Jump to content

One Nation Under God


Recommended Posts

To say "under god" is a religious thing. Having an organized thing where everyone says "under god" in public schools is a clear violation of the first ammendment, church and state should be seperate. Also, most schools force the students to do this, which is even worse.

In addition to that, it was only put in as political propaganda. During the Mcarthy era, the people referred to the USSR as godless. So to get the point across, in the late '50s they added that.

Of course, the whole world is godless, as there is no such thing as god. If a teacher said something like that, they would get fired on the spot. But a school can say something like this country is under god and few people complain.

People have always tried to tweak the pledge of allegiance to support political/ and or religious views. This is the only one that actually made it on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say "under god" is a religious thing. Having an organized thing where everyone says "under god" in public schools is a clear violation of the first ammendment, church and state should be seperate. Also, most schools force the students to do this, which is even worse.

In addition to that, it was only put in as political propaganda. During the Mcarthy era, the people referred to the USSR as godless. So to get the point across, in the late '50s they added that.

Of course, the whole world is godless, as there is no such thing as god. If a teacher said something like that, they would get fired on the spot. But a school can say something like this country is under god and few people complain.

People have always tried to tweak the pledge of allegiance to support political/ and or religious views. This is the only one that actually made it on there.

First, the first amendment was created in mind to prevent there from ever being a national church (as their was in England). That church v. state stuff has been spun beyond what it was originally created for.

And I don't see any problem with "forcing" kids into saying the pledge. When I was when high school (I only graduated last year, so its recent enough), I was one of two kids in my class who would stand for the Pledge. I think for the amount of complaining and whatnot that kids do about our country (war, presidents, etc.), the least they could do is show a little respect and stand for, at most, 20 seconds for the flag. If you don't want to say it, whatever. If you say it and personally omit the "under God" reference, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so true cyberlina....it's a pledge...it's not a meaningful law. It's something you say. It's not like they are forcing you to do anything. Hell, you could mouth the words and no one would know.

 

And the whole "separation of church and state" is a dumb argument. As many have stated, that was meant to keep the church from running the government, and the government from running the church. Not, to abolish religious attitudes in the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have had it with these atheist pricks. In my honest opinion, taking God out of everything is as bad as plastering God everywhere, but they just don't get it. No one imposes your will not not say God, so don't impose an other's will to say so.

 

Oh no, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OUTSIDE OF A COURTHOUSE! NOOO!!! Thou shalt not steal? What is this crap? This has nothing to do with law? My eyes, i'm so DISCRIMINATED, NOOO!

 

stfU you stupid godless bastards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have had it with these atheist pricks. In my honest opinion, taking God out of everything is as bad as plastering God everywhere, but they just don't get it. No one imposes your will not not say God, so don't impose an other's will to say so.

 

Oh no, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OUTSIDE OF A COURTHOUSE! NOOO!!! Thou shalt not steal? What is this crap? This has nothing to do with law? My eyes, i'm so DISCRIMINATED, NOOO!

 

stfU you stupid godless bastards.

Bingo. You can say that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. First off let me say all the people who put this off on liberals have no clue. Look for a second at who started this post. Fish_fillet. He is nothing close to a liberal. So before you go off on your mindless liberal bashing(then get offended at any remarks at conservatives), why dont you try to address the points.

 

2. Ill tell you why people care. I didnt really care until I read something fishfanpr writes and to me it empitimizes why we have to be careful.

 

as a nation, we hold a set of Christian values that I personally defend and will defend forever. Whoever is offended by "Under God", "God Bless America", etc. can get the hell out. Each country has its own culture, values, etc. The USA also has its own values, and it is our duty as Americans to defend them at all costs.

 

This is the BS that I hate. I guarentee you that if the relgious zealots that want a bible in everyone's hand didnt have their cause, people wouldnt care about the term God. As a term its benign but to others like fishfanpr, it feeds this hunger to effectuate a theocracy. Ive met so many of these radicals that feel that Christian doctrine should be woven into American law. I dont give a damn what words are in the pledge but anything that can stop their march toward a purely Christian America where everyone goes to Church on Sunday and everyone fears God is fine by me.

 

3. Furman, I see your point on why the term God is benign at this point but first off its the difference between a state actor and private actor. And second, if it is a benign term, then what difference does it make to keep it there? What role does "under God" play that is so valuable? To me, reading people like fishfanPR and legacyofcangelosi posts, its role is cleary a religious one. Seriously, if it is not to have the state say relgion is correct, then what else does the role play?

 

because the majority really doesnt care and is not offended by that.

 

Do you know who the bill of rights was intended for? Its called defense of the minority.

 

People elsewhere in the world do the same thing....I couldn't go to Iran right now and demand all religious allussions to be eliminated as a sign of respect to my Christian culture, now could I?

 

 

:banghead :banghead

 

Im sick and tired of this line of thinking. Its the US CONSTITUTION..NOT THE IRANIAN CONSTITUTION!!! By your line of thinking we could make this nation a theocracy and when people argue that the Constitution says we cant, youd just say "well the Iranians do. :p "

 

Im not an atheist. I think atheists are just as irrational as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus..etc. Having a moral code is one thing. Practicing your "stories" is one thing but you step too far why you have a campaign to weave them into the fabric of law. Keep it in your own house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets to the point that there is indeed heritage. I mean, "in god we trust" was on money since before I was born, I am used to it. If money said, "n*****s f*cking suck" or "kill all jews", I can understand, but we are making to big of a deal out of something that is a motto, and mottos are historical and reflect the past culture of our society.

 

This is a personal opinion of mine, I can see where others are coming from, but quite frankl;y it is such a small and insiginificant deal, I don't see why we should start altering national mottos, quotes, and ect. Then we start changing everything, and before you know it Farhenheit 451 comes true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, I really dont care about the benign term. Yes there are some wackos who think cities should not have Santa Claus scenes during Christmas because thats a violation of the establishment clause(and no, this isnt the view of the stereotyped liberal).

 

I think there are three factions. The people who dont care, the people who want all notions of any religion stricken, and the relgious zealots. For me, Id rather err against the zealots.

 

And now Im sure with the Santa Claus point Ive given some conservatives on this board some fodder to stereotypically attack liberals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mollusk is right, I am relatively conservative. But please do not make the mistake of pigeonholing me into one polarized political inclination or another just because the majority of my views align themselves with one particular ideology.

 

Anyways, back to religion. Here's my issue: If you look back at history there has been more killing, raping, plundering and pillaging in the name of a god(s) than in the name of any other belief structure, ideology or nation. To me this is the perfect exemplar of a slippery slope.

 

And while I acknowledge that almost all people in the US adhere to an internalized moral code that is very similar to concepts in Chirstianity, it in fact is not Christianity that we should attribute the existience of this internalized code of ethics to. Rather, it should be attributed to modern civility.

 

And so I do take severe exception to the idea of retaining some politically motivated addition made to the pledge during an anti-communist feeding frenzy 50 years ago. Should we now worship McCarthy, as his high-handed anti-communist crusades were in the defense of god-fearing America against the godless communists?

 

Your religion, regardless of who it worships or persecutes, has no place in the laws that govern all. And that also means religious commandments in a courthouse as well. Come to think of it, would you be so adament if it was quotes from the Koran that appeared on the courthouse steps? How about some Wiccan prophecy? My guess is that they enjoy as much legla right to appear in the secular establishment of Government as the ten commandments do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know, if you have read F 451, you might reconsider.

I've read that book, its defintely something worth looking at when talking about all these restrictive laws (how about restaurants cant allow patrons to smoke, sounds like a dictatorship to me) Either way the problem is that in american politics it tends to be the case that 'conservatives' tend to side with christian moral values and 'liberals' tend to side with the more secular side. Its a stereotype defintely ,but it has some merit to it. And the 9th CCA is a self proclaimed liberal court. Regardless of the fact, no one can be forced to say the pledge, but I find it funny how television and other forms of entertainment has insitlled this rebellious fervor into american children (im tlaking about before college) to the point were they protest the war, which is ok, but they dont really know WHY theyre protesting it, and thats a problem. MTV says war is bad, so i refuse to say the pledge. Thats a major problem in my opinion. Which emphasizes the fact that TV is a vehicle of pure evil and can be used to indoctrinate or start a revolution if anyone intended to use it as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mollusk is right, I am relatively conservative. But please do not make the mistake of pigeonholing me into one polarized political inclination or another just because the majority of my views align themselves with one particular ideology.

 

Anyways, back to religion. Here's my issue: If you look back at history there has been more killing, raping, plundering and pillaging in the name of a god(s) than in the name of any other belief structure, ideology or nation. To me this is the perfect exemplar of a slippery slope.

 

And while I acknowledge that almost all people in the US adhere to an internalized moral code that is very similar to concepts in Chirstianity, it in fact is not Christianity that we should attribute the existience of this internalized code of ethics to. Rather, it should be attributed to modern civility.

 

And so I do take severe exception to the idea of retaining some politically motivated addition made to the pledge during an anti-communist feeding frenzy 50 years ago. Should we now worship McCarthy, as his high-handed anti-communist crusades were in the defense of god-fearing America against the godless communists?

 

Your religion, regardless of who it worships or persecutes, has no place in the laws that govern all. And that also means religious commandments in a courthouse as well. Come to think of it, would you be so adament if it was quotes from the Koran that appeared on the courthouse steps? How about some Wiccan prophecy? My guess is that they enjoy as much legla right to appear in the secular establishment of Government as the ten commandments do.

WOW I agree with Fish Fillet on this.

 

I think that this "sudden" interest to take the "under God" out of the pledge is nothing but a loud statement to remind all politicians that there is a separation of church and state. One thing is to be a proud and good christian, another is to try to use and impose your christian values to legislate and govern. The "under God" has been in the pledge since Eisenhower and no body had complained until now. Why? Because we have never seen so much intrusion of Church and religion into politics until now.

 

I still think this is a non-issue. I wish that this "fight" for separation of Church and State didn't have to be brought to such unbelievable lenghts, but I guess some people need a reality check once in a while.

 

Under the laws and the constitution of this country you have freedom of religion and you may worship any God you wish, and this means that anybody has the right to say "under God" if they wish, as they also have the right to not say it at all. Therefore, imposing your "christian values" or athiest non-beliefs on someone are equally illegal under our constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres a tin line b/w freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. For example, that teacher that was reprimanded for reading the bible during a free reading period at her school. The argument was that students look up to her and may follow her example (god forbid this happens), but also she has her right to practice whatever religion she feels and to express it, and midn you she was not talking to students about it she was simply, quietly reading the bible. Where do you draw the line there on checks of seperation of state, because that looks to me like her rights are being trampled upon. Or the young student that was suspended b/c he wore a t-shirt with islamic symbols on it, or the one that was forced to remove a cross necklace she displayed prominently. Where is the line to be drawn, because individual rights are more prevalent than governmental rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres a tin line b/w freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. For example, that teacher that was reprimanded for reading the bible during a free reading period at her school. The argument was that students look up to her and may follow her example (god forbid this happens), but also she has her right to practice whatever religion she feels and to express it, and midn you she was not talking to students about it she was simply, quietly reading the bible. Where do you draw the line there on checks of seperation of state, because that looks to me like her rights are being trampled upon. Or the young student that was suspended b/c he wore a t-shirt with islamic symbols on it, or the one that was forced to remove a cross necklace she displayed prominently. Where is the line to be drawn, because individual rights are more prevalent than governmental rights

I agree with you on all of that. There is no reason to prohibit someone to read their holy book or to display their religious beliefs any way they want. That is a violation of the freedom of religion. The problem right now is that we have to extremes. The ones that want religion to influence all government decisions and legislations and those who want to suppress the right of others to express their religious beliefs.

 

There is always a middle ground, a moderate position to this issue, but we have two groups of people wanting to pull the tide their way. Religious Zealots vs. Atheists.

 

I am a catholic. I don't impose my religious views on anyone, and I expect that no one will impose theirs on me. I want to have the right to wear whatever clothes or accesories I want, even if they openly display my religious beliefs. It is my right to read or listen to whatever I like regardless of its religious content. Atheists are taking this too far. One thing is to fight to keep Religion out of government another is to violate someones right to worship their God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it on the news. Shrugged.

 

I think we have bigger problems than "Under God."

I agree. Just leave it in there, it's a big waste of time to debate something like that. I'm not religious, but I could care less if they left it there, that's how I've always known the Pledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on all of that. There is no reason to prohibit someone to read their holy book or to display their religious beliefs any way they want. That is a violation of the freedom of religion. The problem right now is that we have to extremes. The ones that want religion to influence all government decisions and legislations and those who want to suppress the right of others to express their religious beliefs.

 

There is always a middle ground, a moderate position to this issue, but we have two groups of people wanting to pull the tide their way. Religious Zealots vs. Atheists.

 

I am a catholic. I don't impose my religious views on anyone, and I expect that no one will impose theirs on me. I want to have the right to wear whatever clothes or accesories I want, even if they openly display my religious beliefs. It is my right to read or listen to whatever I like regardless of its religious content. Atheists are taking this too far. One thing is to fight to keep Religion out of government another is to violate someones right to worship their God.

Yea thats exactly it, but still where do we say this is govt imposing religion and when isnt it. The courts have done a terrible job at this. you take it to the 9th CCA and theyll always say its a violaiton of seperaiton of church and state. You go to one of the conservative courts itll be the opposite. And herein lies the problem, should it be made a legislative issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...