10-07-2002 04:32									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy quote: The beliefs of people are strengthened in adversity if they are sincere. I may retire in Thailand someday. I have no fear of hearing about Buddha night and day. that's your opinion, and Buddha isn't a god, God supposedly is.

That's a real pet peeve of mine, people assuming that Buddha is the Buddhist version of God.

	10-07-2002 05:10									#62
	Suffering from ads?

Of course you both missed the point which is, people can learn to get along with others who do not believe as they do without having to change the predominant culture.

	10-07-2002 05:26									#63
	Re: I'll probably make an as$ of myself, but. Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by DetroitDave I see no specific affirmation of a specific religion in the words "Under God", or acknowledgment that the US is a theocracy. This is a distinction our wise forefathers made.

The term "God" is a religious term. It's not a specific god, but it is a god. The problem atheists have with the term "God" is that it stands for any god, not just a specific one. I'm agnostic, so I don't have a big problem with the term, but I really don't think the phrase needs to be in there.

Our wise forefathers didn't see the need for a pledge of alliegance either.

quote: They knew that the government should never advocate or establish a specific religion, but also knew the new nation's basis was a common moral framework exemplified by a belief higher than the human condition, whether it be "God", a common purpose, or even a gaseous cloud for that matter- it's a fine distinction, but important.

If the term "God" is ambiguous and doesn't imply a religious context, then why not use a word which isn't offensive to anyone? Better yet, no word at all.

quote: Also, I personally don't see anything in those two words that individuals must "believe in God" to be a "patriot". That's reading an awful lot into two words.

I never said they had to. Just that it is implied.

quote: You mean like "liberty" and "justice" for all? There are a lot of civil right activists and native americans who might disagree with the two words "for all". Perhaps a more sanitized version of "for all" would be more sensitive to their concerns.

Again, it's a question most everyone (supporting 'under God' in the pledge) seems to dodge.

Just because one part of the pledge is offensive to one group doesn't make other parts of the pledge, which are offensive to other groups, justified. If anything it would support the overall notion that the pledge shouldn't be a part of the classroom.

If the official wording of the pledge was 'under Satan' (or under something you find offensive) would you want your children being in a classroom where that pledge was recited?

	10-07-2002 05:47									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln Of course you both missed the point which is, people can learn to get along with others who do not believe as they do without having to change the predominant culture.

I don't hear anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't get along with people of different culture (or religion).

Our public school system is supposed to be secular in nature. There is no predominant religion with regards to it, and the predominant culture's religion shouldn't apply either. Are you claiming that the pledge is an icon of the predominant religion in this country, and thus shouldn't be changed?

Also I am sure you can note the difference between yourself and a grade school aged child when it comes to religious conviction. You send a 5 year old to Thailand to be raised by Buddhists and they will most likely end up Buddhist themselves. The pledge isn't that persuasive of course, just pointing out why your analogy doesn't seem to fit very well.

	10-07-2002 06:26									#65
	Support Apolyton

Atheists have WAY to much free time on their hands, as poly often proves.

	10-07-2002 07:04									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Aeson I don't hear anyone in this thread saying we shouldn't get along with people of different culture (or religion). Our public school system is supposed to be secular in nature. There is no predominant religion with regards to it, and the predominant culture's religion shouldn't apply either. Are you claiming that the pledge is an icon of the predominant religion in this country, and thus shouldn't be changed? Also I am sure you can note the difference between yourself and a grade school aged child when it comes to religious conviction. You send a 5 year old to Thailand to be raised by Buddhists and they will most likely end up Buddhist themselves. The pledge isn't that persuasive of course, just pointing out why your analogy doesn't seem to fit very well.

Part of getting along with other cultures or religions (or the lack of a religion) is to respect the history and traditions of a nation even though we may disagree with the purpose behind them. For example there are ceremonies in European nations that make a big deal about religions that much of the population no longer subscribes to. I say to that, so what? What does it hurt to have to hear that? If I visited or lived in China I would not try and change their culture or traditions even though I despise much of their communist system.

My beliefs are firm because they have been tested and opposed -- not kept on a shelf and shielded from opposition. My children can make up their own minds about religion. I would hope that my influence would have some impact on their decision but it is not my choice to make. If they go to a school that forces them to esteem Mao or Lenin then I would do my best to deprogram them when they got home.

I do not understand the attempt by fanatical atheists to overthrow the culture of the United States that is rooted in Christianity or at least in the belief of a generic God. Are their beliefs so fragile that they cannot be maintained if their kids have to hear the words "under God"? Something smells fishy to me.

I do not repeat the pledge at all, with or without the words 'under God' and I don't care if kids say the pledge or not. My point is, what is the big deal with atheists that they cannot tolerate a culture that does not subscribe to their particular doctrines and belief system? It seems that they are trying to force their beliefs on a people while they accuse their opponants of doing the same. There really is another life out there.

	10-07-2002 08:33									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: For example there are ceremonies in European nations that make a big deal about religions that much of the population no longer subscribes to. I say to that, so what?

I don't care either, but if it's in the classroom it's out of place. Children are sent to school to learn secular knowlege. In some cases (history being one) that would include information about religious events. There is a purpose served by that knowlege. There is no purpose served by the reference to God in the pledge.

I would also remind you that this is not a very longstanding tradition, and one the country did well enough without before it was implemented. We aren't dealing with something that has shaped our society.

quote: I do not understand the attempt by fanatical atheists to overthrow the culture of the United States that is rooted in Christianity or at least in the belief of a generic God. Are their beliefs so fragile that they cannot be maintained if their kids have to hear the words "under God"? Something smells fishy to me.

You keep broadening 'religious references in school' to 'culture'. American culture can be whatever the people want it to be, that's not what this is all about. Public schools should be secular. There is no need for pledges or oaths dealing with God during classroom time.

I would be saying the same thing you are if dealing with atheists trying to remove the notion of God from American culture. That isn't what this is about though.

People have the right to believe the way they choose. People also have the right to send their children to a publicly funded school which will not try to indoctrinate them with religious ideas or references. These are impressionable minds, dealing with peer pressure enough as it is. We already have classrooms divided over this issue, some children choose not to say the pledge and thus stand out as different. It's just added pressure put on children to conform in a way which serves no purpose.

quote: I do not repeat the pledge at all, with or without the words 'under God' and I don't care if kids say the pledge or not.

Now, if it means so little to you, why defend it? It is offensive to some people, it serves no necessary purpose, why keep it? Tradition just for the sake of tradition makes no sense. In this case, it would only be taken out of the classroom. People are free to say the pledge whenever they want on their own time.

quote: It seems that they are trying to force their beliefs on a people while they accuse their opponants of doing the same. There really is another life out there.

Some try, and they are wrong to do so. Using tradition as an excuse to do so is wrong as well.

Just wondering, but what purpose do you think the pledge serves?

	10-07-2002 09:19									#68
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The McCarthy era Congress added the phrase. Clearly not the most tolerant era in US history. Now that the US has retreated from such childish ways, it is time to clean up the childish mess it made of things its wiser forbears left it.

No believer in the separation of church and state can believe that the pledge should declare the nation to be "under God". Those simply aren't compatible beliefs. If the state is separate from any church, the state simply can not be "under God". Descending into a "what are you afraid of? Are ya chicken?" system of argumentation won't work to disguise that flaw in your position, Lincoln.

	10-07-2002 10:19									#69
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Separation of Church and State is meant to keep the government from forming a state religion, which is why many people left Europe.

George Washington and others KNEW, or, perhaps for some of you, only BELIEVED, that the United States of America came to pass only because of Divine Intervention. He prayed many times for help in the War of Revolution.

The United States has been, from its birth, been a Christian country.

Look at the Declaration of Independence:

quote: WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...

Is that "Creator" a mention of God?

quote: ...the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

There they go again...

Whether you like it or not, America was founded by many religious persons, whose ideals were passed on to many of the documents they made.

What about US currency? "In God We Trust". Was that another example of our foolish forebears who didn't know anything? Are my five dollar bills unconstitutional?

If the people of the United States want that to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance...well, there's always Canada.

	10-07-2002 10:34									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lincoln I think it shows that they are afraid of something -- maybe there is a God??? God forbid!

Afraid? Yes, afraid. Afraid that their impressionable children will feel that since their school and their teachers and their classmates seem to believe in god, they should too.

There are legitimate fears you know, especially when the government is involved. Don't be afraid, we're here to help.

	10-07-2002 10:38									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I am so sick of this crap about the fact that some of the people who helped form this country were Christians, therefore, this is a Christian nation. I don't think that's really an argument.

We should all be Christians forever because we live in a country that's founding involved Christians.

	10-07-2002 11:20									#72
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Like I said, there's always Canada...

	10-07-2002 11:32									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"It's time for god lovers...."

What about satan lovers?

It ought to say "under god and the glorious, unholy prince of darkness", surely. After all don't devil worshipers deserve recognition?

	10-07-2002 13:07									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: George Washington and others KNEW, or, perhaps for some of you, only BELIEVED, that the United States of America came to pass only because of Divine Intervention. He prayed many times for help in the War of Revolution. The United States has been, from its birth, been a Christian country.

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. It is therefore equally valid to describe the United States as a "Deist country".

quote: What about US currency? "In God We Trust". Was that another example of our foolish forebears who didn't know anything? Are my five dollar bills unconstitutional?

Again, this has nothing to do with "our foolish forebears". The phrase "in God we trust" does not belong on US currency, just as "under God" does not belong in the pledge. The correct motto is "E Pluribus Unum".

Claiming that such things are "historical" and intended by the Founding Fathers is an attempt to rewrite history. It is pure propaganda.

Will there be a Christian "Ministry of Truth" next?

	10-07-2002 13:44									#75
	Remove this text

Isn't "In God We Trust" another addition from the 50's?

In other words it was (again) nothing to do with the forefathers...

The 50s have a lot to answer for..

	10-07-2002 15:50									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Deism is probably the closest to an "official" religion in the US, even for those Founding Fathers who were nominally Christian in their own beliefs. After all, they signed the Treaty of Tripoli without hesitation: "As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The official deity of the United States may be the foundation of human rights, but is not to be relied upon to uphold those rights. As the God of Deism doesn't intervene in human affairs, "in God we trust" is incompatible with Deism.

	10-07-2002 16:41									#77
	Get a bigger avatar today!

From this article:

quote: Some of the most famous founders - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams - are often labeled deists, followers of a religion of sufficient ambiguity that writers differ even about whether or not to capitalize the "d." Deism's basic tenet is that a deity created the universe, governs through natural laws and can be understood by reason alone. In 18th-century America, this deity was called God, Creator, Nature's God, the Supreme Judge (these terms can be found in the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson). This Creator, according to strict deists, does not intervene in human affairs and thus does not favor certain people or nations, does not perform miracles and cannot be appealed to in prayer (God should be thanked in prayers, however). God does not operate through revelation, they reasoned. The Bible, they argued, was instructive but not inspired.

	10-07-2002 16:48									#78
	Got spare money?

Settle down Lincoln... it doesn't mean he was wrong...

	10-07-2002 17:37									#79
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I suggest that people read the many letters between Jefferson and John Adams before they conclude that they did not believe that God intervenes in the affairs of nations. Washington also believed that God has something quite relevant to do with the affairs of nations. Adams believed in a direct revelation of God as evangelical Christians do today. Jefferson leaned more to human reason as the means to understanding God. If people want to call this 'diesm' then so be it, but diesm= theism so I don't see how that changes anything. Almost all of the founders called themselves Christian by the way.

If two words in the pledge was the only issue then I would say take them out (but that will never happen due to popular support, including almost unanimous support of both houses of congress and the Supreme
Court's own decisions and precedents).

The man of course, as he stated, will never be content to remove those two horrible words. He wants to transform this culture which is historically and legally based upon the belief in God to a purely atheist culture which I suppose might let people believe in God if they promise not to bother him and his fellow fanatical atheist friends. He has even gone so far that he uses his daughter (who believes in God along with her mother) to further his own agenda. The courts may as well stop him here. If he wants an atheist culture then he needs to start his own revolution.

	10-07-2002 18:00									#80
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless 1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie.

Atheists and Jehova's Witnesses are not compelled or expected to say the pledge. I forget the SCOTUS case that settled this issue but I could find out for you if you wish.

quote: Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God".

Oh please! Not Atheist Today again. Are you able to find an article from a major publication that confirms that the remark was ever actually made?

quote: 2) It's the same pledge.

Adults are a seperate Constitutional question and are irrelevent to this case.

	10-07-2002 18:25									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: 1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie. Atheists and Jehova's Witnesses are not compelled or expected to say the pledge. I forget the SCOTUS case that settled this issue but I could find out for you if you wish.

The phrase I used was "compelled or expected". Regardless of SCOTUS, there is certainly an expectation that people will say the pledge, including the words "under God". It isn't right that atheists should be required either to lie or to identify themselves as atheists on this issue. It should not be relevant what a person's religious beliefs are in this situation.

Also, there is widespread (illegal) compulsion.

The principle stands. The pledge was altered with the deliberate intent of intimidating atheists, by Eisenhower's own admission. This is NOT right, and should be ended.

quote: Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God". Oh please! Not Atheist Today again. Are you able to find an article from a major publication that confirms that the remark was ever actually made?

I said "alleged" remark. But the allegation is widely known. Has Bush ever denied saying it?

And the rhetoric coming now from many Christians certainly "ties in" with this sentiment. Many are now saying similar things: that America is "a Christian nation" and that to imply otherwise is unpatriotic. Witness Bush Junior's contempt for those who wish to restore the pledge to its original form. Many atheists have been subjected to diatribes from rabid Christians screeching that the evil atheists are trying to destroy American civilization.

quote: 2) It's the same pledge. Adults are a seperate Constitutional question and are irrelevent to this case.

But the objective of this case is not to ensure that schoolkids don't have to say "under God". The objective is to remove "under God" from the pledge entirely. It does not belong there, and nobody should be required to say it.

	10-07-2002 19:10									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless The phrase I used was "compelled or expected". Regardless of SCOTUS, there is certainly an expectation that people will say the pledge, including the words "under God".

Not in this case and not in my own personal experience.

quote: Also, there is widespread (illegal) compulsion.

As you admit, that's already illegal.

quote: The principle stands. The pledge was altered with the deliberate intent of intimidating atheists,

"Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most" - Judge Ferdinand Fernandez

quote: I said "alleged" remark. But the allegation is widely known. Has Bush ever denied saying it?

1) The allegation appears on various websites and is usually in one format. That tells me that it is a widely popular allegation and says nothing about its veracity. 2) It never appeared in a serious publication. Why would he bother issuing a public of a rumor no one seems to be paying serious attention to? 3) Why are you using rumors to bolster an arguement anyway?

quote: But the objective of this case is not to ensure that schoolkids don't have to say "under God".

That may or may not be the ultimate objective but that wasn't the result of this case. Assuming that the opinion withstands appeal, you'll have to bring another case to settle the question of adults and the pledge.

	10-07-2002 19:11									#83
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly What you Europeans fail to grasp is that the phrase "Under God" is not ideological but merely descriptive: We burned women to death in Salem, Mass. -- in the name of God (they were witches, after all; if we let them live, they'd eventually encourage our children to read Harry Potter). We exterminated whole peoples living in North America -- because God gave this land to us, not them (and how do we know? God told us so). We justified the existence of slavery in the South -- in the name of God (blacks being the children of Ham and therefore condemned to servitude; as Kent Brockman once said, "It's in the Bible, people!"). We passed laws against the employment of the Irish -- in the name of God (Who, everyone knows, is a Protestant). We looked the other way as the Ku Klux Klan ran amok, committing violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics -- while marching under the symbol of the Cross. We curtailed federal investigations of abortion clinic bombing -- because those bombing were the work of God-loving Christians. We are a nation Under God -- in much the same way that Italy was once a nation Under Mussolini. God help us all.

Do we have to drag out all the horrors committed in the last century by atheists?

	10-07-2002 19:27									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Which atheists have committed horrors in the name of Atheism?

	10-07-2002 19:50									#85
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

From this article:

quote: Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling. "Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

It gets worse! New Presidents do NOT have to pledge "so help me God"!

This is revisionism gone mad! In the interests of "preserving history", they'll be trying to overthrow the First Amendment if this continues!

It's rather like lifting up a stone and seeing what's crawling around under there.

	10-07-2002 20:41									#86
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Which atheists have committed horrors in the name of Atheism?

Uuuh! I wanna know too!
Will it be a list with names like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

	10-07-2002 21:00									#87
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by -=Vagrant=- Uuuh! I wanna know too! Will it be a list with names like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

If it is, it would be full of Red Herrings (no pun intended).

	10-07-2002 21:28									#88
	Increase Your PM Length

God forbid that anyone be offended.

Oops I just offended someone.

This just goes to show that atheists can be just as dogmatic as any fire-and-brimstone TV evangelist.

	10-07-2002 21:35									#89
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

And just why do theists continue to play with this strawman? How many have objected to hearing other people mention God?

The principle is that WE should not be expected to recite a pledge to God to be considered "true Americans".

So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"?

	10-07-2002 21:37									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless The principle is that WE should not be expected to recite a pledge to God to be considered "true Americans".

Nobody expects you to.

quote: So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"?

This is irrelevant. Nobody is being expected to swear to anything.