kirk

06-27-2002, 09:28 AM

To me, seperation of church and state means that taxpayer's
money doesn't go to support religious organizations, and that
the govt. won't dictate how religious organizations are run. But
the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are
we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid
religious persecution? I'm getting sick of people protecting the
rights of hate mongers to march in the middle of downtown of
some cities spewing off their crap, yet I'm offending them
by saying "under God"???? F YOU! If you don't like that part of
the pledge DON'T SAY IT! .. but stop infringing on MY rights to
believe!!!!!!!!!

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by fist of fury

It's a shame that we waste our tax dollars on this. the thing that bugs me is that atheism and humanism is a religion so don't force that on me either. And to the state that we forcing children to beileive or admit that's there's a God because of the pledge well we've been forced to accept evolution as a proven scientific fact when in my opinion it isn't. They should teach evolution and creationism side by side and not force students to make a decision on way or the other both thier valid scientific arguments.
Besides this is a free country no one has ever been forced to say the pledge if you don't agree or like it don't say it no one to my recollection has been shot or imprisoned for not saying it. People
just better wwatch out and not let big brother make so many laws that we'll loose our freedom.

1) neither humanism nor atheism are religions. They do reflect an understanding of the divine, but that is not nearly enough to qualify as a religion, under any standard definition. Besides that, the court did not say that teachers should have students say "one nation, not under god". That would be pushing aetheism. In fact, the court is saying the schools should be neutral on the issue -- not push any specific belief on others.

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs. Creationism takes the exact opposite tack -- it assumes the construct of the unmeasurable, unprovable divine force (usually, one divine force, Jehovah; no room for, say, Hindu creation stories). This flies in the face of everything empirical science is based on. Science makes no comment on the existence of God, because it can neither prove God or disprove God. Science must not assume anything without evidence. Creationism should be in schools -- in theology, sociology, and history classes, as an idea that influences human behavior.

3) the decision was made to keep Big Brother from telling us how to think, what to believe. Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing. Schools should neither encourage nor discourage religion, meaning that students can pray, wear T-shirts, carry Bibles, whatever they want, but they can't expect to have teachers and principals make the other kids do it too. Encouraging all the kids to say "under god" (forcing, once you consider peer pressure) is forcing religion into their lives, potentially overriding what their parents are trying to do to teach their children about the divine. That's Big Brother, baby.

Matt Stone

06-27-2002, 10:47 AM

See, we have this one figured out already, and it is a really simple fix...

Kill the ones you don't like... :armed:

Just kidding!

Seriously, though, when we do enlistment/reenlistment oaths, we are afforded the option of saying either "swear" or "affirm," and to include or omit "so help me God," as we choose...

Pretty simple, huh?

I think too many folks take some things a little too seriously and need to get a stronger grip on the throat of reality...

Just my opinion.

:samurai: :samurai:

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Kirk

To me, seperation of church and state means that taxpayer's
money doesn't go to support religious organizations, and that
the govt. won't dictate how religious organizations are run. But
the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are
we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid
religious persecution? I'm getting sick of people protecting the
rights of hate mongers to march in the middle of downtown of
some cities spewing off their crap, yet I'm offending them
by saying "under God"???? F YOU! If you don't like that part of
the pledge DON'T SAY IT! .. but stop infringing on MY rights to
believe!!!!!!!!!

The U.S. was not founded on religion. The constitution was specifically designed to make the nation not be founded on religion, for some in hopes of keeping the people from being disillusioned by established religion. Don't forget that most of the founding fathers were Deist -- believing there's something divine somewhere but we have no way of knowing it. That's a darn sight closer to being agnostic than to being Christian.

Fleeing your home to avoid religious persecution means fleeing established religion -- like when English said "England is an Anglican nation, so kick the non-Anglicans out!" or Holland said "Holland is a christian nation, so kick the non-christians out!"

Can't you see that schools pushing religion is establishment of religion -- a fine example of what the first settlers couldn't abide, and exactly what they would have called persecution? (Except, of course, for the Puritans, who fled persecution so they could find a place to persecute each other!)

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Yiliquan1 Seriously, though, when we do enlistment/reenlistment oaths, we are afforded the option of saying either "swear" or "affirm," and to include or omit "so help me God," as we choose...

Pretty simple, huh?

I think too many folks take some things a little too seriously and need to get a stronger grip on the throat of reality...
[/B]

Going back to the original wording of the pledge would serve the same purpose. I'm all for that.

For those of us, like myself, who believe in God, religion is about reality. :D

fist of fury

06-27-2002, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Scott Bonner

1) neither humanism nor atheism are religions. They do reflect an understanding of the divine, but that is not nearly enough to qualify as a religion, under any standard definition. Besides that, the court did not say that teachers should have students say "one nation, not under god". That would be pushing aetheism. In fact, the court is saying the schools should be neutral on the issue -- not push any specific belief on others.

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs. Creationism takes the exact opposite tack -- it assumes the construct of the unmeasurable, unprovable divine force (usually, one divine force, Jehovah; no room for, say, Hindu creation stories). This flies in the face of everything empirical science is based on. Science makes no comment on the existence of God, because it can neither prove God or disprove God. Science must not assume anything without evidence. Creationism should be in schools -- in theology, sociology, and history classes, as an idea that influences human behavior.

3) the decision was made to keep Big Brother from telling us how to think, what to believe. Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing. Schools should neither encourage nor discourage religion, meaning that students can pray, wear T-shirts, carry Bibles, whatever they want, but they can't expect to have teachers and principals make the other kids do it too. Encouraging all the kids to say "under god" (forcing, once you consider peer pressure) is forcing religion into their lives, potentially overriding what their parents are trying to do to teach their children about the divine. That's Big Brother, baby.

I agree that forcing religion in schools is big brother and shouldn't be done. As far as my opinion on creation and evolution I never claimed to be a scientist at all just my opinion. My only question since science bases theories on provable facts then why does science claim that we evolved from apes as fact? I'm not trying to be a jerk just curious as I said I'm no scientist, but I've never accepted the evolution theory as fact. In a way it discouraged me from delving deeper into science, when I was younger science was one of my favorite subjects nd still is to some extent. I don't being like told what to think and beileve and to me thats what they do with evolution. I don't have a probelm with someone accepting either idea just don't try and force it down my throat.
To me chrisitanity and religion are 2 different entities and neither should be pushed or endorsed by the goverment before we have the same problem as in england etc.. The problem with most people today is the herd mentality everybody follows and nobody likes to think for themselves.

Kirk

06-27-2002, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Scott Bonner

2) if you knew anything about empirical science, you would know that creationism is not on equal footing with evolution. In science, we try to make theories based solely on empirical, objective, measurable evidence -- to find the theory that best explains the current evidence without relying on non-empirical constructs.

PLEASE! Empirical science doesn't exist anymore! Scientists
make theories based on the almighty dollar! Measurable evidence
these days is TAINTED evidence to get around govt. beaurocracy
to get PAID. Either that or creating fear among the public in order
to get the public to contribute to their research.

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
Religion in school is Big Brother brainwashing.

That's one HELL of a stretch brother-man! And saying "under
God" is NOT religion in schools! :mad: It is IMPOSSIBLE for
anyone to allow someone existance in society and restrict them
from hear the WORD "God". That's all this is .. NO ONE is
forcing them to say it! But the court is forcing it to NOT be said!

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
The U.S. was not founded on religion. The constitution was specifically designed to make the nation not be founded on religion, for some in hopes of keeping the people from being disillusioned by established religion

Okay, wrong choice of words on my part, so I'll rephrase. The
only reason this country exists at all, is because of religion.
The reason "the white man" set foot on this soil is because of
religion. Spain's whole purpose for sending Spanaird citizens
here, were to "convert the heathen Indians" to catholicism,
(e.g. get more people to put money in the collection plate).
You can't deny that religion is our history. This doesn't mean
that prayers in school should be mandatory, it shouldn't. But
to be forbidden from uttering the mere name "God", given the
history of our nation is RIDICULOUS! To deny religion and God
as a STRONG part of this nations roots? Why? What belief is it
of yours that you want everyone else to believe?

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by fist of fury

My only question since science bases theories on provable facts then why does science claim that we evolved from apes as fact?

It doesn't. Evolution is a theory. It just happens to have so much evidence to support it that it is sometimes treated like fact by some teachers. It is actively questioned all the time by the researchers themselves, as any good theory should.

Evolutionary theory postulates that people and the other primates have a common ancestor -- not that we evolved from apes, but rather that apes and people both evolved from something else. It postulates this because it's the most logical explanation of the evidence. Also, genetic testing shows that the other higher primates are much more closely related to people than any other kind of animal.

I'm not trying to be a jerk just curious as I said I'm no scientist, but I've never accepted the evolution theory as fact. In a way it discouraged me from delving deeper into science when I was younger science was one of my favorite subjects nd still is to some extent. I don't being told what to think and beileve and to me thats what they do with evolution. I don't have a probelm with someone accepting either idea just don't try and force it down my throat.

If you'd have pursued science then in grad school you would have had people pushing you to challenge those theories. Well, actually, grad school politics can fuddle all that up, but generally, grad students and researchers are supposed to question and challenge the theories in hopes of making a better one. Nothing in science is considered to be absolutely true -- empiricism includes the idea that nothing is proven, only statistically supported to a point of near certainty, unless or until the evidence suggests a better theory.

To me chrisitanity and religion are 2 different entities and neither should be pushed or endorsed by the goverment before we have the same problem as in england etc.. The problem with most people today is the herd mentality everybody follows and nobody likes to think for themselves.

Indeed! Like Socrates said: "Question Everything!"

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 12:39 PM

PLEASE! Empirical science doesn't exist anymore! Scientists
make theories based on the almighty dollar! Measurable evidence
these days is TAINTED evidence to get around govt. beaurocracy
to get PAID. Either that or creating fear among the public in order
to get the public to contribute to their research.

<rolls eyes> Don't believe everything you see on the evening news. Good science still happens. Besides, it sounds more like you are describing churches than science.

That's one HELL of a stretch brother-man! And saying "under
God" is NOT religion in schools! It is IMPOSSIBLE for
anyone to allow someone existance in society and restrict them
from hear the WORD "God". That's all this is .. NO ONE is
forcing them to say it! But the court is forcing it to NOT be said!

Kids can hear the word "God". No one is challenging that. Kids can pray, out loud, prosteletyze, and everything else, as long as it doesn't interfere with school. Kids have freedom to practice religion in schools. This decision is about _groups_ , let by _teachers_, endorsing belief in god, the monotheist's god to be specific. I spent a lot of time in high school carrying my bible, praying, and discussing religion, with no flak, ever. Why? Because I was free to do so. Those rules have not changed one iota. We've just changed the rules for _school sponsored_ and _school endorsed_ religious activity, not independent religious activity.

Okay, wrong choice of words on my part, so I'll rephrase. The only reason this country exists at all, is because of religion.
The reason "the white man" set foot on this soil is because of
religion. Spain's whole purpose for sending Spanaird citizens
here, were to "convert the heathen Indians" to catholicism,
(e.g. get more people to put money in the collection plate).
You can't deny that religion is our history. This doesn't mean
that prayers in school should be mandatory, it shouldn't. But
to be forbidden from uttering the mere name "God", given the
history of our nation is RIDICULOUS! To deny religion and God
as a STRONG part of this nations roots? Why? What belief is it
of yours that you want everyone else to believe? [/B]

White man has been very bad. You are making a case against religion by citing a lot of bad things done in the name of religion. Religion is strongly in our history, but the founding fathers were wise enough to do everything they could to keep it out of our government -- to have all the benifits of religion without the pain, and to protect the minority from the majority.

No one is denying the role of religion in our history. I just know that our country is not founded on religion. I would argue that it was founded on freedom of religion, including freedom from other people's religion being forced onto you by the state. And there we come to an impasse.

What belief of mine do I want everyone to believe in? As little as possible. I believe we all should question everything. I wish we all believed sentient human lives are intrinsically valuable (but then we'd have to pay for welfare, woudn't we?) I wish we were all more honest, with ourselves and with others. That about covers my ideas of what we should all believe in. The rest is just my personal conviction.

Bob Hubbard

06-27-2002, 01:27 PM

Realize that in many states it -IS- law that the pledge is recited every day in school. Failure to do so on the part of a student can lead to nasty repercusions.

It is perfectly ok to wear a cross to school. Wearing an Ankh, or a Penticle on the otherhand....

http://www.witchvox.com/xwrensnest.html usually has alot of interesting info on the latest persecutions.

Back to the main topic, the "under God" part was not in there originally, and does violate the issue. If you are going to mandate a loyalty oath, remove the religious hook, and we should be ok. If you wish to add "under God" or "under Goddess" or "under Allah" then please feel free to do so.

Just dont make me legally obligated to do so.

Kirk

06-27-2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
White man has been very bad. You are making a case against religion by citing a lot of bad things done in the name of religion.

I don't deny history. In addition to all the terrible things "white
man" has done, and religion has done, the facts are the facts.
I'm not a religious man, but I consider myself to be a spiritual
man. There's been plenty of sins against humanity by all races.
But there seems to be a big trend to rewrite history. Canabalism
was pretty rampant among many (not all) Native American tribes,
a few hundred years ago. Try finding that in a history book in
public school. But I digress.

Originally posted by Scott Bonner
Religion is strongly in our history, but the founding fathers were wise enough to do everything they could to keep it out of our government -- to have all the benifits of religion without the pain, and to protect the minority from the majority.

The supreme court has always started their sessions with "God
watch over this court". All court testimonies have always said,
"so help me God". The ten commands have been hung up in
the supreme court for generations. Sorry Scott, but I don't see
it that way.

Dronak

06-27-2002, 02:56 PM

I really don't like to get involved in discussions like this. I just wanted to ask if anyone had heard Red Skelton's commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance. Do a web search and you'll find sites with copies of it. I think he was relating something one of his past teachers had told his class and it's a nice reminder about the meaning of the pledge. The meaning is something people can forget when reciting the pledge becomes rote, hence the little reminder by the teacher. What I think is most relevant here is the ending, which I believe is Skelton's own observation: "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?"

Scott Bonner

06-27-2002, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Kirk
The supreme court has always started their sessions with "God
watch over this court". All court testimonies have always said,
"so help me God". The ten commands have been hung up in
the supreme court for generations. Sorry Scott, but I don't see
it that way. [/B]

Well, ya know, the founding fathers may have been that wise, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are! ;) Seriously, most states have alternate testimonial oaths. Even in knee-jerk-conservative Indiana, they've change the oath. As for the supreme court opening with "God watch over this court" and money saying "In God We Trust", I can only say that those wrongs don't make the currently debated wrong a right!

I'll bet you that all those things were put into place during times when we were either under the red scare or there was a strong movement trying to (erroneously, IMO) connect religiosity with patriotism -- such as during the rise of the "fundamentalist" poitical/religious movement in the 20's and 30's -- spreading the lie that people who are unreligious must also somehow be unpatriotic, or that the religious are by necessity patriotic. I'm sure you'll agree that that is a spurious connection. And now we don't get rid of those things, even though they are at odds with how we interpret the constitution, because 1) no one is in a position to challenge them strongly enough and 2) it causes those who want the govt to help them prosteletyze to throw a fit.

Obviously, the court is not invested in forcing religion into government in more substantive areas. If they were, they wouldn't have protected the seperation of church and state as much as they have.

Sandor

06-27-2002, 06:38 PM

Lawyers and their clients are F#$%#!% up this country.

We have people who have so much time and money on their hands that they initiate litigation for stupid things like this. It blows my mind that the courts would even let this get this far. This will go down in history as the culmination of Eisenhower, Nixon and Carter's biggest mistakes. This will most likely be overturned on appeal... Thank you to our system of checks and balances.

I'm gonna rant on this for a bit anyways so hold on to your hats...

Isn't it ok to leave some of these things alone and look at them from their historical perspective? This country was founded by people seeking religious freedom(and freedom from religion), the right to speak about anything, anywhere, anytime, with anyone and not to be persecuted for it.

Now we have a few percent of our populous effectively bullying around the vast majority through the 'pc' agenda and they are succeeding. What's next on the agenda and how far you think it will go? Where will the censors wand fall next? Shall we remove red, whit or blue from the flag because some don't like the inference there?

I just don't see how we are going to move along and get along in the future when this is the way things are being done. Maybe we should start an expatriation act where we offer to send off people to other places who cannot demonstrate an intellectual capacity to 'get over it' when not everything is to their liking all of the time. Make it a box on peoples income tax forms 'would ya like to contribute $1 to a fund to get rid of people who find it unbearable to live in a place the offers them so many freedoms that they can't deal with the fact that other people have the same freedoms and those may conflict with their views?'

It called a democracy for a reason; we setup rules where we can all agree or disagree and contest issues but in the end a majority of the populace, through a series of filters, elections and the like, has a say in how things are done.

I wonder how many people really are offended by the pledge of allegiance compared to how many are not. I don't personally like folks jamming religion down my throat but at least I can say it doesn't bother me in the least that somethings are the way they are because that is where we as a nation came from as a cultural identity. Saying the pledge doesn't imply that everyone should run down to thier local place of worship and buy books, worship anything or say that Uncle Sam will buy you a bible. It merely pays a little homage to some of the contributing factors that make up our civilization from it's point of origin.

Anyways, I'll go back outside and scream about the skyfalling for a bit...land of the free indeed.

I.A.A.M.O.A.C.,
Sandor

Scott Bonner

06-28-2002, 11:14 AM

My a$$. This is not about freedom of speech. You can scream about God from the rooftops. Kids can pray and preach in public schools if they like (as long as it doesn't interfere with school work). All of this is a-ok.

You are suggesting that the govt guarantees the govt's freedom of speech. Nope. Freedom of Speech applies to individuals and organizations. No govt can guarantee it's own freedoms. Such is the nature of guarantees.

This is about the Govt not pushing religion , no more, no less. Students can gather together in between classes and say the Pledge, with the two magic words, all they want. What can't happen is the govt (in the form of schools) pushing religious crap by getting the students together to say the Pledge with the two magic words. Seperation of church and state is pretty important stuff.

If these two little words are no big deal, then let it go! They still exist for anyone who wants to say them, but the govt can't push 'em.

This isn't an example of a few pushing around the many with a PC agenda. It's about stopping just that! "PC" is such a load of *****. Anytime anyone doesn't like someone else's position, they degrade it by labeling it "PC" or "not PC". What the hell ever.

This is about opposing the way some (religious folk) have used the govt to push their agenda for years. Wouldn't be a problem, except that we have a little thing called the Constitution, which has this stuff in it about freedom of religion, which is interpreted by our official interpreters (supreme court) as requiring seperation of church and state.

This is a conflict between "religious heritage" influencing govt (official school activity) and the constitution influencing govt. I stand with the constitution. We don't have a theocracy, thank God! (And to say that America's religious heritage is Christian is to ignore a lot of religious history! Non-christians live here, too, and always have.)

The weakest argument I've ever heard is the "love it or leave it" crap. Especially since you claim in the same post to support freedom of speech. I am just as good an American as you, even if I do appreciate the Constitution more than "religious heritage". We all have the right -- nay, the duty! -- to oppose govt actions we think are wrong. Like pushing religion! It's part of what makes America great. If you don't like us having that duty...fight it. Oh, I felt the urge to say, "if you don't like it, live somewhere else" but half a second of thought solves that simple-minded knee-jerk reaction.

"Love it or leave it" is a rallying cry of the weak-minded.

Anyone who tells you to accept things just because they have always been done, to stop asking questions, to stop challenging things, wants you to be a sheep instead of a citizen.

Ragnar

06-28-2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Kirk

But the fact of the matter is, the U.S. was founded on religion. Are we not taught that the first settlers here left their homes to avoid religious persecution

Actually, I don't believe that this is historically accurate. In fact, proponents with vested religious interests have over time rewritten, emphasized and de-emphasized the historical record in various ways to highlight the story of the Mayflower and the Pilgrims.

My understanding is that the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620 fleeing religious persecution (only incidentally to practice their own form of religious persecution against those that deviated from their edicts). However, what is not really taught or at least emphasized anymore is that the Pilgrims were not actually the true founders of America in any relevant sense.

In 1607, a full 13 years before the Pilgrims came to America, Jamestown was founded by Captain John Smith. Jamestown was a business venture financed by the Virginia Company. Fittingly, and as against the historical revisitionists, America was actually founded not on religion, or even on religious freedom, but on capitalism! Of course, this rattles both the Right (since Jamestown is "materialistic" and not religious) and the Left (since Jamestown is capitalistic in motive and nature) in this country, which is a major reason why it is not correctly attributed as the event that marks the actual founding of our country.

Ragnar

Bob Hubbard

06-28-2002, 01:12 PM

I was offended by it 15 years ago. I never understood the point of a mandatory loyalty oath sworn by someone elses diety when I supposedly lived in a free society. Despite the numerous in-school suspensions I stuck to my beliefs. I sat it out, and read while the sheep did their thing. Sheep? Yes, sheep. They did it because they were told to. Never understanding nor questioning why. If you don't understand, why do you do it? Do the same kata for 20 years and you have a fancy dance. Understand that kata and you have an art. Its similar.

Why should we pledge alegence to a piece of fabric? Why should we swear by something we dont believe in?

What does that fabric represent? What does it mean? Why is it important? Oh wait, these are questions. Those are bad today, and then. Just do what we say.

Why is it if I show up at an even wearing a cross I'm ok, but if I show up wearing a penticle I'm suddenly shunned?

This country was founded on the ideal of freedom. Its too bad that every year we throw away more and more of that to 'protect it'. Wonder how long it will be before its made manditory, complete with the salute?

Its an even bigger shame that so many have died to protect that which we now take for granted and freely surrender. They didn't die for 'under god'. They died for us to argue this point, and many more. To believe or not believe.

Congress may pass a law making the statement permanent, and manditory pledging every day...but I will never say it. In theory, as an American I have the right not to say it. Be a shame if I lose that freedom too.

Respect of the other, the different. That is something else we seem to lose. Some of my best friends are BAC. I'm not. If I eat at their home and they say grace, I'll shut up, and bow my head too. Its respect. I don't believe as they do, but I'll respect their custom/belief. When they visit me, they know its just fill your plate and eat. If they bow their heads before the food starts flying, I'm considerate enough to turn the music down, or TV off for them. So you ask, whats the point? Point is this: If you wish to say 'under god' or 'under goddess' or 'under the rainbow' or just say nothing at all, thats your choice, and I will respect it and fight for it and even die for it.

Just don't make me say your lines for you. Thats unAmerican.:asian:

Sandor

06-28-2002, 02:16 PM

Scott Bonner, I am not going to get into labeling you or anyone else involved in the discussion for that matter as 'weak minded' or 'simple minded' as you have. It is disrespectful and makes some uninformed presumptions about me that I have not made of you. It should be reasonable that we could argue this as adults without resorting to namecalling. So, if I address you with respect, I would expect the same courtesy of you.

My point is that the guy who pushed this has an agenda. A little background on him may help;

First of all, he tried this same suit in here in Florida two years ago. Broward county threw it out as frivelous. He moved to California specifically to get this on the docket of the superior court over there knowing they would hear his case. The premise of his complaint is that his daughter is supoosedly being oppressed for having to say 'under God' in the pledge. In California (as in many states) there is no requirement for a child to even say the pledge btw. His stated ultimate goal is to strike God from public places and Gov. documents like money and oaths etc. The thing is, on Fox last night, he totally floundered and admitted a) the suit was on his behalf not his daughters and b)his daughter like the pledge the way it is and actually says it in school every morning c)he has other plans that are similar in nature.

He initially used his daughter as an excuse for his own agenda and was really smug about it. That is sick, use the child as the excuse for pushing a socio-political agenda on the rest of the country when the child says she does the pledge and likes it.

You can choose to say the pledge, not to say the pledge or say it however you want. Be mindful of being respectful to others beliefs and govern yourself accordingly. I don't think that it merits changing the pledge because a very small group of people don't like 'under God' in the pledge or 'in God we trust' on the monies of our country. If we start applying that logic to everything where will it end?

Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=idolatry) and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

As for the love it or leave remark; many people have relocated because they did not like what was going on around them. Chances are that your progenitors (unless you are 100% native American) came here for that same line of thought. I know mine did.

Peace,
Sandor

Bob Hubbard

06-28-2002, 02:41 PM

Sandor:
Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

Good question.

My answer:
No.

If someone is offended by -ANY- part of it, they should be allowed to omit/edit it slightly to confirm with their own beliefs.

If the 'under god' part offends because you do not believe in god, worship a different god(goddess), worship differently, you should be allowed to either substitute the right term for your 'devine' or omit the phrase entirely.

If the 'to the flag of' phrase offends, omit it.

Reworked pledge may go as follows:

"I pledge allegence to (the flag of) the United States of America and to that for which it stands. One nation, (under diety), indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All."

We have now striped the religions issues (most of em) out of it, and reduced it to a patriotic loyalty oath. The () parts are optional and personal. Rather than being a canned bit, you add some personal meaning to it. IMHO.

:asian:

Scott Bonner

06-28-2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by Sandor

[B]Scott Bonner, I am not going to get into labeling you or anyone else involved in the discussion for that matter as 'weak minded' or 'simple minded' as you have. It is disrespectful and makes some uninformed presumptions about me that I have not made of you. It should be reasonable that we could argue this as adults without resorting to namecalling. So, if I address you with respect, I would expect the same courtesy of you.

I said "Love it or leave it" is a rallying cry of the weak-minded. Isn't it? It is an emotional, knee-jerk response, not at all a resoned response. A moment of thought brings multiple counters to mind.

I don't believe you are weak-minded, but that phrase sure is. "Simple-minded" referred to my own urges to spout out "Love it or leave it". Saying those things is a behavior. I am not assuming anything about you when I talk about behavior. I've met you in real life and you seemed like a great guy.

Actually, the only line in there that I think was personal was "Especially since you claim in the same post to support freedom of speech..." since it referred back to your post directly. At that point I was making an assumption about you -- that you were being a hypocrite for talking saying 'love it or leave it' and praising free speech in the same breath. For that I apologize. I can see how you would not have connected them.

My point is that the guy who pushed this has an agenda. A little background on him may help;...

His agenda is only peripherally relevant, I think. He's openly admitted that he sought out some means to challenge what he thought was an example of state-sponsored religious activity. I do't think this is a surprise to anyone, or that it affects the court's decision. The court ruled on the merits of the case, not the motivation of the complaintant.

Did the complaintant specifically lie at some point? I can't tell from what I've heard so far. I wish I could have seen that interview.

He initially used his daughter as an excuse for his own agenda and was really smug about it. That is sick, use the child as the excuse for pushing a socio-political agenda on the rest of the country when the child says she does the pledge and likes it.

You act like he abused her. Probably she just went to school with not a word said while he did everything else without her getting involved. Besides that, how on earth can you legally address constitutional violations in school without a student's name on the complaint? I'm not saying I'd do it like he did it. I'm just saying I can't think of any other way to address the issue.

If we start applying that logic to everything where will it end?

Hopefully, with religion remaining in the private sphere and the govt remaining neutral on the subject.

Here's a hypotheical;
What if tomorrow a christian sues/wins/superior court of California agrees/etc. because 'I pledge allegiance to the flag' promotes idolatry (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=idolatry) and the bible says that is bad, the christian says they are offended at both the pledge and the flag, and the case law from this supports them? Do we strike that form the pledge and remove the flag?

At most this person would have an argument for why they should not be compelled to say the Pledge. You see, the constitution (and Supreme Court) says nothing about idolotry. It does say something about the establishment of religion. No one is protected from hearing that which they find offensive. No one should be. What this decision does is keep the govt (schools) from pushing God. It says nothing about whether or not offensive things can be said by govt or otherwise.

It's not a freedom of speech issue. Get a loudspeaker and cry the Pledge through the streets. It's all good. Tell your kid to say the pledge between classes. It's all good there, too. Just don't tell your school to tell your kid to say the Pledge, because that is not the govt's role.

As for the love it or leave remark; many people have relocated because they did not like what was going on around them. Chances are that your progenitors (unless you are 100% native American) came here for that same line of thought. I know mine did.

I missed your point, here. Probably, you are correct, for those ancestors of mine that weren't native american. Are you just again trying to tell me I should leave instead of trying to fix things here?

Listen: You ranted, which is a-ok and downright encouraged. I got angry at the "love it or leave it" message and it's none-too-subtle insinuation that I am not a good American if I take the opposing viewpoint, or that it's better if I leave than if I support change. I ranted. You got angry -- again just fine -- at my insinuation that your pov reflects weak-mindedness (I didn't mean it personally, but clearly a viable interpretation). Then I...

You get the idea. None of this needs to be personal, but it's darn hard to not take it that way. I don't want to be on your bad side. I don't want to be on anyone's bad side. Can we agree to keep this non-personal?

Kirk

06-28-2002, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Scott Bonner

What this decision does is keep the govt (schools) from pushing God.

In the name of all that's holy ... SAYING THOSE TWO WORDS IS
NOT "PUSHING" SQUAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: If you don't wanna
say them, then for the love of GOD just
don't say it! No one is saying "Umm .. Suzie, if you won't say
"under God" when the entire class is saying the pledge, then
I'm going to have to put you in detention. And no kid is in the
school yard threatening to beat her up unless she says it! Get
Real!!!!!!!! Just .... Don't ... Say It!

arnisador

06-28-2002, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Kirk

And no kid is in the
school yard threatening to beat her up unless she says it! Get
Real!!!!!!!!

Eh...this has not been my experience. You might be surprised.

Even if one is allowed to not say the pledge, I consider the "under God" coercive and inappropriate.

Bob Hubbard

06-28-2002, 06:27 PM

Kids today are under incredible amounts of presure to 'conform'. That is just part of it. You may not have heard about it, but I've seen at least a dozen reports in the last decade of various levels of abuse on this issue.

Keep in mind, I've also seen an equal amount of intollerance thrown ar christians trying to follow their faith.

Some of my best friends are christians...we have some 'interesting' discussions. :D

Kirk

06-29-2002, 01:44 AM

interesting ... where I grew up, being rebelious and not saying
the pledge, would make one "cool"

ace

09-29-2002, 02:24 PM

the pledge if U live in the
states & love it's FREEDOM
Then the Pledge
is a small price to pay
:soapbox:
Primo

Nightingale

09-29-2002, 10:20 PM

For the record,

THE PILGRIMS DID NOT COME TO THE NEW WORLD BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!! THEY CAME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO BE DUTCH!

The pilgrims fled ENGLAND because of religious persecution. They went to HOLLAND, where they were welcomed and nobody cared what they believed. They were not persecuted there.

They left Holland because they wanted their children to grow up in the English culture rather than the Dutch. They felt their children were losing their roots, so they came to the new world to set up town the way they felt it ought to be done.

ace

09-29-2002, 10:27 PM

My Father's parents came from Puerto Rico
My Mothers Father came from Germany
And Her mother was Native American & Irish

I was raised love this country
And i do so i staned behined the pledge
1 Nation under GOD:
argue:
Primo

Kirk

09-29-2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by nightingale8472

For the record,

THE PILGRIMS DID NOT COME TO THE NEW WORLD BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!! THEY CAME BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT THEIR CHILDREN TO BE DUTCH!

The pilgrims fled ENGLAND because of religious persecution. They went to HOLLAND, where they were welcomed and nobody cared what they believed. They were not persecuted there.

They left Holland because they wanted their children to grow up in the English culture rather than the Dutch. They felt their children were losing their roots, so they came to the new world to set up town the way they felt it ought to be done.

LOL, I totally believe, and not because of who you are and what
you do, hobby or otherwise. It's humorous to me about how
much detail of the puritans we're told as we grow up. The most
shocking and funny was how they originally left to avoid
persecution, and then when they got here, started persecuting!

Rich Parsons

09-30-2002, 01:34 AM

:soapbox:

To all with the sound of my voice listen, Hear Ye Hear Ye!

I am an Agnostic Zen Christian, My Path is for me and I do not expect anyone else to follow or care about my path.

I am a FIRM Believer in the U.S. Constitution. If the public or our elected officials deem it to be necessary to change this document we have the right and privilege to due so.

Article VI.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States
and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
Trust under the United States.
(* Taken from website: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html *)

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

The following being what everyone calls the First Amendment:
Article [I.] (See Note 13)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note 13: Only the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th articles of amendment had numbers assigned to them at the time of ratification.

(* Taken from Website: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html *)

This directly prohibits the U.S. Congress and lessor elected officials from passing any law that requires any affiliation to or for a religion, and or prohibits the practice of another religion.

Now for some further discussion:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

This website states that Christianity ( 33% or 2.015 Billion of the population ) is dropping and the Islam (20% or 1.215 Billion) is growing. So, let us assume that a majority of the population gets a referendum out to all the states to get another amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to all for Christianity as the State Religion. The first problem is that the Catholics will not like a generic Christianity, and will lobby for Catholicism on the Bill also. I am sure that the rest of the factions within Christianity will not let that one lie alone. So, let us assume that this process gets this far, and then along comes an addition to add in Islam. Now, with the split of the Christians, the largest single unity in the world and using direct proportions, for the USA also, would then fall to the faith of Islam.

Becareful what you ask for, you might actually get a state approved religion that might not be the one you want.

I am Not trying to change anyone's idea on their religion. That is their choice, but please allow the laws to be the laws and to follow the due process to amend or change those laws.

Best Wishes

Rich

PS: All of the Money in the U.S.A. "In God We Trust" is also unconstitutional.

:asian:

Bod

09-30-2002, 09:00 AM

Why all this bother? You can leave 'under God' in, just change the 'One nation' bit.

Constitutional or not, the pledge is simply inaccurate. Let's say that 75% of Americans believe in the same God? That's a guess by the way, for the sake of this particular argument.

Then, 'One nation under God' becomes 'Three quarters of a nation under God', the pledge becomes accurate, and everybody's happy (well I am).

Kirk

09-30-2002, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

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

My interpretation of that is organized religion,
not religion itself. And there's plenty prohibition of it, as in this
case. The guy not only wants his daughter to not say "Under God",
he wants the entire nation to not say it.

Nightingale

09-30-2002, 11:33 AM

First off, MOST CHILDREN ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SAYING THE PLEDGE. Teachers do not inform their students of this, and they are not required to do so.

The problem with leaving the pledge as it stands is that it adds credence to the theory that some form of higher power exists.

It adds credence to it, because words coming from a teacher or administrator in school carry more weight than that of the average citizen. In a religious or private school, that is acceptable, because by their nature, private schools are not state sponsored or funded, and parents get what they pay for.

It is unconstitutional for a public, state funded entity to support, give credence to, or otherwise seem to favor any form of religion. The words "under god" in the pledge violate this, are therefore unconstitutional, leading me to the conclusion that the pledge should be reverted to its original form.

I'm not an athiest, but I don't believe in shoving my religion down other people's throats, and I don't appreciate it when others try to do that to me. I'm all for open dialogue, but children are not old enough to partake in such a debate. When I have children, I want to be the one to teach them about the existance of God; I want them to be able to look at the situation with an open mind and eventually, come to their own conclusions about religion. I don't want a school putting the existance of God on the same level as factual mathematics (which is exactly what the words "under god" do when they are said in a school setting). Religion is theory. Math is fact. Teaching ABOUT religion is fine. Teaching religion itself is NOT.

As a sidenote...

When I was teaching, most of my eighth graders did not know the meaning of the word "allegiance" or the word "republic" What's the point of asking our children to pledge their loyalty to their country when they have no idea what they're saying!?

Rich Parsons

09-30-2002, 06:16 PM

Re: The U.S. Constitution
quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

By Kirk:
"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

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

Originally posted by Kirk

My interpretation of that is organized religion,
not religion itself. And there's plenty prohibition of it, as in this
case. The guy not only wants his daughter to not say "Under God",
he wants the entire nation to not say it.

Kirk,

First, thank you for the reply and your opinion. It is yours and it is also allowed to be expressed by the same laws and Constitution that you want to ignore now for your interpretation. Yet, if enough people believe like you then either it will be interpreted this way or it will be changed.

Second, As to the first quote of mine you replied too: How about we change the Pledge to say Allah? or better yet for my own ego have it say Rich Parsons. No I am not a god, but to some my comment and the allegiance are just as insulting.

As to the second quote: It does not say, that you cannot say it at home, nor in public, only that you are not required to say it as a student of a public school.

Now, before we get into a big argument, please understand I am discussing this with you and bring up points of logic and order, not just gut reaction and personal values. A quick discussion: One may have personal values or 'Family' Values. These Values many times are obtained through religion. This is good. These Values then influence what society believes to be ethical then they uses these ethics to determine law and precedent. So, if you argue Law then you need to understand precedence and ethics, not just gut reaction and personal values.

As stated above, you have your opinion and are entitled to it.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Rich

Rich Parsons

09-30-2002, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Bod

Why all this bother? You can leave 'under God' in, just change the 'One nation' bit.

Constitutional or not, the pledge is simply inaccurate. Let's say that 75% of Americans believe in the same God? That's a guess by the way, for the sake of this particular argument.

Then, 'One nation under God' becomes 'Three quarters of a nation under God', the pledge becomes accurate, and everybody's happy (well I am).

Bod,

Check the website I listed. 33% of the population of the world is Christianity not 75%. I do not think the USA is 33% but I do not think it is 75% either.

Just my Opinion from the data I have read.

Rich

Kirk

09-30-2002, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Re: The U.S. Constitution
quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

By Kirk:
"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

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

Kirk,

First, thank you for the reply and your opinion. It is yours and it is also allowed to be expressed by the same laws and Constitution that you want to ignore now for your interpretation. Yet, if enough people believe like you then either it will be interpreted this way or it will be changed.

Second, As to the first quote of mine you replied too: How about we change the Pledge to say Allah? or better yet for my own ego have it say Rich Parsons. No I am not a god, but to some my comment and the allegiance are just as insulting.

As to the second quote: It does not say, that you cannot say it at home, nor in public, only that you are not required to say it as a student of a public school.

Now, before we get into a big argument, please understand I am discussing this with you and bring up points of logic and order, not just gut reaction and personal values. A quick discussion: One may have personal values or 'Family' Values. These Values many times are obtained through religion. This is good. These Values then influence what society believes to be ethical then they uses these ethics to determine law and precedent. So, if you argue Law then you need to understand precedence and ethics, not just gut reaction and personal values.

As stated above, you have your opinion and are entitled to it.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Rich

I don't want to get into a big argument. I enjoy conversations
like this, so long as they don't become insulting. I have my
beliefs, and I stick to them until someone gives me damned good
reason to change them. BUT .. it has happened before. Debate
teams exist to challenge the mind, and IMO that's what this is,
in a way. So explain to me how my reply to your post was gut
reaction? Many ... MANY interpret the constitution in many
different ways ... and unless you're a constitutional scholar, you
can't say how you interpret things is fact, and how I interpret
them is "feeling".

All respects!
:asian:

Rich Parsons

09-30-2002, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Kirk

I don't want to get into a big argument. I enjoy conversations
like this, so long as they don't become insulting. I have my
beliefs, and I stick to them until someone gives me damned good
reason to change them. BUT .. it has happened before. Debate
teams exist to challenge the mind, and IMO that's what this is,
in a way. So explain to me how my reply to your post was gut
reaction? Many ... MANY interpret the constitution in many
different ways ... and unless you're a constitutional scholar, you
can't say how you interpret things is fact, and how I interpret
them is "feeling".

All respects!
:asian:

Kirk et al,

Well to be honest, I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but I do debate one regularly that teaches Political Science and History At Wayne State University. Does, this add more to my arguments, nope. Does your question still ring valid, as in why yours was a 'Gut' reaction versus 'my way'.

Well, first, as stated I believe in a form of Christianity, so I have no problem saying the pledge. Yet, I do understand, as pointed out before, that many of the founding fathers were truly Deist AKA Agnostics of the day. The papers written by many of them discussed this and other views of state and or religion. So, I do have some insight, but not the only insight.

As, to your view being Gut reaction, it was not meant as an insult. the same reaction could be both gut reaction and one of ethics. Take for example, Murder. 'Thou Shall NOT Kill', one of the BIG Ten. And society has determined that it is not ethical to kill people. Therefore the laws against murder. Including also the Manslaughter, where society has determined that actions that may have caused death unintentionally shall still be prosecuted.

So, I can not answer if your reaction / interpretation was a gut reaction or not. Only you can. Yet, the tone of the words, the arguments where people go well it is that way now leave it alone? The well who does it hurt??? And then ignore or care not about any answers given unless they agree with them. Note: I did not say you did not care. This is abstract. The Gut reaction has a tendency to 'Yell' louder the same thing over and over. Assuming people will get either tired or will learn what is right for them.

Yet, if they partake in a discussion/argument and can give points for their point of view, such as a debate team, on why they believe they are right and why society should have a belief or ethical view.

Can we agree that that our society in the USA was created around the US Constitution? Yes different points of view exist on what it says, but can we say that this is one of the major influences on how we designed state and local laws. On how we maintain our freedoms and also our responsibilities to our society? If yes, then we can say that, the US Constitution allows for change threw process. This also allows for balance of powers, where the Courts may deem something unlawful or Unconstitutional that a or The Congress has passed or endorsed.

If the answer is no we cannot agree to the above questions about the US Constitution then I have to ask, how do you part take as a member of this society? Not meant as a slur or insult, but very curious? For, if the US Constitution was not an influence then, what was??

So, as I point out references to world population of religions by percentages and I also quote the US Constitution and list the articles and not just the modern media interpretations. I have presented a side to an argument. When the other side to this argument only comes back with, 'but it has always been so'? or 'that is not HOW I INTERPRET IT?' These things are personal, and yet, maybe true to you based upon your own personal values. Yet, Why should society listen to what you have to say? Why should they have to learn you views? What are your points? All because you and a few others stand and yell really loud. Yes express your point of view, I am for that 110%, yet do not assume everyone believes exactly as you do. For, if you do then you will not understand why others are different from you.

As Kirk pointed out that the children may not say this, but also pointed out by another (Forgot the name sorry) Teachers are not required to advise the children that they have this option. So, let us reverse this argument again. Reverse logic many times find a problem with one side or another of an argument. Once again I ask is it ok to say One Nation Under Rich Parsons? Or One Nation under Buddha, Or One Nation Under Chairman Chow, or One Nation Under President Clinton/Bush? or One Nation Under (* Fill in the Blank with your worst fear *)?

Seriously, why is it an attack if you remove the word 'In God We Trust' From our money and remove 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? You are still allowed to believe in God and practice your religion your way. Yes others are not 'forced' or coerced into believing that must say it to be accepted.

So, Thank you for your replies and also for your continued discussion. I do truly wait to hear the other side of the argument, on how society is hurt by this? On how . . . ?

Thanks and best wishes and waiting for everyone's reply.

Rich
:asian:

Kirk

09-30-2002, 10:53 PM

Well that's quite a lengthy post, and no insult to you, but TOO
many questions asked in one post for me to enjoy discussing. I
don't want to write a discertation, and I'm sure there'll be
others that will. So let me pick one I can quickly reply to.

Seriously, why is it an attack if you remove the word 'In God We Trust' From our money and remove 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? You are still allowed to believe in God and practice your religion your way. Yes others are not 'forced' or coerced into believing that must say it to be accepted.

This IS gut reaction, or gut emotion I should say. I'm not firing off
the handle per se. I don't believe "In God We Trust" or "Under
God" is pushing religion. If you're a man wanting to make your
child believe in atheism, fine, but you can't change history, and
you can't let a child live their entire life without knowing that
many others believe in a supreme being, Rich Parsons, Alla, or
whomever (again, I believe you CAN say any of those things, or
not say them at all). I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that athiests and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemna. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about? I need
more than "Thomas Jefferson, although a Mason was a satanist".
:shrug: (not putting words in your mouth, I'm greatly
exagerating your claims to help further communicate my point).

Respects!

Nightingale

10-01-2002, 08:42 AM

oooohhhhh, my.... SOAPBOX ALERT :soapbox:

Originally posted by Kirk

I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

The problem is that children are simply not intellectually mature enough to make a decision like this. They'll either say it or not say it based on what their friends do, which accomplishes nothing, because it is simply action without meaning, just as the pledge, to many students who have never been taught about it, is simply words without meaning

Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that athiests and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

No. The message here is that the evolutional THEORY (not fact, idea) is taught because there is scientific evidence (and strong scientific evidence at that... trust me, I've been out in the field digging some of it up) that points to its accuracy. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs other than that it happens to coincidentally contradict something that a portion of the US happens to believe. The fact is that we have a fossil record. The fossil record is something that simply cannot be explained by Genesis.

The fossil record works this way... There are layers of rock in the ground. These layers represent different years. Over time, sediment gets deposited in some areas, and eroded in others. The topography of our Earth is consistantly changing. Often, the layers of silt and sediment are deposited in a river bend or slow moving stream of water, and as more and more sediment gets piled on top, they're compressed into rock (you can reproduce this action in your own kitchen if you've got a lot of time...) However.... sometimes, in these layers, animals get caught and buried in sediment. The pressure from all the material deposited on top helps to create a fossil. Older fossils are found on the bottom, more recent fossils are found on top.

Take for example, the horse...

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

This image details the fossil record of the horse. Note how the skulls start out small, and get larger and larger? All these skulls were found in the same general area, and the smaller ones were found in layers below (older than) the larger ones. The logical conclusion is that the bigger horses evolved from the little ones, because there is something similar between them all.

Scientific principle dictates that "Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed." Therefore, (other than the initial moment where the universe came into existance, which is an entirely different debate, so lets not go there in this argument) something cannot come from nothing. Recent horses had to come from somewhere, and frankly, with the current fossil record, I truly doubt that some supreme being pointed his finger and went "zap" here's a horse.

Genesis fails to explain the existance of the fossil record. If we were to take Genesis literally, there should still be dinosaurs walking the Earth.

Science teachers (at least, the good ones) teach that science doesn't profess anything as fact. SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE. SCIENCE CAN ONLY DISPROVE. The reason that evolution has stayed in the curriculum as a valid creation theory is that there is significant scientific evidence to back it up, and so far, none contradicting it. The reason that creation is NOT taught in science classes is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. Show me some, and I would be happy to evaluate it.

And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemna. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

It hurts a lot. It gives state sponsored support to the idea that "God" exists. I placed "God" in quotation marks, because the only religion that calls the supreme being by the name "God" is the christian one. Therein lies the bias. If you were saying "One Nation, Under Allah" I bet you'd have much more of an issue with it. However, that is exactly what you're asking children of other religions to do, because to people of other religions, God is the CHRISTIAN name for the powers that be. (Please, name me one other mainstream religion in the US that calls their deity God).

On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about?

Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE. Evolution is taught with the explanation that "This is the best explanation we have, and is the most plausible conclusion based on the physical evidence." Science doesn't teach "fact" History does (and usually not very accurately). Science presents evidence and asks that conclusions be drawn from the evidence. These theories are always being revised. They are THEORIES, and should not be taught as fact. If they are being taught as fact, you need to have a chat with that teacher, and the principal, because theories are ideas. Good theories, like Evolution, are extremely well supported ideas, which is why they belong in schools, but they need to be taught as what they are. Ideas, not "facts."

/soapbox

respectfully, :asian:
-N-

Kirk

10-01-2002, 09:46 AM

AAAAAHHH!! Too much! Too much! It'd take forever to reply to
all of that! The three of us need to hook up for a few hours and
drink large amounts of coffee and "choot the chit".

qizmoduis

10-01-2002, 10:46 AM

We all know about the First Amendment to our constitution. "Congress shall make now law...respecting the establishment of religion..." etc. The amendment expressly forbids the government of our country from passing any laws that require any form of worship or from passing laws restricting any form of worship. The 14th amendment extended the protections of the first and other amendments to all levels of government. Essentially, the government simply cannot tell anyone what, who, or how to worship or not. It can't promote deism, monotheism, animism, or atheism, or whatever other 'ism you might consider.

The blathering about the Pledge decision is all hot air. Simply put: the Congress, during the 50's didn't have the authority to pass THE LAW that added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge. The law that did this was unconstitutional. The congresscritters, in their infinite wisdom, chose to ignore this in their anti-communist zeal.

The court that made this decision did not say that the Pledge itself was unconstitutional, but that the Congress didn't have the authority to add religious phrasing to it. It has already been established that children cannot be required to participate in Pledge recitations by other courts.

Personally, what I find most appalling, is our leaders lack of knowledge of how our own government works.
:soapbox:

Rich Parsons

10-01-2002, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Kirk

AAAAAHHH!! Too much! Too much! It'd take forever to reply to
all of that! The three of us need to hook up for a few hours and
drink large amounts of coffee and "choot the chit".

Kirk and NightingGale, this is not enough. :) We need more people to dicsuss this issue to educate the masses and to see how others 'see' things.

Note: Coffe puts me to sleep, do not know why, but I'll drink Water or Root beer with you anytime.

Rich

Kirk

10-01-2002, 01:50 PM

This conversation is just more than I want to type, and it'd be
great to discuss with you and nightengale, verbally, over
whatever beverage suits you. So before I bow out, let me say
that although it's full of so much to discuss, it's a pleasure being
able to discuss it without flames, insults and what not popping up.
Respects!

Nightingale

10-01-2002, 01:55 PM

well, if any of ya are in southern cali... a coffee night sounds great.

Rich Parsons

10-01-2002, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]Well that's quite a lengthy post, and no insult to you, but TOO
many questions asked in one post for me to enjoy discussing. I
don't want to write a dissertation, and I'm sure there'll be
others that will. So let me pick one I can quickly reply to.

Kirk,

You did not do so bad yourself in length or in asking questions of your own. Good man! :)

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]
This IS gut reaction, or gut emotion I should say. I'm not firing off
the handle per se. I don't believe "In God We Trust" or "Under
God" is pushing religion. If you're a man wanting to make your
child believe in atheism, fine, but you can't change history, and
you can't let a child live their entire life without knowing that
many others believe in a supreme being, Rich Parsons, Allah, or
whomever (again, I believe you CAN say any of those things, or
not say them at all). I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

Opening a Can of Worms. Personally I do not think it is the any better for society to require teachers to be the soul source of a child's education. The parents and Family and Society itself should take responsibility for the education of children. Many people as you stated below, look to a religion in trying to help them raise and educate their child. This is good in my opinion. Yet, people have the privilege to choose which religion they wish to be a member of.

BTW Congratulations on the little Girl! :D :D :D I wish you and yours the best!

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]
Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that atheists and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

Let us ignore the Atheist for a moment.
Is your (Our) Christian God (Jaweh/Jehovah/I AM) any more important than any other? As I stated below, if this is pushed too far I could see Islam being the national religion, since none of the rest of the Christians can get together and act like good Christians to each other. Just my opinion and not a representation of all Christians, just the organized institutions.

As for the, evolution, NightingGale stated clearly form a science point of view. Yet, here is one to make you think:
Is it not possible that the Creator in [His/Her] infinite wisdom started out with a design and then from their made changes. Why start all over from the beginning. When A car designer goes to the drawing board to make a new car, does he redesign wheels? Nope they work keep them. So, just maybe the creator planned for the evolution and similarities. Those that wrote Genesis or other creation stories may not have had enough understanding? Just my questions to make everyone go HMMM?

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]
And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemma. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

Moral Dilemma is a problem yes. A balance, of where there is no support actual or perceived by the federal/state governments that allows the individuals to still pursue their happiness, either through Religion or other methods.

BTW: The fact that you care about your daughter and that you are willing to make sacrifices and do things for her, speaks highly of yourself and of the household she will grow up in. Once again I wish you and yours the best.

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]
On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about? I need
more than "Thomas Jefferson, although a Mason was a Satanist".
:shrug:

History is HIS Story - His being the victor, the ones who have won the battle or wrote down their story for others to read and believe. Science and the arts make break through daily. If you look and most of the Founding fathers, they would not fall into your modern conservative right for religious views. They were Deists. And to some this is Satanist. If you do not believe the way I do then you are wrong and need to be removed. This is why others attack others and destroy things and people in their beliefs. They have no concept they might be wrong.

Me personally I am wrong more times then not. Yet, Edison had hundreds of failed attempts at the light bulb before he succeeded. A Lincoln also lost every election he ran for except for the presidential election. Somedays you are right and others you are wrong.

Originally posted by Kirk

[B]
(not putting words in your mouth, I'm greatly
exaggerating your claims to help further communicate my point).

Respects!

Kirk,

Go ahead and put word into my mouth, it is not the first time not the last time it has or will be done. Many people do this to be mean, but you have done this as stated to make a point in a discussion or argument (look it up) that we have partaken here on this forum.

Respects to you Sir

To the rest of the readers,
Chime in, give us your point of view. Like I said I could be wrong, but I have given my argument and am willing to debate the pro's and con's of it.

Thank you all

Rich

:asian: