Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
USA Should Keep Religion And State Separated!  
User currently offlineErasmus From Italy, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5019 times:

The first amendment to the constitution of the USA says:

“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.”

Despite of this, religion is present everywhere in the USA government. A few examples:

  • “In God we trust” is written on every Dollar bill.

  • The inauguration oath of the president ends with “So help me God”

  • The pledge of allegiance to the flag says: “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible,with Liberty and Justice for all.” (A US court decided that the words “under God” are unconstitutional and should be removed from the pledge, isn’t it?)

  • “God bless America” being sung at many official state happenings, including the President’s inauguration.

  • The president taking the oath with his hand on the bible.


  • I’m sure that the americans on a.net will be able to give many more examples of the USA government mixing religion and state!

    And here comes my point: Every country respecting itself should keep state and religion STRICTLY seperated. Not doing so is very unfair towards the country’s citizens who do not share this particular religion. The United States of America, as one of the most powerful counties on this planet, should set the example for every country in the world (Israël, Iran, India, Afghanistan etc.) to follow.

    What's your opinion?

    Regards,
    Erasmus


    122 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
     
    User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 9
    Reply 1, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4965 times:

    It does keep them seperate.

    Many of the above examples are just traditions.

    I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. Honestly, I don't believe many people care about the relations between church and state anyway.




    Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
    User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 2, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4970 times:

    The United States of America, as one of the most powerful counties on this planet, should set the example for every country in the world (Israël, Iran, India, Afghanistan etc.) to follow.

    Why should America have to "set the example"? America sets many examples, and we get criticised for it time and time again. Why doesn't the res of the world step up and be a leader on an issue instead of a follower?

    In the U.S. Church and State are about as separate as they will or can be. For most of the people of the world, and in the U.S. religion plays a tremendous part in their lives, and therefore will play a part in things like politics and the like. Until the world is all athiest, there will never be a 100% separate Church and State.


    User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2727 posts, RR: 8
    Reply 3, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4965 times:

    One example that the US sets that is obvious by these threads is in having their country founded on the basis of a document written over 200 hundred years ago, which surprise, surprise, comes into constant conflict with a society which has changed vastly since it was written.

    Ditch the whole thing at let common law rule.



    " Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
    User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 4, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4958 times:

    Erasmus,

    America is a democracy which means the people decide how their country is run. The majority believe in the separation of the church and state but they don't want God out of their lives. The majority do not want "under God" removed from the pledge of allegiance and the majority want "in God we trust". If you don't believe in God, I don't see the problem just ignore it. The country was founded on the principles of Christianity, which is why freedom was emphasized, and it should remain so. Not only is it about religion, it's about tradition and values.

    Belief in God isn't a bad thing, which is why I don't understand why you said that they have to set an example and stop saying God. WHY is it a bad thing?



    Proud to be an Assyrian!
    User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 5, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4950 times:

    If you don't believe in God, I don't see the problem just ignore it.

    Marco, here's where the sense in your argument flew out the window. Why should non-believers have to ignore references to God? By the same token, believers should also ignore non-references to God. Why should non-believers be forced to accept something they don't believe in?

    Better yet, why not just have neutral wording? This is something both the believer and the non-believer can accept.


    User currently offlineErasmus From Italy, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 6, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

    Let me bring you to a few interesting links:

    U.S. Religiosity Hard to Escape.

    Litigant explains why he brought Pledge suit.: It looks to me as if this litigant is a very wise AND very patriotic man!

    Legal reasoning cited:

    Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

    The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

    The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."

    Regards,
    Erasmus

    PS: I am not saying anything about religion! I am saying that state and religion do not mix!




    User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 7, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4944 times:

    The country was founded on the principles of Christianity, which is why freedom was emphasized, and it should remain so.

    Here again Marco, I think you've got it wrong. Although the early settlers to the north American continent were puritans to the extreme, the country's government itself was NOT founded on Christianity. Rather, the "founding fathers" tried to concieve as neutral a government as possible, taking great pains to avoid any of the existent European traditions which stressed religion, monarchy and a society ruled by the aristocracy. Their idea was the separate religion from the state, a most revolutionary and unheard-of idea for that time. It's this separation of church and state that guarantees our freedoms, and not Christianity as you argue. The last thing the "founding fathers" wanted to establish was a society and government answerable to the church and its human authority, as was the case in Europe at the time.


    User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 8, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4937 times:

    Marco, here's where the sense in your argument flew out the window. Why should non-believers have to ignore references to God? By the same token, believers should also ignore non-references to God. Why should non-believers be forced to accept something they don't believe in?

    Better yet, why not just have neutral wording? This is something both the believer and the non-believer can accept


    A non-neutral wording wouldn't necessarily be accepted by a believer so in this case the non-believers end up having the upper hand. I don't agree with forcing religion down people's throats as I think it's a personal decision, but the non-believers should think of it as tradition. The country was built on these principles, and one must respect that.

    Here again Marco, I think you've got it wrong. Although the early settlers to the north American continent were puritans to the extreme, the country's government itself was NOT founded on Christianity. Rather, the "founding fathers" tried to concieve as neutral a government as possible, taking great pains to avoid any of the existent European traditions which stressed religion, monarchy and a society ruled by the aristocracy. Their idea was the separate religion from the state, a most revolutionary and unheard-of idea for that time. It's this separation of church and state that guarantees our freedoms, and not Christianity as you argue. The last thing the "founding fathers" wanted to establish was a society and government answerable to the church and its human authority, as was the case in Europe at the time.

    If this was the case Hepkat then why so much emphasis put on God in the constitution? Why does the constitution say that all beings were created equal by the creator? Obviously some beliefs were based on God. Also, the founding fathers were escaping persecution from Catholic Europe and they wanted the freedom to believe in whatever denomination they believed in, be it Protestantism/Catholicism/etc...so in essence the founding fathers did build the country based on Godly principles. That isn't such abad thing, after all the USA has been the symbol of freedom for such a long time.Obviously the use of Christianity provided this freedom.

    I don't only look at it from a religion point of view, I think of it as tradition and history. Passing such a law is like erasing your country's history and traditions.



    Proud to be an Assyrian!
    User currently offlineHepkat From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 2341 posts, RR: 2
    Reply 9, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4930 times:

    Marco, why should belivers of religion by upset by neutral wording of the POA? What's upsetting about having to say "One Nation"? Remember that "under God" was only added a few decades ago, it was not originally included. And prior to that no one seemed offended or missed the lack of references to God. It was later added purely for political reasons. Furthermore, if believers in religion get so upset about "One Nation" then it clearly sends the message that they're more interested in imposing their own religion on others than they are about the greater interest of the state.

    As to your second argument, the founding fathers took great pains to use the neutral word "creator", thereby reaching out to every religious denomination. I would recommend that you read the personal memoires of the authors in order to gain some insight as to why they wrote what they did. It's very clear they would not agree with you, nor would they agree to the slow encroachment of religious overtones in civil/government affairs that has been happening over the decades.

    Obviously the use of Christianity provided this freedom.

    You say you don't look at this from only a religious point of view, but such views contradict this statement to the point of absurdity. You are a staunch believer in Christianity, and I would never judge you for this, however you must sometimes try to put aside this stance in order to get a clear picture of both sides of the equation. Marco, it makes very little sense arguing this point to death with you. I know you're a very bright young man, and I admire your talents, but I've studied history at Binghamton University, and it is a fact that the founding fathers tried their very best not to endorse any one religion when drafting the constitution, hence the reference to the "creator", and the original POS which stated "One Nation." Most, if not all other references to God where added later by tradition or presidential decree, but this still does not legitimize your claim that this was the intent of the founding fathers. Presidents and the Congress have long known of the staunch conservatism of the Supreme Court, knowing fully well that any challenge to religious references would most likely be found meritless.

    There are several excellent biographies of the founding fathers where they worded their opinions in great detail. I'm afraid they do not concur with your stance on Christianity and freedom in America. Rather, it is precisely that they did NOT endorse Christianity which has made the U.S. the free country it is today.


    User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 10, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4923 times:

    "Despite of this, religion is present everywhere in the USA government. A few examples:"

    First of all, that passage in the 1st Amendment does not "separate" church and state, at least in the sense that government will have nothing to do with religion. It's a common misconception. That's why you will see phrases like "In God We Trust" on our currency, etc.

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

    Meaning the state will not sanction a particular religion, such as the Anglican Church in the UK. (And now you know why No. Ireland is such a hotspot.) Also, the passage allows the citizens of America to practice any religion they choose. It says nothing of keeping "God out of Government."

    "And here comes my point: Every country respecting itself should keep state and religion STRICTLY seperated."

    I disagree. I believe religion is, or should be, the core of a nation, be that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. Government should be based on some sort of system for a reverence for diety. My fear is that if you remove religion from government, as many in this country are trying to do, then "morality" is left wide open to interpretation, and society increasingly becomes lawless and immoral.

    "Not doing so is very unfair towards the country’s citizens who do not share this particular religion."

    Really? How so? How are any of your freedoms limited by the money in your wallet containing the phrase "In God We Trust?" Perhaps it would be unfair we were forcing people to become Christians, but as you well know, that isn't happening.

    'Speed





    User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 11, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4924 times:

    One example that the US sets that is obvious by these threads is in having their country founded on the basis of a document written over 200 hundred years ago, which surprise, surprise, comes into constant conflict with a society which has changed vastly since it was written.

    So, Pacificjourney, we should just shuck it because sometimes it can seem like a conflict? That's a cowards way our-the easy way out, and obviously you know nothing about the Constitution and he Bill of Rights, which 200 years ago were radically different ideas about governance, and which today is still the envy of most of the world that can't match whats in that document. No thanks. We'll keep it. And besides, if we feel there's truly a need to update it, we have the ability to amend it.

    Why should non-believers have to ignore references to God?

    Hepkat, why should believers be FORCED to ignore references to a God they believe in because some athiests don't like it? That's very (and typically) hypocritical for you to say it. WHY should a small minority be protected from being offended, but it's ok for the majority to be offended by these actions. That's just idiocy that you're supporting.

    Better yet, why not just have neutral wording? This is something both the believer and the non-believer can accept.

    You're certainly one of the world's great fence-sitters, Hepkat. You're perfect for the PC crowd because you don't believe in offending anyone, unless they hold a majority position. This isn't a neutral world, and the majority of citizens in the U.S. should not have to give up long-standing traditions just because of a few malcontents.

    Marco, why should belivers of religion by upset by neutral wording of the POA? What's upsetting about having to say "One Nation"?

    Because they realize a small minority of malcontents are trying to tell THEM what they can and cannot say. If these idiots don't like the pledge-if YOU don't like the Pledge-DON'T RECITE IT!! BUT DON'T TELL THE REST OF US WE CAN'T RECITE THE PLEDGE AS IT IS!

    And to the author of the thread: If you don't like our references to God, Erasmus, that's just too damned bad, isn't it? You're not an American, so why does it bother you so much? Maybe you want to live in an athiestic, Godless society, you can, but don't go critisizing the rest of us in the U.S. who believe in God, and want His presence in the life of this country, even if it's only in a SYMBOLIC fashion. It's insulting to be preached to by someone who doesn't undersand what he's talking about.

    And, again, it doesn't matter. This utterly insane ruling by a bunch of far left-wing justices will not stand the test of time. It will be ignored in any event from coast to coast, because the American people are smart enough to see it for what it is-a power play to dictate to the American people what they can and cannot say. If you do not want to say "Under God", or recite the pledge at all, that is fine, and NO ONE should force you to do other wise, but don't have the audacity to FORCE ME to leave it out.


    User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 12, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4913 times:

    I'm still trying to figure out which part of the 1st Amend. the POA and all those other examples violates. Congress has not passed a law that forces anyone to be part of an established religion, and it certainly doesn't prevent free exercise of religion (if anything, what the ultra-libs want has a flavor of the latter). Erarmus, Hepkat, etc., you all realize that despite these examples that bother you so, in the United States you can still belong to any religious denomination you wish or none at all for that matter and you won't be arrested at all. That's what its all about. No one is making laws to require a certain belief and no one making laws that prevent you from any belief. That's why the SC will shoot this down.


    "Shaddap you!"
    User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2727 posts, RR: 8
    Reply 13, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4910 times:

    Alpha

    Most democracies get by perfectly well without an over-riding constitution governing every decision. Why not let common law have it's full head without reversion to some outdated document. Of course if you guys aren't capable of forming your own laws with divine guidance then stay as you are.

    The 'envy of the world', you would think so but of course what would I know.




    " Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
    User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 14, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4887 times:

    Erasmus:

    For some reason I don't think an article published by the Freedom From Religion Foundation is an un-biased source of information.


    User currently offlineHeavymetal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

    Ask yourself if it's the word "God" in pledges or money that irritate people...or the ominous little tyrants like Tom DeLay and Bob Barr and Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell who claim moral ownership and defense of such inclusions.

    When a politician says this is a "Christian" nation, demands that my tax money pay for his fundamentalist schools, demands huge tax exemptions for for-profit businesses just because the happen to call themselves "a church", tells me a myriad of different thoughts and beliefs differing from his own are wrong, immoral and un-American....and then makes defending "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance his own personal mission...

    Yeah, I've got a problem. Maybe not with the Pledge, but with him. And since he insists he and the Pledge are inseperable, I guess I have a problem with the Pledge now.


    User currently offlineErasmus From Italy, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

    Hi LMP737,

    Until you told me I had no idea which Foundation had written this. It is a webpage which I came across after looking with Google for keywords like "president" and "inauguration" and "religion" or something like that. I do not know the foundation nor the writer and frankly I don't care who wrote it.
    It shows however that the President's Inauguration ceremony has very much become a religious affair, which in my humble opinion, is a pity.

    By the way, any non-government foundation does not have to be unbiased. The government SHOULD be unbiased.

    I have no problem with the president being a Christian. However he should be the President of ALL Americans regardless of what they (don't) believe. All this religious words might and DO give an other impression. It wouldn't bother me if an elected president added HIMSELF the words "so help me God" after his oath, but it does bother me if the judge (and therefore the state that he represents) taking the oath, puts these words in the mouth of the president!
    It's a subtle, but, in my opinion, important difference!

    Regards,
    Erasmus.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/012001-5v.htm
    http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/may01/johnson.html



    User currently offlinePHX-LJU From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
    Reply 17, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

    NormalSpeed wrote:

    >>"My fear is that if you remove religion from government, as many in this country are trying to do, then "morality" is left wide open to interpretation, and society increasingly becomes lawless and immoral."



    As an atheist, I'm offended by your suggestion that life without religion can cause a society to become lawless and immoral. As millions of atheists prove, one CAN be moral without believing in a Supreme Being. Conversely, some Christians talk about morality all the time but certainly don't practice it in real life.

    Morality will always be left open to interpretation; different people (even within a single faith) have different views on the subject.

    It's simple: Some people need to base their values on a religion (or a belief in a higher being), others don't.


    NormalSpeed wrote:

    >>"I believe religion is, or should be, the core of a nation, be that Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc."



    If that is true, why are secular Western countries so successful, while countries based on a single religion tend to have so many problems?


    Alpha 1 wrote:

    >>"why should believers be FORCED to ignore references to a God they believe in because some athiests don't like it?"



    No one is asking believers to ignore references to God; many people just want the GOVERNMENT and its institutions (schools, etc.) to get rid of references to God. Why? Because NOT ALL Americans believe in God. Our Pledge of Alliegance is important to America: Why should it contain a line that many people disagree with?


    Alpha 1 wrote:

    >>"If you do not want to say "Under God", or recite the pledge at all, that is fine, and NO ONE should force you to do other wise, but don't have the audacity to FORCE ME to leave it out."



    Again, no one is forcing YOU to leave it out; we are talking about the GOVERNMENT and its institutions.

    BTW, Erasmus, despite these references to God, Church and State ARE separated to a greater degree in the States than in most other countries.


    User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2784 posts, RR: 15
    Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4864 times:

    Here's the problem:

    "God bless America"
    "one nation under God"

    Who the hell are we to say what God's in favor of? God bless the queen, right? Heh. That's a joke. If there is a God - he blesses people, not nations. So whether you're religious or not, these sayings are simply wrong.

    Support the court's decision - forcing children to pledge their allegiance to a nation under god is immoral and wrong.



    "Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
    User currently offlineErasmus From Italy, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 19, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4857 times:

    PHX-LJU: BTW, Erasmus, despite these references to God, Church and State ARE separated to a greater degree in the States than in most other countries.

    I know that, PHX-LJU, thanks for your nice post.

    What really scares me a lot, is the fact that many people here don't appear to realise that seperation between state and religion is a good and necessary thing. I had expected "that's not religion, just folklore" arguments but not "why should there be such a seperation between religion and state".

    VERY SCARY!!

    Regards,
    Erasmus


    User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 48
    Reply 20, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4853 times:

    PacificJourney wrote:


    Most democracies get by perfectly well without an over-riding constitution governing every decision. Why not let common law have it's full head without reversion to some outdated document

    So then what you are saying is that we'll just go-with-the-flow based on whatever we happen to want at the moment?

    In other words...no structure...no restrictions....just do what we want.

    You may call it "modern"

    Most of us have another word for that:

    ANARCHY

    Be careful what you wish for.

    Cuz while it may be fine and dandy for whatever agenda you have. But you better hope that you weigh 300 pounds and can bench press a Buick. Cuz if not, then who are you going to run to when some one who's bigger and stronger than you decides he wants your house?

    hey...no rules...no restrictions....and no protection. It will truly be a Darwinian Society.

    yeah....I'm sure THAT will be better than this so-called "outdated 200 year old document'.


    User currently offlinePacificjourney From New Zealand, joined Jul 2001, 2727 posts, RR: 8
    Reply 21, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4833 times:

    Jesus christ, it's called common law Einstein, look it up ! What exactly do you think your constitution is based on ? Despite what you may think it is not exactly original nor unique.

    A liitle more faith on your part wouldn't hurt. Do you really think the US would fall to pieces without a constitution ?



    " Help, help ... I'm being oppressed ... "
    User currently offlineErasmus From Italy, joined Jun 2007, 0 posts, RR: 0
    Reply 22, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4835 times:

    Found this quote of Bush on cnn.com:

    Speaking Thursday at the G-8 summit in Canada, Bush said the ruling was "out of step with the history and traditions of America," and said it highlighted the need for "common sense judges that understand that our rights are derived from God."

    This is absolutely incredible. Replace the word "God" by "Allah" in the previous sentence and it sound like a sentence that could have come from the mouth of Osama Bin Laden: "Our rights are derived from Allah"

    I find it a pity that Al Gore didn't become president of this beautifull country the USA is! (Didn't Al get more votes nationwide then George in the elections?)

    Regards,
    Erasmus





    User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 48
    Reply 23, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

    Didn't Al get more votes nationwide then George in the elections?

    Well the cats out of the bag now. Now we know the REAL reason you loathe the Constitution. It stopped your tree hugging idol from taking up residence at the White House.

    True, Gore DID get more votes. But in this great land, that does not necessarily determine the winner. It's the Electoral College. So, based on the predetermined rules, Gore lost; a fact ignored by the Gore supporters.

    But we don't need to go down that path again.



    User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 12
    Reply 24, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4820 times:

    Erasmus you're comparing Bush's comment on how our rights are derived from God, to osama bin laden, a terrorist who killed 3,000 people? What kind of comparison is that? Are you implying people who believe in God are terrorists?

    Hepkat,

    Thanks for the info regarding the history of the US constitution. I want to clear one thing up. Even though I'm a strong Christian I don't believe in forcing religion on people. It's wrong. However I don't see the big deal with the words "under God". It shouldn't be made unconstitutional, rather it should be up to you to decide if you want to say under God. Also, I don't think Jews, Muslims, etc would have a problem with saying under God, so in reality only athiests would mind saying under God. As they don't make up the majority of the US population I don't think it should be made unconstitutional. It should be up to the person to decide whether he or she wants to say under God.

    Regards



    Proud to be an Assyrian!
    25 Wn700driver : As an atheist, I'm offended by your suggestion that life without religion can cause a society to become lawless and immoral. As millions of atheists p
    26 Travelin man : "Support the court's decision - forcing children to pledge their allegiance to a nation under god is immoral and wrong." You obviously don't get it, 7
    27 Marco : Travelin' man very well said!
    28 NormalSpeed : PHX-LJU wrote: "As an atheist, I'm offended by your suggestion that life without religion can cause a society to become lawless and immoral. As millio
    29 Erasmus : Matt D said: "Didn't Al get more votes nationwide then George in the elections? Well the cats out of the bag now. Now we know the REAL reason you loat
    30 LMP737 : Erasmus: I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it really is. In spite of having "In God We Trust" on our currency, referencing God dur
    31 Marco : With democracy comes freedom of speech. When some people refer to God in public, they are exercising that freedom, not violating it!
    32 PHX-LJU : NormalSpeed wrote: >>"The reason for this is that I don't believe that "millions of athiests" can even agree on what moral and immoral is, let alone a
    33 Heavymetal : Common falicy #4567326-A from the religionists: "endowed by their Creator" quite clearly means "endowed by our God"
    34 Apathoid : #1 - You are not American so you're opinion doesn't matter. #2 - The exclusion clause was designed to prevent state mandated religion...ie, the Church
    35 Travelin man : Even if you don't CALL your values religious-based, they are. For instance: Killing is wrong Adultery is wrong Stealing is wrong These all come from r
    36 Marco : Ravi Zacharias, a very intelligent man had this to say about morality: If one believes in morals then one has to believe in a moral law giver. People
    37 Erasmus : quote: "You are not American so you're opinion doesn't matter." Congratulations! I suppose that you're even proud that you said that? I rest my case.
    38 Matt D : Adultery is wrong For some reason, this one seems to be the exception to the rule. We Americans as a whole seem to LOVE adultery. And adultery is as F
    39 Heavymetal : By the way, 77% of Americans are opposed to the 9th circuit ruling as reported by CNN this morning. How do you like them apples? I'd have no problem w
    40 PanAm747 : >>The inauguration oath of the president ends with “So help me God”
    41 Heavymetal : Killing is wrong What other species in nature kills for pleasure or idealogy? Adultery is wrong What other species in nature invents threadbare ideas
    42 Post contains images Bruno : I thought evolution worked the other way. Apathoid: #1 - You are not American so you're opinion doesn't matter. So what about the non-Amercians who's
    43 Alpha 1 : No one is asking believers to ignore references to God; many people just want the GOVERNMENT and its institutions (schools, etc.) to get rid of refere
    44 Post contains images Bruno : Alpha 1 How does the Andrew Jackson case relate to this?
    45 Heavymetal : ignore it, for Christ sake. Till when? Don't just blow my my comments, answer them. What are we supposed to ignore!? The Pledge with "under God" in it
    46 Leftypilot79 : Im by no mean a bible beater.....but if Im not mistaking....wasn't this country FOUND on Christianity? aaron
    47 Heavymetal : Lefty pilot.... "Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed
    48 PHX-LJU : Alpha 1, Please calm down. We are not talking about a life and death matter here. I just happen to believe that two words in the Pledge, which weren't
    49 PHX-LJU : P.S. Alpha 1, where would we get if we ignored all court rulings that we happened to disagree with?
    50 Bruno : PHX-LJU Alpha1 doesn't know how to calm down. He is always about to have a heart attack when a topic comes up that he doesn't agree with. When ever he
    51 NDSchu777 : I don't really see what the problem is with keeping "God" in the pledge. It doesn't endorse a specific religion, and therefore still follows our const
    52 Post contains images PHX-LJU : Bruno, That is SO true.
    53 Post contains images Bruno : I think I shut Alpha1 up in this thread too.
    54 Alpha 1 : Alpha1 doesn't know how to calm down. He is always about to have a heart attack when a topic comes up that he doesn't agree with. When ever he is chal
    55 ExitRow : Answers please: 1.) What's wrong with an objective, religion-free government? 2.) Is/should the government (be) in the business of establishing moral
    56 Apathoid : What a citizen of Belgium thinks is of very little importance when it comes to law in our country. Just the same as you couldn't care less what americ
    57 Post contains images Bruno : HOLY S#!T! We have the same birthday! I am October 2, 1966! Anyways, you do get very worked up and and start name calling with people you disagree wit
    58 Heavymetal : your favortie Coward in Chief, Comrade Clinton My dad went to Nam when your favorite coward George W. Bush was protecting us from the evil Mexicans in
    59 Travelin man : 1.) What's wrong with an objective, religion-free government? Nothing! But the reality is that religion was an integral part of this country's foundat
    60 Post contains links ExitRow : The separation of church and state was intended to keep church leaders from gaining positions of power within our government. Attorney General John As
    61 Post contains images Alpha 1 : Yes, it is voluntary, but I sure wish he'd do it elsewhere. Why? Do you work there? And if you don't why do you give a rats ass? HOLY S#!T! We have th
    62 Boeing4ever : What right does a Beligian have deciding religion in America, eh Erasmus?
    63 ExitRow : ExitRow: Yes, it is voluntary, but I sure wish he'd do it elsewhere. Alpha 1: Why? Do you work there? And if you don't why do you give a rats ass? Do
    64 Post contains images Bruno : Alpha1 Yes October 2nd. is a great day for a birthday! I play with you with kid gloves when I your in need of chastising. I have seen you swing below
    65 Alpha 1 : Uh, yes, I know who John Ashcroft is, Exit Row, and I agree that he's pretty out there. But if you're not working there, why do you really care? If he
    66 LoneStarMike : Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to attack Alpha1 here. After reading this thread I know what his views are on this subject, however, I do
    67 Marco : I live in an Islamic country where the nationals are very focused on their religion. Their religion is almost a part of everything. However they respe
    68 Post contains images Sebolino : Of course they should, but God bless America ! (and nobody else)
    69 Post contains links Erasmus : source: msnbc.com "President Bush on Thursday said the ruling was “out of step with the traditions and history of America” and promised to
    70 Marco : Why outrageous? Why dangerous? please elaborate...
    71 Erasmus : Dear Marco, A man (or woman) should not become judge because he is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist. One should become a judge because o
    72 Marco : A man (or woman) should not become judge because he is a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist. One should become a judge because of wisdom and
    73 Cfalk : Just my 2 cents here... Erasmus, according to your quote from Bush, why would a Hindu, or Muslim or Jew be barred from being a Judge? They believe in
    74 Post contains images Alpha 1 : You may not be a lawyer, Cfalk, and Lord knows we don't always agree, but you probably have more integrity on here than anyone. Well said, my friend.
    75 Post contains links Erasmus : Dear Marco, I have just had a look a your homepage and the FAQ-question in particular. http://www.angelfire.com/ab/christianity/FAQ.html Allow me to q
    76 Erasmus : Dear Cfalk, Alpha 1, Marco... It's just a pity that SOME people are so religious that they cannot be openminded anymore. I have said before that I wou
    77 Erasmus : Just one more thing: I'm off to work now: the most beautiful job in the world!!! Bye everybody!
    78 Alpha 1 : So, if you were to become a judge, I don't think you would be able to be impartial. What would you do with homosexuals or teenagers being caught while
    79 Post contains images Cfalk : Erasmus - now who's being intolerant? Alpha, you raise a good point. It is certainly wrong for a judge to use his/her position to circumvent the law o
    80 Marco : So, if you were to become a judge, I don't think you would be able to be impartial. What would you do with homosexuals or teenagers being caught while
    81 PHX-LJU : Alpha 1 wrote: >>"And that's the problem with these judges-they let their personal bias get in the way of common sense law... The point being that if
    82 NormalSpeed : PHX-LJU wrote: "But do Christians all agree what moral and immoral is?" To a certain extent, yes. What I'm talking about here is the 10 Commandments.
    83 ExitRow : Marco: The USA doesn't discriminate. You obviously don't live here. Now you are simply just being unrealistic. Marco, someday, the scales will fall fr
    84 PHX-LJU : >>"What I'm talking about here is the 10 Commandments. You will not find a Christian or a Jew that will say that they are incorrect." They won't say t
    85 PHX-LJU : Just a P.S. on my last point: Historically, people have needed to base their morals on a religion. Most still do, and I think that is great. But, with
    86 Alpha 1 : But how do you know that these California judges ruled the way they did because of their personal bias? Maybe they are devout Christians who just thou
    87 Heavymetal : Riddle me this, religionists... In 1802 a group of Baptists from Connecticutt petitioned Thomas Jefferson to declare a national "day of fasting" to at
    88 Alpha 1 : This is the dude we owe a lion's share of the credit to designing this American experiment. What would he have said about "under God" added in 1954, "
    89 Hepkat : Alpha, I must respectfully disagree with you. Although I posted this in another thread, I'll mention it again. Their was a great divide when drafting
    90 Alpha 1 : The state has absolutely no business mentioning God, but the citizen has every right to privately practice his own religion in his own private space.
    91 Heavymetal : He (Thomas Jefferson) may not have liked it, but what does that have to do with anything? Thanks. I'm done with the God discussions. When people start
    92 Hepkat : Why can't the state mention God? His name wa mentioned 4 times in the Declaration of Independence? Alpha, you keep dogding the issue and repeating the
    93 Post contains images PHX-LJU : Well said, Hepkat! I would add you to my respected user list, but you're already there!
    94 ExitRow : Hepkat, I tip my hat. That was the best summary so far and certainly the most sensible. Well stated. I don't think this issue could be any clearer.
    95 Erasmus : Hepkat is in my respected user list!
    96 Delta-flyer : Way to go Hepkat! Pete
    97 Alpha 1 : Hepkat, stop you childish reference that I'm somehow dodging the issue. I haven't and you know it. If I saw what you don't like, fine, but don't pull
    98 Delta-flyer : ....if the school FORCED this girl to recite the Pledge.... For all intents and purposes, that is what happens ... you can't put a child into a situat
    99 PHX-LJU : Alpha 1 wrote: And again, there is nothing that I see that gets rid of this neutrality, because it does NOT endorse ANY man-made faith. Well, it doesn
    100 NormalSpeed : "You see, so much depends on one's definition of the Ten Commandments. I am an atheist and I believe that killing people is wrong, just like you do. Y
    101 PHX-LJU : NormalSpeed wrote: >>That's also why I say that Christian (or any other religion's) values still exist, even when some members of said group do not ad
    102 NormalSpeed : "That's why I am surprised that you accuse atheists of making up their own rules -- it seems that religious people do the same thing (within their bas
    103 ExitRow : I posted this in the "Pledge is Unconstitutional?" thread and I'll repost it here since I think it's pertinent to the discussion: Put two versions of
    104 Cfalk : Does anyone in Great Britain complain that they cannot practice their non-Anglican Church religion? Or that they are not allowed to be atheists? The h
    105 N863DA : So... how about them Mets?
    106 Erasmus : "Does anyone in Great Britain complain that they cannot practice their non-Anglican Church religion? Or that they are not allowed to be atheists?" Dea
    107 PHX-LJU : NormalSpeed wrote: >>"The fact of the matter is that I was not in a very good mood when I wrote that. I'm sorry, I should not have taken it out on you
    108 Post contains images N766UA : My dad went to Nam when your favorite coward George W. Bush was protecting us from the evil Mexicans in a cushy Guard job secured by his connected fat
    109 Alpha 1 : Dear Cfalk, I have no idea what you are talking about! Are you trying to say that in Britain it's prohibited to practice any other religion then Angli
    110 N202PA : I don't know whether to consider all this flap over the Pledge a bad or a good thing. On one hand, you have a bunch of malcontents who have nothing be
    111 Avilitigator : I want to clear up a few misconceptions here. "And, again, it doesn't matter. This utterly insane ruling by a bunch of far left-wing justices will not
    112 PHX-LJU : Thank you for your insightful post, Avilitigator! It is amazing that some people on this forum (and eleswhere) are trying to discredit these judges, a
    113 Hepkat : Thank you Avilitigator, that summary could not have explained the ruling any clearer. I think when we finally detach ourselves from our various politi
    114 ExitRow : Thank you Avilitigator. Not just for your logical, reasoned, unbiased and patient explanation of the law, but also for stepping up to the plate and ac
    115 Post contains images Superfly : Avilitigator: Thanks! Finally logic prevails in this thread after 111 post Hey, why don't you plan the next SFO gathering? It was great spotting prior
    116 Avilitigator : Yes, Hepkat and PHX-LJU when you take an objective look at the opinion, it makes sense. People may disagree with the decision on personal grounds, and
    117 ExitRow : Avilitigator, Based on your explanation of the ruling, it would seem like a slam dunk in the Supreme Court (in favor of Judge Goodwin). But what, in y
    118 Avilitigator : Superfly wrote: "Hey, why don't you plan the next SFO gathering? It was great spotting prior to 9/11. Maybe SFOintern could get us past security again
    119 Avilitigator : ExitRow wrote: "Avilitigator, Based on your explanation of the ruling, it would seem like a slam dunk in the Supreme Court (in favor of Judge Goodwin)
    120 Post contains images Superfly : Avilitigator: Sure I'd be up for the tailgate/BBQ party. Despite terminal restrictions, there are still some good spotting points. I'll bring the beer
    121 Post contains links Erasmus : Below I pasted an article which represents exactly what I think about this matter! source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=scheer&s=20020702 God'
    122 Post contains links Alpha 1 : This is a great editorial in the L.A. Times from about a week ago. This guy is right on the mark. This is a guy I can really respect. http://www.latim
    Top Of Page
    Forum Index

    This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

    Printer friendly format

    Similar topics:More similar topics...
    A Blur Between Church And State In Canada posted Sat Oct 1 2005 04:35:08 by Nordair
    USA Should Start Military Out Of Iraq Now posted Mon Sep 5 2005 14:32:26 by LTBEWR
    The Difference Between A Religion And A Cult? posted Mon Aug 29 2005 07:05:41 by MaverickM11
    USA To Step In And Help Uzbekistan? posted Mon May 16 2005 19:37:40 by Nighthawk
    Religion And Politics posted Sun Apr 17 2005 19:14:09 by L.1011
    Separation Of Church And State: Where? posted Wed Aug 27 2003 17:16:25 by Matt D
    Americans Mix Church And State On Their Lawns posted Wed Dec 12 2001 01:42:27 by N400QX
    Inter Religion And Inter Racial Relationships? posted Thu Oct 4 2001 18:07:20 by Mirrodie
    Religion And Flying posted Sun Dec 10 2000 03:41:55 by Bicoastal
    Michigan Should Be #2 Regardless Of USC And Fla. posted Sun Nov 26 2006 02:03:02 by D L X