You cannot please EVERYBODY!

[Polo]

Dear Moderators, if this is too political, just let me know.

 

I read this and flinched.

 

Mind you all, I am not a religious person, but I have enough intelligence to understand what TRADITION means, for lack of a more comprehensive term.

 

I also understand that if SWMCKINLEY bangs his head with a shovel, it will NOT hurt me, so why would I want to have it made illegal?

 

Recently a friend sent me an anecdote about a group of graduating students that beat the system by having a would-be-speaker take the podium and at the same time all 90+ plus of them sneezed, so he could say "God Bless You", as it was forbidden otherwise.

 

Isn't the "Pursuit of Happiness" in the constitution? So why are we pursuing the happiness of the minority and the Johny-come-lately?

 

When I came to this Country, English was already the language spoken here, so I LEARNED IT! "IN GOD WE TRUST" was already printed on the bills. I don't read it that often, I'm more concerned with how fast they go.

 

I don't go to church, I disagree with EVERY religion, It offends me more when I see two idiots on public access TV discussing "The Atheist Experience", I resent being told what to believe, or not. However I'm fine with their existence, and I remain quiet while my wife prays before the Crucifix in our bedroom, I love to see Nativity displays, and I watched Fiddler on the Roof, and The Kite Runner, and I read The Satanic Verses, etc., and no skin has flown from my nose.

 

I could go on and on, but I'm just ranting.

[Selden]

Not sure what story you meant to link to:

 

Iraqi politics are an explosive chess game

Teacher found dead: wolves to blame?

Dutch nurses’ union: Care does not include sex

Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance

Lesbian teen back at school after prom flap

[mbelectric]

Not sure what story you meant to link to:

 

 

Dutch nurses’ union: Care does not include sex

 

I thought it was this one. I'd be upset too...

 

MB>

[Slyder_Steve]

Polo,

 

Not trying to instigate an argument but do you disagree with the ruling?

 

I, for one, believe "under God" is correct--whatever your version of God is.

 

Steve

[Bob Palin]

I think he means this one

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35821301/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

"Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance"

 

I think it imposes a god on people and therefore is objectionable.

[Polo]

Polo,

 

Not trying to instigate an argument but do you disagree with the ruling?

 

I, for one, believe "under God" is correct--whatever your version of God is.

 

Steve

 

On the contrary. I disagree with a minority requesting for the tenets under which this Country was forged to be removed; hence my reference to TRADITION.

[Polo]

I think he means this one

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35821301/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

 

"Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance"

 

I think it imposes a god on people and therefore is objectionable.

 

Words cannot impose anything on free people. I am free to believe whatever I want, and you are free not to.

 

I do not know to any degree of certainty the existence or absence of a God, therefore I cannot tell you either way. To do so would constitute an imposition.

 

I believe that more people believe that there is a God, than there is not. Thus I respect their belief.

 

The church bells toll for everyone. One is free to heed their call or not.

 

Would it be better to cause people to practice their beliefs only behind closed doors? That makes me think of the age of obscurantism. Should we bring back the Inquisition in reverse?

[russell_bynum]

Polo,

 

Not trying to instigate an argument but do you disagree with the ruling?

 

I, for one, believe "under God" is correct--whatever your version of God is.

 

Steve

 

On the contrary. I disagree with a minority requesting for the tenets under which this Country was forged to be removed; hence my reference to TRADITION.

 

"Under God" was not in the original Pledge. In God We Trust was not on the money originally. All of that was added in the 50's as an anti-communist thing.

 

I _am_ a Christian and I don't think those words belong there.

 

I'm not offended by it (and I wasn't offended by it when I wasn't a Christian), but if you asked me to vote on it, it doesn't belong there.

[Bob Palin]

I believe that more people believe that there is a God, than there is not. Thus I respect their belief.

Good old tyranny of the majority.

 

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By not saying anything you leave it open.

[Polo]

I believe that more people believe that there is a God, than there is not. Thus I respect their belief.

Good old tyranny of the majority.

 

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By not saying anything you leave it open.

 

Looking back at how religion has been used thru history to manipulate the masses I can relate to your mention of tyranny.

 

God and Satan have been used by many leaders to control the thoughts and fears of their people and thus keep them under check.

 

Religion has served leaders until it has become a nuisance. Let's not forget Henry VIII.

[Polo]

I'm not offended by it (and I wasn't offended by it when I wasn't a Christian), but if you asked me to vote on it, it doesn't belong there.

 

Most fair statement. You discern, you as a Christian don't need it. Why should a non-christian need it removed?

[Quinn]

Personally, I think the "One nation, under God" is really just a nice reminder that the country is not supreme. There are things greater and more powerful than a nation.

 

Not sure why we need a reminder on our money "In God we trust." Trust to do what? Does it imply that we shouldn't trust anyone or anything less than God? Don't understand what it's getting at.

 

---

 

 

[Polo]

Personally, I think the "One nation, under God" is really just a nice reminder that the country is not supreme. There are things greater and more powerful than a nation.

 

Another very interesting point of view.

 

Not sure why we need a reminder on our money "In God we trust." Trust to do what? Does it imply that we shouldn't trust anyone or anything less than God? Don't understand what it's getting at.

 

All others pay cash!

 

[russell_bynum]

In God we trust. Everyone else keep your hands where I can see them.

[EffBee]

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By saying what you have, you similarly impose your view. Should that also be prohibited?

[Bob Palin]

I'm not offended by it (and I wasn't offended by it when I wasn't a Christian), but if you asked me to vote on it, it doesn't belong there.

 

Most fair statement. You discern, you as a Christian don't need it. Why should a non-christian need it removed?

Where does it say anything about Christianity?

[Twisties]

I also understand that if SWMCKINLEY bangs his head with a shovel, it will NOT hurt me, so why would I want to have it made illegal?

 

Ok, fair enough, but what if SWMICKINLEY is the government, and acting as the government, he requires you to bang your head with a shovel, even though the constitution specifically forbids the government from doing so? Because that is actually a more correct analogy.

 

On the contrary. I disagree with a minority requesting for the tenets under which this Country was forged to be removed; hence my reference to TRADITION.

 

The purpose of our Bill of Rights is in part to ensure that the rights of the minority are protected from the tyranny of the majority. If there is any venerable tradition at stake here, it would be that one, not a vestige of McCarthyism, one of the darkest and most reviled periods in our history. The Bill of Rights limits government's power to establish majority rule in certain areas. That is why it is constantly under attack, and must be defended at all times.

 

Words cannot impose anything on free people. I am free to believe whatever I want, and you are free not to.

 

True enough, but this is not a matter of listening to words and judging them freely. Rather this it the government requiring a solemn PLEDGE under a very specific Judeo/Christian/Muslim God. Pledging is requiring active affirmation similar to an Oath. Would you swear an Oath that went against your beliefs? Would you say being forced to is no big deal? People have died for less.

 

I can not tell you how offensive that is to one who has a different set of beliefs, but I can propose a thought experiment for those may wish to understand. Take those words and substitute that which you find abhorrent, for instance, if it read "under Satan", or "under bin Laden" how would you feel about it? Go ahead, try to make that pledge with those words and see if your very stomach doesn't turn.

 

Most fair statement. You discern, you as a Christian don't need it. Why should a non-christian need it removed?

 

Because as stated above, it is a government establishment of religion.

 

 

 

I believe that more people believe that there is a God, than there is not. Thus I respect their belief

 

Respecting their belief is fine. If I choose to attend a funeral or wedding I am for sure going to respect the beliefs of those holding the ceremony. But I am not going to pray. I will stand silently respectful, but not violate my beliefs. Respect should be mutual. Requiring a pledge can never be respectful, regardless of content.

[Firefight911]

No one ever said anything about "requiring" you to say anything Jan.

 

As for the inclusion of "under God", it is there by way of the basis of the founding of our country under English Judeo/Christian beliefs--which is not a national religion.

[DaveTheAffable]

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.

 

 

It was under the framework of this declaration, that this nation was formed. That is a HISTORICAL fact, not a Religious opinion.

 

I believe this Country is special because of it. But I do not believe that saying "under God" during the pledge of allegiance to the "flag" or "government" makes things better. I should not pledge with my mouth, but rather witness by my walk, and my behavior, before men.

 

 

I believe "Believers" should be living their lives in a way that it is attractive, appealing, admirable, noble, honorable, that others would be drawn..... not compelled.

 

 

...and "Affable" too...

[russell_bynum]

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By saying what you have, you similarly impose your view. Should that also be prohibited?

 

His view is that you shouldn't be able to impose your view through an institution of the state....and he's got the Bill of Rights on his side

 

If your church wants to change the Pledge to include references to religion, then that's fine and, in fact, can not be prohibited. For an institution of the state to do it, that's not fine.

 

 

[Twisties]

No one ever said anything about "requiring" you to say anything Jan.

 

As for the inclusion of "under God", it is there by way of the basis of the founding of our country under English Judeo/Christian beliefs--which is not a national religion.

 

I was required to say that awful pledge for years and years Phil, and repeatedly earned disciplinary action for refusing.

 

This nation was most certainly not founded on anything so limited as English Judeo/Christian beliefs, indeed, many of the immigrants were fleeing exactly those imposed beliefs.

 

They founded this country for freedom of religion, not to establish one.

[russell_bynum]

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.

 

 

It was under the framework of this declaration, that this nation was formed. That is a HISTORICAL fact, not a Religious opinion.

 

Yup. Most of our founding fathers were deeply religious people.

 

But, the Declaration is not the foundation and framework of our government. It is a historically important document, but not a legally important one. (Unless you're the Queen of England, I suppose. )

 

 

 

I believe this Country is special because of it. But I do not believe that saying "under God" during the pledge of allegiance makes things better. I should not pledge with my mouth, but rather witness by my walk, and my behavior before men.

 

 

I believe "Believers" should be living their lives in a way that it is so attractive, appealing, admirable, noble, that others would be drawn..... not compelled.

 

Very well said.

[DaveTheAffable]

Very well said.

 

Ohhh...my heart has skipped a beat. I said somethin Russel liked.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

[Twisties]

Very well said.

 

Ohhh...my heart has skipped a beat. I said somethin Russel liked.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I liked it too. But I agree with Russell's interpretation of it. The Bill of Rights is the legacy those deeply religious people left us with as our law and our tradition. They understood that no one could be free if the government were used to establish their religion.

[russell_bynum]

Very well said.

 

Ohhh...my heart has skipped a beat. I said somethin Russel liked.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I liked it too. But I agree with Russell's interpretation of it. The Bill of Rights is the legacy those deeply religious people left us with as our law and our tradition. They understood that no one could be free if the government were used to establish their religion.

 

Man...I'm getting a workout tonight...dodging all these flying pigs....I agree with Jan on a political issue.

 

I guess there's a first time for everything.

[DaveTheAffable]

But I agree with Russell's interpretation of it. The Bill of Rights is the legacy those deeply religious people left us with as our law and our tradition. They understood that no one could be free if the government were used to establish their religion.

 

And I agree with you! I just don't want anyone to tell me that our country was NOT formed by some who were very religious people... and you aren't trying to tell me that. I don't want to see historical fact changed.

 

But I don't believe (as a believer) that God is wringing his hands in heaven thinking, "Oh no! What will I do if they take my name off of money in the United States. I just won't be able to do ANYTHING!"

 

I think that people of faith (and I'm being ALL inclusive here*) should worry more about their beliefs being written on their hearts, and deeds, than written on a wall in the public square, or on money that's used to buy drugs and pay for prostitutes.

 

*(Thanks to whoever for allowing this discussion thus far. That it is not degraded into your faith vs mine, or atheist vs believer)

 

 

 

[Twisties]

Very well said.

 

Ohhh...my heart has skipped a beat. I said somethin Russel liked.

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

I liked it too. But I agree with Russell's interpretation of it. The Bill of Rights is the legacy those deeply religious people left us with as our law and our tradition. They understood that no one could be free if the government were used to establish their religion.

 

Man...I'm getting a workout tonight...dodging all these flying pigs....I agree with Jan on a political issue.

 

I guess there's a first time for everything.

 

There is absolutely no politics involved in this discussion. It is a social and legal issue, an exemplar of the cultural divide. But so long as it does not, and it has not, turn to the positions of any political entities it is not political. In fact, we are discussing a court decision, and the courts are intentionally the apolitical branch of government. We are discussing our history and constitution, the meaning of freedom, and what this country stands for, not which party or candidate best represents that.

 

There, now we disagree. Feel better?

 

edit to fix quotations

[russell_bynum]

LOL. Remind me to punch you in the head next time I see you.

[DaveTheAffable]

LOL. Remind me to punch you in the head next time I see you.

 

You two are a riot...lol. I GOTs to get to Torrey. I'll even bring my camera so y'all can show me how to take pictures.

[Firefight911]

LOL. Remind me to punch you in the head next time I see you.

 

[John Ranalletta]

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By saying what you have, you similarly impose your view. Should that also be prohibited?

 

Can you spell "intolerance" - difficult to distinguish between the ACLU and the Taliban.

 

A Greenwood High School honor student who learned in class about court rulings striking down school prayer has found a real-world application -- his own graduation ceremony.

 

Eric Workman's lawsuit, filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, challenges the high school's practice of allowing seniors to vote on whether to have a student-led prayer at graduation.

 

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said allowing the vote and even having the prayer run afoul of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that found prayers at public school-sponsored events to violate the First Amendment.

[Twisties]

By saying there is a god you impose your view.

By saying what you have, you similarly impose your view. Should that also be prohibited?

 

Can you spell "intolerance" - difficult to distinguish between the ACLU and the Taliban.

 

A Greenwood High School honor student who learned in class about court rulings striking down school prayer has found a real-world application -- his own graduation ceremony.

 

Eric Workman's lawsuit, filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, challenges the high school's practice of allowing seniors to vote on whether to have a student-led prayer at graduation.

 

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said allowing the vote and even having the prayer run afoul of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that found prayers at public school-sponsored events to violate the First Amendment.

 

Now see, to me, this is where it just crossed Leslie's line and got political. Had the author simply raised the issues at hand, without invoking an attack on a specific public advocacy group it would have been fine. But now it introduces the hijack of the debate on the positions of the specific group, their overall value and worth. This group having been the subject of several political campaign issues. I certainly do not feel that I can respond to the attack within board rules, so now I am out of here and another very fine discussion has been ruined.

[Agent_Orange]

Me thinks the word that we can spell needs to be tolerance.

 

 

 

Everyone these days seems to be up in arms over some imagined, or real slight that sets them on a course of banishment.

 

 

My way, or the highway.

[John Ranalletta]

I apologize but disagree. I cited a local example consistent with the OP. I suggest that intolerance is the problem and it can come from either end of political or religious spectra.

 

Whom did I attack? The Taliban or the ACLU? I'd say neither. I simply opined that both can exhibit/support behavior which is intolerant of others' views. If you disagree, do so and I won't consider that either political or a personal attack.

[Polo]

Can you spell "intolerance" - difficult to distinguish between the ACLU and the Taliban.

 

A Greenwood High School honor student who learned in class about court rulings striking down school prayer has found a real-world application -- his own graduation ceremony.

 

Eric Workman's lawsuit, filed Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, challenges the high school's practice of allowing seniors to vote on whether to have a student-led prayer at graduation.

 

ACLU attorney Ken Falk said allowing the vote and even having the prayer run afoul of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that found prayers at public school-sponsored events to violate the First Amendment.

 

Precisely, the few ruling over the majority. Taking away the right to vote on an issue, any issue.

 

Can you spell Hypocrisy? Have you seen how the senate opens their sessions with a prayer by one of the nine Senate Chaplain. Now let's try to spell SECULAR, ready? S-E-C- ...

 

OK, now, do as I say, not as I do.

[VinnyR11]

I apologize but disagree. I cited a local example consistent with the OP. I suggest that intolerance is the problem and it can come from either end of political or religious spectra.

 

Whom did I attack? The Taliban or the ACLU? I'd say neither. I simply opined that both can exhibit/support behavior which is intolerant of others' views. If you disagree, do so and I won't consider that either political or a personal attack.

 

Bringing up an Appellate Court decision about including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a political discussion no matter how much you try to couch it as something else.

 

That being the case, IMO no matter what their position, others should be able to defend their views on both sides of the argument using "ACLU", "the cold war", "The Declaration of Independence", or whatever to support their beliefs.

[tallman]

Will someone define god?

After all, if saying the pledge, and including the words "under god" is tantamount to establishing a religion, then please define your terms.

 

If I say, "under punishment of death", we can all agree on what that means.

Maybe not how you'll die, but that you will.

 

Since you can't define god, at least not to the point where everyone agrees w/your definition, then how can anyone say the use of the word equates to the formation of a National Religion?

 

One of Florida's 200 or so license plates says, "In God We Trust".

So far I haven't heard of anyone cancelling their vacation here.

 

Perhaps it's why these folks are holding their National Convention in Newark.

[Dave McReynolds]

It has always been difficult for me to understand why there should be chaplains and prayers in congress, chaplains and prayers in the armed forces, and yet an absolute ban on references to religion in public schools, and a challenge to references to God in our pledge and money. Shouldn't there be a consistency somewhere?

[Albert]

This whole discussion ties in nicely with my theory that the 2nd Amendment (The right to bare arms) ultimately led to the widespread use of tanktops. Maybe I'll save that for anther thread though.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Will someone define god?

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/God

 

After all, if saying the pledge, and including the words "under god" is tantamount to establishing a religion, then please define your terms.

 

If I say, "under punishment of death", we can all agree on what that means.

Maybe not how you'll die, but that you will.

 

Since you can't define god, at least not to the point where everyone agrees w/your definition, then how can anyone say the use of the word equates to the formation of a National Religion?

 

see Loki's Wager. No single word can be defined to the point where everyone agrees with the definition, and it is unreasonable to suggest absolutely universal acceptance of a term's definition before a meaningful discussion can take place.

 

Moreover, if we can't define it, then why is it in there?

[Dave McReynolds]

Moreover, if we can't define it, then why is it in there?

 

You usually write with such clarity of thought, but I'm puzzled by what you intended to communicate in the above statement.

 

As far as the definition of God is concerned, perhaps we could adapt Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, which was something like, "I don't need to define pornography; I know it when I see it."

[tallman]

Mitch,

Perhaps that is the point, or part of the point.

If it means something different to different people then it isn't the definition or specific meaning that is important in the use of the word.

It is the individual freedom to define/use the word as you choose to, or not.

 

And perhaps that is why we are, one nation, under god.

[Polo]

Mitch,

Perhaps that is the point, or part of the point.

If it means something different to different people then it isn't the definition or specific meaning that is important in the use of the word.

It is the individual freedom to define/use the word as you choose to, or not.

 

And perhaps that is why we are, one nation, under god.

 

That all depends on what you mean by "is", what is "is"?

 

I agree, a word has pretty much the meaning that you have agreed upon. It may mean a Christian/Jewish/Muslim God, or Budha, or Alcohol, or Money, depending on what you adore.

 

If you are wise enough to categorically know that there is no God, then why aren't you wise enough to ignore other of lesser intellect who cannot attain your level of enlightenment?

 

Some of us have watched an episode or two of the new show Caprica. They use the word "Frak" instead of the other "F" word, but we all understand what they mean.

 

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.

 

A mantra uttered at the beginning of class is not a Law.

[Selden]

On the contrary. I disagree with a minority requesting for the tenets under which this Country was forged to be removed; hence my reference to TRADITION.

The words "under God" were not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. The United States had been forged for a long time by then. Oh, and the pledge was written by a socialist.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

You usually write with such clarity of thought, but I'm puzzled by what you intended to communicate in the above statement.

 

As far as the definition of God is concerned, perhaps we could adapt Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography, which was something like, "I don't need to define pornography; I know it when I see it."

 

I've never seen God. Have you?

[Dave McReynolds]

I've never seen God. Have you?

 

Keep looking, maybe you will. I'm still looking, myself.

[Polo]

On the contrary. I disagree with a minority requesting for the tenets under which this Country was forged to be removed; hence my reference to TRADITION.

The words "under God" were not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954. The United States had been forged for a long time by then. Oh, and the pledge was written by a socialist.

 

I would still consider it tradition. I realize that the pledge wasn't envisioned in 1776.

 

It was indeed written by Francis Bellamy in 1892, a Christian Socialist. The words "under God" were added in 1954. Russell Bynum states that it was amended as an anti-socialist move, I did not find anything to the effect.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Moreover, if we can't define it, then why is it in there?

 

You usually write with such clarity of thought, but I'm puzzled by what you intended to communicate in the above statement.

 

Tim (if I understood correctly) was asserting that "God" could not be defined in a widely agreed-upon manner, and so there was no reasonable basis for objection to its presence in the Pledge.

 

My counterpoint was that if it doesn't have any widely accepted definition, then there's no point in having it in there in the first place. The addition of a clause with no widely understood meaning could only serve to muddy up the Pledge, and so on that basis alone it ought not be there.

 

That said, I disagree with the notion that it is undefinable.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The words "under God" were added in 1954. Russell Bynum states that it was amended as an anti-socialist move, I did not find anything to the effect.

 

The push to include "under God" first began in 1948, but it's probably not a coincidence that congress made it official right at the height of the Red Scare.

[Harry_Wilshusen]

I haven't seen God either nor have I seen wind.

 

 

 

Harry