$US and the Pledge of Allegiance

Ok, since the Pledge of Allegiance thread caught fire... well... my apologies for starting a new one - I would have posted this there, had that one not had a noose tied around its neck. Though I think this is a little different (maybe) - at least it's from a different perspective and down a different path/subject, I think.

In any case my intention is not to create another flame war, etc. This are just merely pseudo-philosophical ramblings... not asking anyone to agree or say I'm right - just wanting to know what other's opinions may be, if you so choose to contribute to this particular thread.

With that said...


So, I've been thinking or repercussions of this whole "unconstitutional pledge of allergiance" crap (not sure there's anything in most school codes, at least in California where this precedent seems to be taking place, that force school children to recite the pledge). But that aside, one of the ones I just can't get around, for whatever reason... possible future effects on our currency. On the back of every dollar, every denomination, four simple words: "In God We Trust" So, does this mean that this guy, Michael Newdow, won't let his daughter ever go earn and spend money? Does this mean he deals solely in food stamps? More to the point, spending money is now unconstitional by the very same logic here? What's the deal here?

Frankly, I think Mr. Newdow must take himself a little bit too seriously or something (and I personally hope that his fifteen minutes of fame will quickly come to and end and we can get on with our lives). Yes, I realize that words are thoughts and thoughts are ideas and that's what makes us who and what we are... but, taking it literally and "taking it one step too far" (as George Carlin has said) is nothing short of humor. "Sure, spokesman should be spokesperson..." etc, etc, etc But this is getting crazy...

And lastly, does he, Mr. Newdow, fear God (or "a god") or whatever/something *so* much that he, in fact, can't bear to say the word or allow his daughter to say it? I mean, religious beliefs aside...

Don't know... just some of the weird thoughts going through my head over this one.

:zap:


And on the conspiracy theory end of the things... what great evil is now going on elsewhere in the country/world such that something like this comes up to the surface to occupy/distract the press? HeHeHe

:eek7:

No I do not think it caught fire and well even the Judge had second thoughts today. The Us is about personal freedom. The pledge is nothing more or less then a showing of honor to elders of this country of every raace and relegion. This country is designed to promoter self expression. This suit now could impose upon and entire nation ones mans personal right. Simple fact as a parent he could have simple wrote a note to ask his child be excused from the pledge it is his right in this country as a parent to do so. He however has no right to use a loop whole in the legal system to prevent me my children and others of honoring the founder of this country and what they have and still do fight for to maintain. I am often amazed at people that claim no faith being so afraid that they feel they have a right to strike down the right to say God, and depending upon language and culture this may be many names. You have no name do not believe then fine but do not say because I say I believe in a greater power I am imposing a damn thing upon you. Relegion has many names the spirit has one voice, the USA was founded upon the one voice of the spirit not the name or lack there of. Will stand by P2P he is right on. That is the thing American gets pissed will smack you up side the head, others getp pissed they plant a bomb send children to blow themself up. Yeah were a target and I don't mind, there is honor in standing up for what you believe America is not hiding it's people are not hiding in caves now are we?

You are right, Palemoon... Mr. Newdow, by his actions, has basically shown that he's a hypocrit. Since he doesn't believe in a particular deity, he's now attempting to force his own will on everyone else when he could have simply reserved his own rights with his child's rights and have been done with it (presumeably just by making an official request of the school district).

Furthermore, interpreting words literally, well... I think you said it better than I - the words therein the pledge are directed at a spirit of a nation, not completely literal (at least that's my belief).

Thank you both. As I said, even in my second and third posts in that thread. I PLEDGE MY ALLEGANCE.........PERIOD...................... It has nothing to do with freedom or religion. It is a matter of respect. I respect the ones that have served and died for my freedoms. If this person can't show his respect. Let him get out of this country. PERIOD. Let him go to another country where he has no freedoms. Then let him bitch and whine and be executed for this attitude. Bless AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i have a question...how do the words "under God" show respect for the founders of the country when they werent added to the pledge till much later(about 50 years ago IIRC)?

well, anyway, here's my stance on the issue. first i see what alot of you are saying about how the word "God" is on our money, ect, and i agree. however, think about it this way: what if the country were suddenly mostly Islamic and the words were changed to "under Allah". would you still feel the same way when you had to pledge to your country by invoking the name of a diety you dont even believe in? i mean why is it even there in the first place?

for MANY years i have commented about the hypocricy of claiming seperation of church and state, yet having the word God thrown on so many things which are solely state-related. hell, alot of places dont allow school sponcered prayer in public schools, but every morning they affirm their nationality by calling on God...it just seems kinda stupid to me, but what the hell do i care. i dont need to memorize and recite a bunch of words to tell everybody else i'm americian, i can do that on my own just fine.

/me ducks and runs from the anticipated various flying objects :D

Well, it's official... or, at least, watching "news up to the minute" this morning, Mr. Newdow has declared that "there are many more places where this needs to be corrected" (though that's semi-paraphrased). He's named US currency as well as some "of the disgraceful buildings in Washington DC" as his next target. So this a**hole is ready to waste how much of the public's money for this cause...???

All I can say at this point is this is one bold man... some religious fanatics have been known to do drastic things simply to "prove a point." Abortion clinic bombings? Guess where that came from... not from the same place that the 9/11 events came from, I can say that much.

this guy is an idiot. our country may be all about tolerance but he has no tolerance. under God in the pledge is a nonrepresentational term. as many analysts have pointed out, that phrase can be taken in more ways then the "almighty God." Instead however, it can be taken as under any supreme being. also, this guy has a right to believe what he wants, but he does not need to impose his rights on other people. if a child prays in school, he/she can get in trouble. that is more of an infringement of rights then anything else... besides if he doesn't like that phrase, he doesn't have to say it. simple enough to me.

Ok, it Mr. Newdow's defense, he has every right to take offense to the Pledge of Allegiance. There is a freedom of Religion in this country, and to force his child to speak the pledge is unconstitutional. Kind of like prayer in public schools.

However, he just should have his child refrain from saying the Pledge. If the school doesn't like it, TS. I had neighbors when I lived in CA that refused to say it because they felt it was wrong to pledge allegiance to a flag, but they wouldn't make anyone stop saying it because that would be forcing their beliefs on someone else.

It's a double-edged blade. Newdow is going to end up getting nipped in the butt for this. I admire him for taking a stand on his principles, and trying to teach his daughter something. But this was the wrong was to go about it.

And you guys are right. Take his money away. If he can't trust in God, he can't trust in currency.

The country was founded by people escaping religious percecution, not atheists. I don't necessarily believe in God, but I respect our heritage, about where we came from. This nation was built on the belief that people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose. This became the basis to all other freedoms for this country. Whether you believe in God, or not, you owe a little respect for those who gave you the freedom which you take for granted.

(Can you tell that I feel a little strongly about this? Then again, I'm sure most of you do too.)

Guys -

I see the point of this guy. He is not forcing anyone to do anything, only asking that he not be forced to have his pledge include a statement of belief that is, for him, untrue. That cheap statement (inserted in the pledge during the McCarthy Era) was a ploy by the Relgious Right to drive this country to the right, imho.

For those of us who don't believe in the majority religion, this is an important thing. Not being a Christian, I don't want my loyalty to my country confused with loyalty to a god i don't believe in. (btw I am a diest, not an atheist, so I do believe in a god) I don't want to prevent y'all from worshiping your god(s)(ess)(esses), but at the same time don't make me worship yours.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by jcmcb
Guys -
For those of us who don't believe in the majority religion, this is an important thing. Not being a Christian, I don't want my loyalty to my country confused with loyalty to a god i don't believe in. (btw I am a diest, not an atheist, so I do believe in a god) I don't want to prevent y'all from worshiping your god(s)(ess)(esses), but at the same time don't make me worship yours.

---

Wow, a fellow deist. I haven't seen anyone in a long time who even knows what it is, let alone believes in it. Right on!

To All,
A fundamental tenet of democracy and free expression within our society is a protection from "state" sponsored religion. We are a nation of differing ideas and religions. Everyone must be represented without fear of consequences or exclusion. Therefore if our government makes people use such terminology it is in effect a violation of that freedom.
Now you may be thinking where does "in god we trust" and "one nation under god come from"? You also may say that our fore-fathers were strict god fearing men. You are right on both fronts. They did use this language because of their beliefs and also because of the verbal habits of the time. This is NOT an allusion to the US as sponsoring the Christian God! It is a mere semantical allusion that over time has generated mistakenly into its own entity.
Our forefathers had the ability to foresee that this massive land would be overrun by radically differing religions and people. That is why there are clauses within our Constitution to protect all of our idea/beliefs from the overwhelming tyranny of state sponsored religion. I am not even opposed to "in god we trust" or any references on the dollar or buildings because "god" can mean so many different things
Now to Mr Newdow, I believe all he was trying to do was verbalize that the government should not be able to require or implement a policy that in effect violates his (in this case his daughters) freedom from state sponsored religion. When you hold your hand on your chest, gaze at the flag and then repeat those words you are in effect saying that you pledge/believe in those things, one of which is god. Being a free society he is only saying that his daughter or anyone else should not be required to do it. That is of course my take on the whole situation. Besides we all know that god is a big computer in the sky!

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by captfb
To All,
A fundamental tenet of democracy and free expression within our society is a protection from "state" sponsored religion. We are a nation of differing ideas and religions. Everyone must be represented without fear of consequences or exclusion. Therefore if our government makes people use such terminology it is in effect a violation of that freedom.

---

IMO, the "spirit" of the law is that the government can not dictate the way in which you worship or creates prejudices upon you based on your religious choices...

Quote:

---

Now you may be thinking where does "in god we trust" and "one nation under god come from"? You also may say that our fore-fathers were strict god fearing men. You are right on both fronts. They did use this language because of their beliefs and also because of the verbal habits of the time. This is NOT an allusion to the US as sponsoring the Christian God! It is a mere semantical allusion that over time has generated mistakenly into its own entity.
Our forefathers had the ability to foresee that this massive land would be overrun by radically differing religions and people. That is why there are clauses within our Constitution to protect all of our idea/beliefs from the overwhelming tyranny of state sponsored religion. I am not even opposed to "in god we trust" or any references on the dollar or buildings because "god" can mean so many different things

---

More to the point, I think the forefathers were blatantly aware of the fact that this country was formed on the soul idea of escaping religious persecution. So, to that end, the ideas and premises expressed in the formation of the country had to clearly spell-out that this country was not about to allow that to happen again.

But, yes... a "god" or "higher power" can be many different things to many people (and is - just look at Christianity versus Budhism or Judaism or whatever else).

Quote:

---

Now to Mr Newdow, I believe all he was trying to do was verbalize that the government should not be able to require or implement a policy that in effect violates his (in this case his daughters) freedom from state sponsored religion. When you hold your hand on your chest, gaze at the flag and then repeat those words you are in effect saying that you pledge/believe in those things, one of which is god. Being a free society he is only saying that his daughter or anyone else should not be required to do it. That is of course my take on the whole situation. Besides we all know that god is a big computer in the sky!

---

HeHe... well, personally I believe a more responsible approach would have been for him to approach the school and say "that's not right for me or my daughter, please don't force that upon her." Now, if the school had forced the child to proceed with the pledge or had in any way singled her out for not continuing with it, that is clearly wrong and it would seem that further sorts of action might be "warranted" at that stage (such as possible legal action against the state/school). But I think as many others have echoed, the way in which he went about obtaining this was, well, overkill...

(though on a certain personal note, I wonder why someone would choose to reside in and be a citizen of a country where they weren't ready to at least adhere to a certain pledge of allegiance. Mind you, I'm not saying this specific pledge but generically, to pledge their faith in what the country was founded/based upon. And again, as others have said... if you don't believe in just that, then why would you choose to live here? I don't get it. Eh... no matter, I guess.)

<sarcasm>
So, I wonder... what with Mr. Newdow do in court when they brought out the Bible and asked him to swear on it, before God and everyone, "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help (him) God."
</sarcasm>

Draziw----
In most states you have the option of stating the truth the whole truth so help me god or just raising your right hand and saying I affirm that what I am to say is the truth the whole or some variation of that. One is not required to swear on a Bible! This page has some interesting information in it.

http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/sohelpme.html

IMO, The question is not the pledge but the religious overtones of said pledge. Also ones patriotism is not contingent on his religious affiliation. Nor is his love of freedom or this country dictated solely by asserting a pledge. One can buy into our social contract without having to call on the almighty. I am not a religious person but would defend our right to discuss/disagree and live freely.

captfb, I know that in most (if not all) courtrooms, there is a entire book case dedicated to various books and texts to religious following that a person may swear on if they don't want to use the Christian Bible... I think they even have the book that Satanists use... but I have only one question... what if they worship the sun? Is there a book for that?

I think the point of this guy suing was not to challenge public schools forcing kids to recite the pledge, but to remove God phrase in the pledge. In my opinion this would be to force his beliefs/opinions on the rest of us who dont see anything wrong with the pledge.

Also, I think that this guy gives a bad name to any other religious/athiest group that is still patriotic. Many people who worship buddah, allah...etc are still fiercely patriotic, and have no problem with the wording of the pledge. For those that do, many simply stand, recite the pledge, and omit the god part "...one nation...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". I dont see a problem with that.

Furthermore, to continue on removing other aspects of american society that include the bible/or God (like money), wouldnt the decision of the Judges that came up with this particular ruling be nullified (after all they swore on a bible to uphold the constitution...etc). This also holds true for the president - guess we can just turn into one big lawless society now. Maybe thats what the guy really wanted anyway...

BBOP.

ok... i'm going to be the outcast of the group...

First off, the phrase "Under God" was put into the pledge because the president didn't want us to seem like the "Godless Communists". That is a fact. So that right there is saying that we are better than communists because our nation believes in god. That is clearly a religious based statement. Why the country thought that putting a religious based phrase in the pledge of a nation that is all about religious freedom is beyond me. And doesn't make any sense in the first place. I wouldn't have put that in the pledge in the first place.

Second, school is about education. You learn about your country in your history and social studies classes. The practice of pledging your allegiance to a country every single day in a place of education does not make any sense. It doesn't teach you anything, and the students just mumble the words along with the teacher because they are told to. I'm sure that teaches independance. Kinda sounds communist if you ask me. Ironic?

Now to the whole thing about being an athiest and not wanting to say the pledge. After 9/11 i'd hate to be the person to not say the pledge. The kids must have a ball with the outcast of the class that doesn't say the pledge. It is another Columbine in the making. Everyone says if you don't want to say the pledge then don't say it. Yea, if only it was that simple. Did all of you forget what it was like to be different in middle school, and high school. Did all of you forget how cruel kids can be? Athiest or not, if you don't say the pledge especially after 9/11, you must get torn apart by your class mates. Well if you don't want to get picked on, then you better say the pledge whether you want to or not. Doesn't that end up going against everything America is about? Unfortunately it just shows how messed up our country is. Be like everyone else, or be doomed. You choose. Land of the free - as long as you fit in.

What's even sadder is that this could all be avoided if they didn't say the pledge in school everyday in the first place. These kids could care less what the pledge stands for, they don't know what the pledge is about, and it really is meaningless whether these kids say it or not. It would make more sense for us adults that actually have rights in this country to say the pledge everyday instead of these little kids that are bossed around and told what to do in school all day. But how many of us adults say the pledge everyday anyway? Hell, I haven't said the pledge since my last day of high school.

Bottom line... all this over something that we as adults rarely even do, that has nothing to do with school anyway. Besides, it shouldn't be the school trying to make the kids pledge allegiance to the country, it should be the parents. How many of you would make your kids say the pledge every morning if they removed it from school? That's what I thought. Not very many. It's easier to talk patriotic, than act it.

Flame away.

psychosquee ----LOL yes there should be only you would have to wear a flame resistant suit lest you burn yourself on the book or on your sarcasm!

Quote:

---

For those of us who don't believe in the majority religion, this is an important thing. Not being a Christian, I don't want my loyalty to my country confused with loyalty to a god i don't believe in. (btw I am a diest, not an atheist, so I do believe in a god) I don't want to prevent y'all from worshiping your god(s)(ess)(esses), but at the same time don't make me worship yours.

---

i do not see how this phrase makes you "worship" God. and like i said before, if you don't agree with it you don't have to say it. i don't say the pledge of allegiance at all for my own reasons, it is your personal choice. i don't disagree with you, i just think that altering it to this degree is unnecessary when all you have to do is omit the phrase.

Quote:

---

I think the point of this guy suing was not to challenge public schools forcing kids to recite the pledge, but to remove God phrase in the pledge. In my opinion this would be to force his beliefs/opinions on the rest of us who dont see anything wrong with the pledge.

---

now... the pledge is not mandatory. if you do not want to say it you do not have to. i don't care what school you go to. they can not force you to say the pledge... that was resolved a long time ago. you have to stand up, but you don't have to speak.

Lord -

The point is not whether I have to plege, but that its part of the gov't spondering. Being part of that gov't makes me part and parcell of that worship, however small. I take oaths and pledges seriously, as do many people. To us this is not a minor issue, but an important statement.

To me this isn;t about kids, who could care less about it, but about the message we are sending to each other. We all know that "God" in this case is a by-word for the Christian god, and I for one want to call a spade a spade. If this is going to be a Christian Country, fine, let me know so I can move to Canada... if not then lets leave god in our churches and homes, and keep our GOv't secular!!!

i see and completely understand your point... but in order for that to happen then the whole country needs a severe overhall... christmas should no longer be a legal holiday... because even though it has turn overtly commercial it is still the celebration of the christian messiah's birth. money needs to be changed, no more "in God we trust." the buildings in washington need to be changed, many buildings (monuments esp) need to lose the phrases that contain god...

the part i do not understand though is this, as long as our gov't is tolerant and you are free to worship who you want as you want, then why would it matter if our gov't supported a particular religion. most of our presidents (if not all) were christian in some degree of the word (the least they did was believe in god) if our gov't supported the muslim belief, or the hindu belief, i would not be too concerned as long as i am free to worship whom i choose. this may just be a personal thing, i am not sure. i just do not understand because of the way i am.

would you be happier if the phrasing was under a god, or under natures god as it says in the declaration of independence? just curious... not trying to bash you or stir up trouble. i just want to understand your point of view

from the declaration of independence
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

Quote:

---

Second, school is about education. You learn about your country in your history and social studies classes. The practice of pledging your allegiance to a country every single day in a place of education does not make any sense.

---

Quote:

---

'Who controls the past controls the future:
who controls the present controls the past.'
George Orwell '1984' (1949)

---

http://orwell.ru/home.htm

There is a vicious battle for control of "public education",
and it is winner take all. Education is not a technical
or neutral thing. All education is ideological, and those
who control the institutions of compulsory education
can fill the young with their ideology and eventually
marginalize and outlaw the ideologies of their rivals.

Quote:

---

"Use the force, Luke"

---

Maybe it's time to breake up the other evil empire.
:cool:

Lordarkside_X

I am all for the removal of the word god from our coinage, public buildings and I also want prayers and invocations removed from public forums. I am a firm believer that and connection between Religion (the most undemocractic institution in this country) and our governement is a destructive one. Religions (mostly, but espicially Fundie Christians) are based on a rigid hierarchy and strict laws. They are not based on the fundamental ideas of freedom and individual worth that democracy is. If you create a bond between them its only a matter of time before the religion tries to subsume the democracy. See the neverending efforts of the Religous right to teach creationism and post the 10 commandments in our country.

As for the Declaration of Independence, I am a little biased. TJ was not only a diest, but also a Unitarian, like myself. So take my opinion with that grain of salt. I think creator is a good way to show that Democracy is based on the ideas of rights that are higher than man (ie he cannot take them away) but also does not require a god in the equation (although you can choose to personally believe that).

Just my own opinion......

Imma have to, mostly, agree with jared_c, his post was well said. I think it's funny that you can go anywhere on the net and the majority of people on a debate like this, go one way or the other, black and white, clean cut no discussions, heh heh, I like to live in the grey.

Our govm'nt is what it is, founded by people who believe in christ and the allmighty lord our god. Screw the money and coins, let 'em say in 'God We Trust', it was their gold that the notes were originally printed against anyway, their gold, their note. A dollar bill with the word god on it does not infrigne on anyone's rights, that's tradition, and history. You want me to look at a dollar bill every morning and recite 'In God We Trust", Imma say hell no, though!

A few people have said that if we remove the 'under god' section of the pledge that it will be imposing someone else's views on them. Peshaw, you wanna stand there and 'think' it real quick in b/w the lines, that's all fine and good, nobodies asking you to do something you don't want to do. Thinking 'under god' wouldn't force you to be singled out at school, or make a daily affirmation about something you don't believe in. Why should someone else have to do it??

Seperate church and state?? It's never gonna happen, governing bodies use beliefs and principles to guide them, it just so happens that ours were founded on christianity, no worse or better than many others. Seperate church and school? Heck yeah, religion has no place in education, but as a subject being studied. That doesn't in anyway diminsih patriotism, My Country Tis of Thee remains the same, and the pledge may very well be shortened back to it's orginal form, getting rid of the annoying pause that the 'under god' made in it's verse.

Hey D -

Our country was not founded by Christians, but rather by humanists who believed in a more dieist view of god. B Franklin, T Jefferson, and Prob. G. Washington would not be considered "Christians" in the modern sense. Rather they believed in god as more of a clockmaker. And besides, they didn't put "In God We Trust" in the pledge or the coinage, so lets see who did....Conservative Christians in this century (at lest for the Pledge, not sure about the coinage).

I found a few quotes that I think pertain to rcgreens comments earlier. If I misunderstood you rc, then please correct me.

Quote:

---

Who owns the youth owns the future! -- Adolf Hitler

---

Quote:

---

Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state. -- Adolf Hitler

---

Quote:

---

Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state. -- Vladimir Lenin

---

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as other people's children. Children are the property of all of us. They belong to the state.

---

Both sides of the issue (the devout Christians and the devout athiests) realize that children are the most easily influenced. Thus, if a large percentage of the teachers are athiests or agnostics, the next generation is signifcantly more likely to be a godless generation. If however, more teachers are Christians, then the next generation has a much greater chance of becoming Christians as well. If you take an honest look at the school system and the teenagers that are a product of this system, I think it's obvious which side has been in control in recent years. Both sides understand the importance of educating the youth, but there is a vast difference in how each sides deals with this knowledge. Most Christian families that are concerned about what their children are taught (and who have the means) put their children in Christian schools or teach their kids at home. When was the last time you heard of an athiest or agnostic pulling a child out of a school for religious beliefs? Personally, I have only heard of one. Most athiests and agnostics, however, are not content to simply teach their kids themselves. They would rather have the entire public school system bend to meet their own desires. And if it doesn't teach EXACTLY what they want it to teach, they cry discrimination. Not only that, but quite a few of these same people are also angry at the people in the Christian schools and those that school at home. I've heard quite a few cries that tend to go something like this: "How dare they think that they're too good for our school system. Who do they think they are? Do they really think they're better than us?" In reality, though, the anger comes from the realization that they have lost the opportunity to mold the minds of the Christians' children.

As I stated before, both sides understand what is at stake here, and both sides are struggling to maintain the beliefs that they hold dear. Both sides are responsible at some level for wanting to teach their beliefs to the children from the other side. So if you go throwing around blanket accusations, you may end up catching yourself in that blanket as well. Oh, and I intentionally left off the source of the last quote. It's from Hillary Rodham Clinton. Just something to think about.

Oh, and on a somewhat unrelated note, I found some quotes that may be of interest to jcmcb:

Quote:

---

A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know the price of the rights which God has given them, cannot be enslaved. -- Benjamin Franklin

---

Quote:

---

I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just and his justice cannot sleep forever. --Thomas Jefferson

---

Quote:

---

Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics. -- George Washington

---

Str -

here are some quotres

"I hate god" - Ben Franklin

"I like Spam" - Thomas Jefferson

"What is this computer of which you speak?" - George Washington.

If you are going to quote someone, which you should, please provide some citation. This ain't a class paper or anything, but you can always make stuff up, as I just did...

http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm

This page talks about what deism is, and Thomas Paine (our most unknow founding father) a committed Deist.

"Old Chruches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, by Bishop William Meade, I, p 191. 'Even Mr. Jefferson, and George Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence.' "

Just a small quote about TJ and GW.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9447.htm

Nice little explaination of old Ben...

Hey jcmcb, I agree with you to a point, k wait, no I disagree with you about almost everything. I dpn't think you could 'make' the comment that our founding fore fathers weren't christian, I'll admit that I don't know what a dieist is, though, even with the site.

You can't get more conservative than puritanical ideals. You your self said you don't know whether the 'conservative x-tians" put the 'In God We Trust' on bills and notes, well, I can say I DON"T know who put it there, but I'll bet you a month's pay it wasn't yer moden day conservox-tians.

On the pledge yer right, we did put it in there in the fifties, just like someone else had posted, to make ouselves better than the 'godless communists'. Heh, 'the godless communists', are they diesists too??? I know what a diety is, I just can't form much out of the word to constitute a religion, would Ben Tom and George have called themselves dieists??


5+|234M, "When was the last time you heard of an athiest or agnostic pulling a child out of a school for religious beliefs? "
I know quite a few who pulled there children out b/c of religious beliefs, not their beliefs, but other people's. I have a buddy who's wife homeschools their kids, he always wants to bitch about Thanksgiving and how it's portayed in History texts, the cornanicopia of pumkins and corn, white and red sitting together at a long table in the woods, heh, like the last supper, he'd say.

"They would rather have the entire public school system bend to meet their own desires. And if it doesn't teach EXACTLY what they want it to teach, they cry discrimination. "??
I totally disagree with you, non-christians in general don't bitch as a group, we know we're outnumbered, and know when we're beaten. That's why your previous statement doesn't hold up. Why struggle when you can just handle the whole damn thing yourself?? Pull the kids out, teach them right, give them an open view about anything you can.

" I've heard quite a few cries that tend to go something like this: "How dare they think that they're too good for our school system. Who do they think they are? Do they really think they're better than us?""
Your touching on a subject that has nothing to do with a person's religious views, your getting into class consciousness, the haves vs. the have nots. If your trying to group all agnostic and athiest poeple into this group, your saying that they are all the poorer people in the population. My un-xtian friends haven't been denied the right to warp the minds of the good christian children, they never wanted it. Trying to 'convert' someone, nowandays is a largley christian thing, the rest of us believe what we want, and keep it to ourselves unless asked.

Quote:

---

Religous right to teach creationism

---

umm... again i will add the 'no offense'.... but creationism has every right to be taught in school along with evolution. niether is better then the other since both are theories and niether has become a law. i am not saying one is right or one is wrong... but niether is wholly right at least at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by d313t3d
Heh, 'the godless communists', are they diesists too??? I know what a diety is, I just can't form much out of the word to constitute a religion, would Ben Tom and George have called themselves dieists??

---

Deism has no relation to the word diety. Deism, in short, is the belief that God created the universe, and let it go from there. Deist tend to believe that there is a God, but that he has no active roll in the universe. When I first learned about it in European History, is was likened to a Clockmaker and a Clock, winding the clock, and letting it go. It allowed scientists to believe in God without sacrificing their principles, and not get in trouble with the government.

So for me, I believe in God, because I think that the Big Bang Theory is a bunch of crap (for now -- if I see better evidence, then ... ) but I also support the theory of evolution, and science.



Now, as for teaching creationism/evolution in schools, I know that when I was in school, people could sign a waiver before they entered the evolution section in Biology, as it was against their religion to learn it. They were then excused from class. If they wish to teach creationism, they could always go the same route -- sign a waiver of it conflicts with personal belief. Personally, I'm so uninformed about the particulars and specifics of religion, that I would rather enjoy being taught creationism. Just because I'm taught it, doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to subscribe to it. It's all about Free Will, y'all.

Keep the text on the money, keep the phrase in the Pledge ( I think I remember refraining from stating it when I said it), it isn't hurting anything (or do athiest's hands burn when they touch currency). If you don't like it, ignore it. It's not being forced upon you, it's just there. Next thing you know, this guy will be taking down phrases from National Monuments. And then churches will no longer be able to have signs out front.

Just leave it alone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by lord_darkside_x


umm... again i will add the 'no offense'.... but creationism has every right to be taught in school along with evolution. niether is better then the other since both are theories and niether has become a law. i am not saying one is right or one is wrong... but niether is wholly right at least at this point.

---

How right you are LD. That's why it's called the "Theory of Evolution," not the "set-in-stone, unavoidably correct
reason for life on this planet." There are problems with it.

I hope you'll forgive me for giving you too much credit jcmcb. I thought that someone of your intelligence would be familiar with the search engine known as google. Here's how it works... You go to www.google.com. Then you type any one of my quotations in the little text box with quotation marks around it. Then you hit enter so you can see dozens of references to my quotes. Then, you might want to try your quotes... You'll have a lot harder time there, since you will find some responses, but none of them were said by to the people you attributed them to. Perhaps I should post this in the tutorial section? If you ask a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer. My quotes were not intended as an attack, but an attempt to make you take a second look at the things you KNOW to be true.

I read through the deist website you referenced, and a few of the points it makes fit with what I've learned of the founding fathers. I am not naive enough to believe that these men held beliefs that were 100% compatible with Christianity, and I hope that you are not naive enough to think that their beliefs are 100% compatible with your notion of Deism. If you want a full picture of their beliefs, then you must read about all of the angles of their lives. You can quote all of the Deist websites you want to, and I can quote all of the Christian websites I want to. I'm certain that neither of them portrays the full spectrum of their beliefs because both have an agenda. If they run across a quote by Franklin that doesn't prove the point they're trying to make, they just don't include it, since that would cloud their point. Only by reading both groups, as well as a wide variety of "neutral" (for lack of a better word) websites, can you get a true picture of their lives and beliefs.

d313t3d, I don't know what to say to your comments, except that my experiences have been different. I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one, because my personal experiences just don't match what your statements. Perhaps it's a matter of perspective, or perhaps it's a difference between our communities. As I said before, with the exception of one family, most of my athiest friends like to scream like crazy when they disagree with a school policy. During conversations wth them after the fact, they said that they just like to see what they can get awaya with. But the majority of my Christian friends just quietly move their kids to another school or take them home to learn.

First off having 3 children the eldest with a Master, one in High School, and another in grade school. None of them were ever forced to do anything I as their father and their mother also could object to any class group activity. The word God in and of itself denotes only a general generic stating of a higher being those wishing to state it should be able to and if this stating offends you then do not impose upon me the right of my children to say it. Life is not fair and as such not everything can or ever will be to our 100% approval. But as a society we attempt in this country to lets all have what they believe. My god is not your god or even a lack of it. It is a generic term meant for each person that says it to believe or not but as one nation we must stand under the languages and beliefs of the many people that make up this land. Faith is what you make of it, if one believes so much in nothing then what is the point to promote nothing? Nothing has no value, culturally, morally, or etheically nothing is that nothing.

allah Jehova, God, are the same being! the founders of this country where persecuted christians, devote! we simply cannot seperate the two... to say that they used the word God as a genreic term is untrue!!!

"God, Jehova, Allah, Buddha, talks to all people in there own language"
Dr. Martin Luther King jr

Simply put the word God is what you believe or do not. If one takes time to study both curtural and languages differences the concept is always the same an all knowing being a higher power and knowledge. Lets say for the sake of debate then one is a God where would you plant all your wisdom, if it is on the earth then I'd opt in for give your ways into the language and culture of all the people, no one is 100% right and then no one is wrong. A god would be smart spread what their about over many people and cultutures as a mortal then my task to know or not know this being would be to accept all interpatations not bound with my concept taught or learned but just accept that is the way it is.

Here's my main problem with the whole shebang: The United States is supposed to be a melting pot of beliefs, cultures, races, etc. Even if nearly all religions can be said to believe in the same God, why should those in the religious minority bend their belief system to accomodate the majority? You're asking them to set aside their beliefs when they refer to themselves as American, or set aside their Americanism when they refer to their beliefs. This point is extremely important to me as an atheist and a patriot (perhaps a dying breed, but I digress...). I love this country, but I hate the notion that it has become so religiously exclusive that I might not belong to this country because of my beliefs. Am I only an American for activities that don't involve religious overtones? If I say the Pledge alongside my fellow Americans, but I'm the only one who leaves out the 'Under God', I would feel very isolated. (If you say 'That's because you're a godless heathen,' I'm gonna smack you.) :D

I've been willing to tolerate certain inconsistencies for some time (yes, 'In God We Trust' on money is bothersome for me). But I shouldn't have to tolerate them at all. Removing 'Under God' from the pledge offends some people, because they feel that their beliefs are no longer being endorsed by the country they love. Leaving it in offends people because they feel that their beliefs are not even recognized by the country they love. You tell me which is worse.

Personally, I feel that it is much better that the United States not endorse any religion than to (even symbolically) support many, but not all. For those of you who say "It's not about religion, it's about tradition." I hate to tell you this, but the tradition was founded on religion. That you support it now "because of tradition" only further insults those who are just as American as you are, and simply believe something different.

I can't stress this enough: Your religious beliefs are not, and can not be what makes you American.

The country was founded by people escaping religious percecution, not atheists. I don't necessarily believe in God, but I respect our heritage, about where we came from. This nation was built on the belief that people should be free to practice whatever religion they choose. This became the basis to all other freedoms for this country. Whether you believe in God, or not, you owe a little respect for those who gave you the freedom which you take for granted.

This country was founded by people escaping religious percecution, and it DOES state in the constitution that we have a freedom of religion. However, we continually tend to discriminate against nonChristians. The Jews, the Muslims, the others too numerous to mention, as well as the athiests and diests, are all discriminated against. You walk into a room, or join in a coversation, and it is about religion, and you inform people, well I'm not Christian, I am Muslim (Jew, Buddhist, etc), and you get THE LOOK. Then you are either ignored, or treated like some exotic creature.
We are a majority of Christians, and we don't fully understand the other religions, so we look down on them. We were all prepared in WWII to help the Jews escape, and most of the people back then were, well, why do they not hide that they are Jews, or convert to Christianity? They have the same pride in their beliefs as Christians and other religions do in theirs.
Now, in these recent days, we have come to associate Muslims with terrorists. Anyone who is a Muslim has to be a terrorist, right? Wrong. Do not blame a whole religion on one single group's activities.
I am not Muslim, nor am I a Jew. I believe there is SOMETHING out there, just not sure WHAT. But don't I have that right?