"Under God" aka Removing God/Religion from Public Life

[T-bone]

So my question is this: If it's said in the pledge of allegiance in, say, your school and you're not required to say it anyhow, what's the big freakin deal? It's not kids that are going to be offended but fanatical parents. Kids could care less.

Example: When I was a kid my mother sent me to a sleep-away camp. I had no idea it was a Jewish camp, nor did I even really know much about Jewish people - I was about 10-11 and to me people were people at that point. Every day before every meal we were required to say a Jewish prayer which I can't remember (Baruch, Atta...(sp)) and I was to learn this thing and say it every day.

I never for one second thought to myself, "Religion is being forced on me!!!" You know what it did teach me though? Tolerance. It educated me and taught me that there are different people in the world who do different thigns than me. The world is not all like me. Not everyone is Roman Catholic and different people pray to different gods in different ways - and have no faith at all.

Because I said some Jewish prayers didn't make me Jewish. It's not what you say- it's what you do and how you live your life. I was a kid and I didn't ever say, "How dare you make me say this!" Kids don't get outraged by these things. If you're secure enough in your religion to tolerate other people's beliefs, then this really should be a non issue.

No one is forcing your kids to say or do anything in schools but learn. If they don't want to say "under God" so be it. But don't deny people who want to the right to say it as well.

What if we said that Muslim kids are not allowed to pray every X hours facing a certain direction? That would be wrong, no? So denying people with faith the right to say "Under God" in their pledge is ok? They can pledge without saying that part if they want to.

Kids don't give a crap is the point. Overzealous parents who live vicariously though their kids do.

I hope no one is offended by all that. I just think sometimes people really make a big deal about this stuff when it's really not doing anyone any harm. This guy could be doing something positive like helping the homeless or running a charity with all his energy. Instead he's busy fighting the supreme court. Keep in mind that his ex-wife is a Born Again Christian so this reeks of some kind of personal/domestic power struggle as well, but let's not judge, eh? style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif

***************

Supreme Court Fails to Decide Merits of Pledge Caseby James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An atheist's attempt to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance failed on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) avoided the constitutional question and ruled he could not bring the challenge on behalf of his daughter.

The ruling in one of the most important cases of the term was based on the technicality that Californian Michael Newdow could not bring the case because he did not have legal control over the 9-year-old girl. It left open the possibility of future challenges.

The 8-0 decision overturned a controversial ruling by a U.S. appeals court in California that reciting the phrase amounted to a violation of church-state separation.

The ruling came on Flag Day and on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge. The U.S. Congress adopted the June 14, 1954, law in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Three court members -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) -- disagreed that Newdow could not bring the case.

They said they would have decided the merits of the dispute and ruled the words "under God" do not violate the Constitution.

Both supporters and opponents expressed disappointment the Supreme Court avoided the key constitutional issue. They predicted it would arise again and have to be decided.

A disappointed Newdow, an emergency room doctor who has a law degree and acted as his own attorney, said he hoped the ruling at least would spark media interest in what he called grossly unfair U.S. child custody laws.


NEWDOW FIGHTING ENTIRE SYSTEM

"I'm fighting this entire system. In a couple months I will be in the family courts arguing that this entire system is unconstitutional," he said in a telephone interview from his home near Sacramento, California.

The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, a born-again Christian, said she had exclusive legal custody of the girl under a state court order. She supported her daughter saying the pledge and said it was not in her best interest to be part of the suit.

The court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites), said Newdow lacked the right to bring the challenge because Banning has sole legal custody and is authorized to exercise legal control over her daughter.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Stevens wrote.

Millions of American students every day "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

A California law requires the pledge to be recited every day at public elementary schools, although no child has to join in.

The ruling drew similar reactions from supporters and opponents of the "under God" phrase.

"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come back in the future," said the Rev. Barry Lynn of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas who said the words were constitutional, called it "disconcerting" the issue had not been settled.

[Sluggo]

Well spoken, T. Live and let live, I say. If your beliefs don't harm yourself, others or society, what's the deal?

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:#000070">My own personal take on the situation, as an atheist, is that even though the "Under God" was added to the pledge after it's creation, it does reflect the current heritage of the majority of America. America is based on Christian values and the pledge shows it. I think the only way it should be removed is if at sometime the public gets to vote on it as a whole and votes that it should be removed. But I think before that happens we should leave it as is. The same goes for the "In God we trust" on our dollar bills.</span>

[stormtrooper9]

I agree with all by doing this we remove our history some would say so why don't we because if we forget about what happened in WW2 we are doomed to have a evil dictator tack over a country and start a war and WW 2 happing for the 2th time.

[Justin]

I don't understand why people freak out so much over this kind of thing. The founding fathers of this country were deeply religious and they used their religious values when they made our nation. The seperation of church and state was instituted so that people could be free to worship as they choose, not so that religion would be eliminated from the government.

Why would they choose to put "In God We Trust" on our currency if they wanted it banned?

It really bothered me when they took the sculpture of the Ten Commandments out of that courthouse in Alabama or wherever that was. It wasn't there to say that the laws would be judged according to the Ten Commandments, but it was sort of like a monument of a classic set of rules. Like when you go to a modern Naval ship and they have models of colonial ships, or to an Air Force base and they have models of older planes. It wasn't some oppressive symbol declaring rule according to religion.

People just like to make a fuss.

[Master Cephus]

I think the problem is that some people are just so anti-religion they don't want to ever have to deal with hearing or seeing it EVER. I believe they should show some tolerance. I mean my wanting to show my love of God is just as important as thier not wanting to announce that God exists right?

It was in Alabama Justin. I liked the idea of the ten commandments there. Our laws are based on them. The problem that I had with that whole thing was the way Judge Roy Moore (the one who put it there) acted. He disobeyed a decision from a federal court telling him to remove them. Since then, he has went to numerous courts trying to say that they don't have a right do that. It seems now in Alabama, you are a Roy Moore supporter or you are not. I don't like that.

People tend to forget that even though those commandments aren't there, or if they ever take away "In God we trust" "Under God", and other various christian things, they can't stop me from saying them and believing them in my heart. And our God is a personal God so if it is in my heart then that is all that really matters...IMO

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:#000070">Okay, I disagree here. When the Ten Commandments were placed in the public courthouse that shows a clear endorsement of religion. You can't have a Christmas trees in a post office, you shouldn't be able to have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Our laws are not based on the Ten Commandments. There is no "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in our legal system. For the record, I am not anti-religion. I didn't support the ACLU when they removed the cross from my neighboring city's symbol. But putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not honor the history of America, it honors the Judeo-Christian faith. There is a difference.</span>

[Justin]

Actually it's Jewish, originally. And I disagree with you about it being put there to honor religion.

[Jango]

great speech T i dont give a crap about saying it we just do you sort of get in a habit when ur in school so im used to it!

[Obi-Stu]

. I think T'Bone said it best:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You know what it did teach me though? Tolerance. It educated me and taught me that there are different people in the world who do different thigns than me. [/b][/quote]

We are all different and have different ideas. We need to learn to live with each other and respect those beliefs.

Here in South Africa we have many different cultures and religions and it is hard trying to please everyone.

We had a work function last week and we had a battle planning it because the Musliums couldn't eat this and the Hindu's couldn't attend on this day.

Tolerance and understanding.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>We are all different and have different ideas. We need to learn to live with each other and respect those beliefs.[/b][/quote]

Right - and this goes both ways. People with no faith need to be tolerant of people with faith as well. I saw an interview with this guy on TV last night and he's just all about how he's a good father, etc. Kept talking about his ex-wife and how divorce laws are bad for the guy (which they ARE, but that's not the issue here.) It reeks of a personal battle, not a belief or persecution thing. I don't believe he's insulted by this -he just wants all religion abolished publicly because he feels that's how it should be.

The Supremem Court really messed up here though. They could have just decided but instead they found a loophole and this guy will just find another guy to file the suit again and we'll go through this whole thing again.

For the record - that thing about not having an Xmas tree in a post office - I think that's silly. People are too uptight with this political correctness and constant worrying about everyone else's lives and feelings. I hardly think an Xmas tree is insulting to anyone. It promotes cheer and goodwill, no matter what religion you are. Put up Chanuka stuff and Muslim stuff wherever you like too - it's all good. I really don't understand this. We are supposed to be free to do what we want in this country and this ACLU is really a hypocrisy to me.

Anyhow - I just think this whole thing is silly when people with this much energy could be doing something more positive for society.

[Leia]

I don't get why people keep trying style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif Last time this kind of a case got anywhere at all, the entire congress went out and said the pledge together. The people wanting to get "under God" out of the pledge are a huge minority, they should just give it up already. It's not hurting anybody. Just be quiet during that part of the pledge if you don't want to say it.

[Javen]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 15 2004, 09:14 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>We are all different and have different ideas. We need to learn to live with each other and respect those beliefs.

Right - and this goes both ways. People with no faith need to be tolerant of people with faith as well. I saw an interview with this guy on TV last night and he's just all about how he's a good father, etc. Kept talking about his ex-wife and how divorce laws are bad for the guy (which they ARE, but that's not the issue here.) It reeks of a personal battle, not a belief or persecution thing. I don't believe he's insulted by this -he just wants all religion abolished publicly because he feels that's how it should be.

[/b][/quote]
This guy had a different agenda than just this Under God thing.

Newdow complained that the California family courts are unconstitutional and that a parent should not be stripped of his parental rights, etc., and so on. The case brought the attention of the entire country, the attention of the Bush administration, and forced the Western third of the country to drop the Pledge while the decision was pending.

And in the end, it was all really about one guy bringing the whole country into his personal domestic dispute, affecting a hundred million schoolkids and throwing the legal system into chaos. The Constitutional 'issue' was just a smoke screen for his personal beef with the system.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Okay, I disagree here. When the Ten Commandments were placed in the public courthouse that shows a clear endorsement of religion. You can't have a Christmas trees in a post office, you shouldn't be able to have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Our laws are not based on the Ten Commandments. There is no "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" in our legal system. For the record, I am not anti-religion. I didn't support the ACLU when they removed the cross from my neighboring city's symbol. But putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse does not honor the history of America, it honors the Judeo-Christian faith. There is a difference. [/b][/quote]

Why can't you have a christmas tree in a post office? I would say now that this holiday isn't a christian holiday as much as it is a retail holiday

I should have said that the ten commandments are an inspiration for our laws today: don't murder, don't steal, don't bear false witness. The ten commandments also gives our morals and values that we use today: honor your father and mother, don't commit adultry...

And also, if you look at where the ten commandments were put (Birmingham Alabama) this is the capital of the bible belt where probably 9 our of 10 (probably even better than that) people are christians.

Going with this, let's look at the first amendment:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>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.[/b][/quote]

In this case we look at the first part:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/b][/quote]

the first part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that congress can not start a state religion or make everyone go to a certain church. This is derived to help prevent what Henry 8th did...start the Church of England.

the second part: prohibit the free exercise thereof. Does this not mean that I can have the free exercise of religion? Can't I do this in public? How does this prevent me from doing these things?

from this, where how does the ACLU have a leg to stand on?

[Vyndim]

<span style="color:#000070">I don't want to get too off topic, but the ACLU won their case because LA doesn't have the resources to fight the ACLU at this time and, to be frank, there wasn't any kind of outcry from the community. Not that we don't care, but there are other things that Californians are worried about right now and maybe the ACLU is aware of it and uses this time to advance their own interests. The ACLU has really become an organization with it's own private agenda and I can't see how it protects anyone's rights besides those within their inner circle at this point.</span>

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by Vyndim@Jun 15 2004, 11:57 PM
<span style="color:#000070">I don't want to get too off topic, but the ACLU won their case because LA doesn't have the resources to fight the ACLU at this time and, to be frank, there wasn't any kind of outcry from the community. Not that we don't care, but there are other things that Californians are worried about right now and maybe the ACLU is aware of it and uses this time to advance their own interests. The ACLU has really become an organization with it's own private agenda and I can't see how it protects anyone's rights besides those within their inner circle at this point.</span>
A agree, them ALCU peoples are scary sometimes.

[Sluggo]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 15 2004, 07:14 AM
Right - and this goes both ways. People with no faith need to be tolerant of people with faith as well.
Indeed. Atheism is just as much a religious movement as Christianiy, Islam or Judiasm. Athiests just don't have ritual with their bellief, or holidays. style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif It's all relative in my book.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Master Cephus@Jun 15 2004, 08:36 PM
from this, where how does the ACLU have a leg to stand on?
This nation isn't a 'Christian Nation' it's a nation where we have religious freedom, where different cultures and religions all sorta mingle, so surely you can understand why the Ten Commandments shouldn't be posted on a government building, since the government cannot declare an official religion. By doing that they're more or less unofficially declaring the establishment as Christian and they're endorsing religion.

And not to go off on too far a tangeant, but this whole 'under God' issue is one of the reasons I don't have alot of respect for our current Prez or his dad, just look at a few of the things a few of them have said:

"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."

- George H.W. Bush

"The days of discriminating against religious institutions simply because they are religious must come to an end."

George W. Bush

But then Dubya has also used the word "crusade (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crusade)" several times to describe the war on terrorism.

Anyway, claiming this to be one nation under the Judeo-Christian God is more or less breaking the first amendment. The continual promotion of the Christian faith from the government IMO is not too far away from declaring Christianity the official religion, because this is NOT a Christian Nation this is a nation that allows it's citizens the freedom to express all sorts of religious beliefs.

[goodwije]

the problem with the "under god" in the pledge is more than the two words inply. It is true that any student can choose not to say them, but if they do they had better hope that the teacher or fellow students do not see them do it. It is pretty well shown that kids who choose not to be involved in what some would consider class led "religious" activities are often the subject of ridicule, rumor, and outright hostility.

Lou i get your point and appreciate your story, however we are not talking a voluntary summer camp here we are talking a government sponcered institution that children are required to attend. No one is saying that prayer and the terms God, Christ, Allah, Brahma, Goddess, etc. cannot be used in public nor is anyone trying to take them away from religious schools and instititutions the whole point is that as a government agency they have a duty to support the well being of EVERY student, including those of minority religions and non religious upbringing.

When i was young, maybe 7 or 8 our school in ohio was released for summer and me and my family went to West Virginia to visit family. My Aunt who is 1 year older than myself still had 2 or 3 days of school remaining so i went with her to one of these. It was a way for my parents to get me out of their hair and for me to learn how other schools conducted their daily activity. The first order of buisness for the day was the pledge followed by a morning prayer, this was a public school. One young boy and girl where exempt from the prayer but in doing so where made to walk into the hallway by themselves, with other students watching them go. When i inquired as to where they went the theacher THE TEACHER promptly informed me that their parents where lost and godless and would not let their kids join us in prayer to the lord. We have historically not taught are children tolerance on these subject matters, and there seems to be a huge link to intolerance and religious belief. The very definition of any specific religion is in itself exclusive. The two terms rarly meet and when they do there is usually a fight.

Now i believe that one way to learn tolerance is to learn about another religion. To try to understand what motivates and inspires a person. Are 7 and 8 year olds capable of making this kind of discovery? Are teachers capable of turning their own personal beliefs off to show these children what the motivation is without it turning into a bible study? Should we expect them too? All hard questions without easy answers.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't want to get too off topic, but the ACLU won their case because LA doesn't have the resources to fight the ACLU at this time and, to be frank, there wasn't any kind of outcry from the community. Not that we don't care, but there are other things that Californians are worried about right now and maybe the ACLU is aware of it and uses this time to advance their own interests. The ACLU has really become an organization with it's own private agenda and I can't see how it protects anyone's rights besides those within their inner circle at this point. [/b][/quote]

I agree with this 100%

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>we are not talking a voluntary summer camp here [/b][/quote]

actually my mom made me go - i didn't want to.
sometimes you're faced with these situations and you learn to be tolerant.
i'm better for it - i learned a lot because 98% of the people there were Jewish.
i actually have no idea how i got in there!

[Justin]

This may not be entirely on-topic, but I've noticed that quite often the same people who accuse religious people of being intolerant hypocrites are intolerant hypocrites themselves, because they look down on and openly ridicule people with religious beliefs.

[Handothrawn]

First let me state that I have no problem with "Under God" doesn't bother me in the slightest. I have to say it everyday in ROTC, no biggie.

But if you want to go by the Constitution that our country was founded on, then it is illegal and unconstitutional.

[Javen]

Originally posted by Handothrawn@Jun 16 2004, 06:51 PM
But if you want to go by the Constitution that our country was founded on, then it is illegal and unconstitutional.
I would like you to prove this. It's not illegal for one thing, because this isn't China. So please show us where it is illegal in the constitution and the United States.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;[/b][/quote]


again this is all the constitution says about religion.

I ask this: If there were a national vote asking for say the right say "under God" and keep "In God we trust" on money, and it passed to allow it, would that be ok?

The 1st amendment doesn't say you can't practice religion. Actually it says that you have the free exercise thereof. The only thing that limits religion is the establishment of one. Like I said, this is in the creation of a state religion or maybe the adoption of one. I don't see where any of this is adopting a religion. The majority of the US people are christian with christian values. Why aren't we allowed to exercise this freely?

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I ask this: If there were a national vote asking for say the right say "under God" and keep "In God we trust" on money, and it passed to allow it, would that be ok?[/b][/quote]

I actually believe that if the PEOPLE of this country decided to vote it out, then out it shall go.
I just don't think that will happen - the vote itself, or the results of it.
But I'd be all for it.

[goodwije]

the point is that by government supporting one religion over another it is encroaching on the concept of non establishment. When a person of authority demands or even expects someone under said authority to practice as they do it ... well it may not be establishing a religion but it certainly sends a message as to what the proper religion is. I do not think that by asking school systems to remove the words "under god" it in any way hurts christians and jews, it only helps and supports the others. I believe every person has the right to practice their religion, whether that means taking the 10 minutes out that Muslim children need for the two prayers that fall during a school day, or allowing volunteer prayer groups during free periods and bible study classes to happen after school. No issue what-so-ever with those. My problem begins when it is expected, even most times enforced, that every student join in.

I just do not see how Hando or any other non-believer must also pledge religious conviction when they choose to pledge to their country. It not only makes no sense to me, i think it weakens the whole concept. What we are asking them to do is to take these words seriously.. except the two you do not believe in.

I sometimes visit other churches, i have even once or twice in my life visited temple with Jewish friends. I made the choice to broaden my experience and see things from another perspective. I personally believe that it is exactly my tolerance (even though somehow i have demonstrated an intolerance to Christians.. which i find odd considering i am a Christian) that allows me to impathise with students who grew up being forced to voice words they did not believe.

[goodwije]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 17 2004, 08:13 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I ask this: If there were a national vote asking for say the right say "under God" and keep "In God we trust" on money, and it passed to allow it, would that be ok?

I actually believe that if the PEOPLE of this country decided to vote it out, then out it shall go.
I just don't think that will happen - the vote itself, or the results of it.
But I'd be all for it. [/b][/quote]
many laws exist to protect our minority population. Oh i realize this is leftist thinking therefore flawed. But just because the majority of the population agrees does not make it right.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>When a person of authority demands or even expects someone under said authority to practice as they do it [/b][/quote]

No one's demanding or expecting anything.

[T-bone]

Originally posted by goodwije+Jun 17 2004, 09:36 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(goodwije @ Jun 17 2004, 09:36 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-T'bone@Jun 17 2004, 08:13 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I ask this: If there were a national vote asking for say the right say "under God" and keep "In God we trust" on money, and it passed to allow it, would that be ok?

I actually believe that if the PEOPLE of this country decided to vote it out, then out it shall go.
I just don't think that will happen - the vote itself, or the results of it.
But I'd be all for it. [/b][/quote]
many laws exist to protect our minority population. Oh i realize this is leftist thinking therefore flawed. But just because the majority of the population agrees does not make it right. [/b][/quote]
He asked a question - I answered it.
If it was to happen, I'd say it was OK.
Therefore if it was removed, then you'd have nothing to complain about here. So I'm not seeing your point...

You're saying if we all voted and it was removed, it wouldn't be right? You're standing up for the people who want it in, then?



Truth is - and you know this - it's not harmful and no one is being forced to do it. Kids don't care and even when they are offended bounce right back. It's the parenting in this country that needs help. No school is forcing it on people and if they are, I'd have a word with that school personally.

Another answer would be just to get rid of the whole pledge. I hardly think kids would care but once again, it's the adults that would get upset. For kids, it's one less formality.

[Master Cephus]

T you are probably right about the pledge. I think that the parents and other adults are using children to further their cause and that is just sad. It is just like the guy that this thread was started for.

More I think of it, I think this whole thing should maybe a state by state thing. I know the pledge and the money thing couldn't be, but prayer in schools and the ten commandments should very well be a state thing because in a sense this is a culture matter. If you don't live in the south then you don't know what I am talking about. Down here, christian is really just a way of life. I don't see that in places like California (especially San Fran). I don't see how a San Fran judge can make decisions that will affect me in Alabama. And really, vice versa

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>T you are probably right about the pledge. I think that the parents and other adults are using children to further their cause and that is just sad. It is just like the guy that this thread was started for.[/b][/quote]

I'll go a step further and say it looks blatently obvious, actually.

[Tovor]

This country does not need God or his laws or his teachings or his moral guidance. What it needs instead is more murder, more stealing, more lying, more adultery, more dishonesty, more materialism, more selfishness, more of all the bad crap that people take for granted and accept and carry out as a way of life. To hell with caring about how God wants us to live our lives and run our societies. Bring on the decedance and immorality. We need more of that, and any reminders of the 10 Commandments and *ooh, shudder* the creator of this planet are an annoyance to our downward spiral.

[Tovor]

BTW, this is part of a sermon that I wrote about 8 years ago. There was more to it than this, but this is what I feel pertains to the issue at hand:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America; and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
"One nation under God." Do you believe that? Our founding fathers crossed the Atlantic with a vision; a dream, to create a nation where they could worship God openly and expand the Kingdom of Christ without fear of oppression or persecution. Yet, it is not hard to see that the developing America has fallen short of the founder’s intentions.
“One nation under God.” Can we call ourselves that? I think ‘One nation in avoidance of God’ would be more fitting, because certainly as a whole this country has separated itself from the dominion of God. With increasing speed as the decades go by, we as a society have been on a downhill course further and further from Godliness and spirituality. We have rejected God--though most of the population would be loath to admit it. We uphold those of God's laws that suit us, while disregarding the ones inconvenient for us. We agree that murder, theft, and rape are wrong, yet many condone, endorse, and promote adultery, pre-marital sex, dishonesty, materialism, and general godlessness as acceptable parts of everyday life. Crime and corruption prosper in abundance because our children are not raised with proper Godly values. The kids of America do not learn their values from the teachings of God, and the word of God is as foreign in many homes as a language from the other side of the world. We have failed God, and our children, by letting our society decay into the Sodom and Gomorra of our times.

What of our schools, do America’s youth learn proper values and decent morality there? Not when prayer was banned in schools, when communication with God was outlawed! It appears the Supreme Court feels that a relationship with our Lord and Creator could be harmful to the psychological well-being of school children. So they prevent the children from growing with a knowledge and love for God, and the godless children grow into godless adults. Thus we distance ourselves still further from the Lord with each new generation, and society's problems grow still worse. And people question the rising amounts of violence in schools today; they question God’s integrity for allowing godlessness and tragedy to befall America’s schools. Yet who is really to blame? God for allowing it? Or society’s lawmakers for kicking God and His teachings out of the schools, and denying the youth the proper degree of values and morality and love, respect, and fear of the Lord that our society needs to learn and uphold?

If not the bible, where do our teenagers learn their values? Partly through the one source of information always available to them: the world of movies, television, and music; much of which glorify violence and decadence and godless lifestyles. It is these sources that provide the unrighteous heroes for our youth to follow; and in one result, society has convinced itself that it is more worthwhile to seek self-gratification than to serve the Lord God and follow his laws.
================================================== ==

And we wonder why there is so much more sex, crime, and drug use in schools today.

[Rogue_0009]

<span style="color:red">I've got an easy solution for you: Just change it to 'One nation unader Canada above Mexico.'</span>

[Tovor]

style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I ask this: If there were a national vote asking for say the right say "under God" and keep "In God we trust" on money, and it passed to allow it, would that be ok?[/b][/quote]

Most certainly not. The First Amendment guarantees one of your rights, which in our system of government cannot be taken away by the majority. We do not live in a Democracy -- we live in a Constitutional Republic. Our founding fathers recognized the evils of a system where majority rule is the law of the land -- Jefferson wrote - "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Benjamin Franklin wrote one of my favorites -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The majority of the US people are christian with christian values. Why aren't we allowed to exercise this freely?[/b][/quote]

Is someone stopping you from attending church services? Is someone preventing you in some manner from sending your children to a privately run school that teaches scripture along with world history and calculus? Is somoene preventing you from homeschooling your child so that you may better impart religion onto them? Is someone preventing you or your child from praying at home? I don't understand how anyone of Christian faith can claim that they are being impeded by the government from practicing their religion.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>More I think of it, I think this whole thing should maybe a state by state thing. I know the pledge and the money thing couldn't be, but prayer in schools and the ten commandments should very well be a state thing because in a sense this is a culture matter. If you don't live in the south then you don't know what I am talking about. Down here, christian is really just a way of life. I don't see that in places like California (especially San Fran). I don't see how a San Fran judge can make decisions that will affect me in Alabama. And really, vice versa[/b][/quote]

Christianity may be the way of life for the vast majority of the people in the southern United States, but that does not mean that they have the right to force it upon the minority. It does not mean that they have the right to allocate tax dollars for religious monuments and prayer programs in public schools. If 51% of the people in the nation voted to end your life, would that be fair to you? Would you sit down and accept that decision? What gives them that right? That's what a democracy is -- that's the reasoning you're suggesting to justify prayer in school. The government has no place in legislating culture, morality or religion. If you want your child to pray in school, send them to a private school.

If you care about your rights stop voting for the Democrats or the Republicans -- vote for someone who is out to change the system. I don't believe there should be a public school system, I don't believe that the government should issue marriage licenses. If we had a privatized school system this wouldn't be an issue for debate -- schools would be free to have prayer, not have prayer, whatever they wanted and you would be free to send your child to the school that is best for him or her, and probably pay less to do it than you do now in school taxes. Private enterprise has always been more efficient than government -- they can't afford not to be, the government can, unfortunately.

To touch on your mention of San Francisco -- the government has no place issuing marriage licenses. What is a marriage license? It's the government giving you permission to marry someone. Why should the government have to give you permission to do something that is your right? Something that, if you are a religious person, you believe is your God-given right?

-- 2bq

[James Madison]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Anyway, claiming this to be one nation under the Judeo-Christian God is more or less breaking the first amendment. The continual promotion of the Christian faith from the government IMO is not too far away from declaring Christianity the official religion, because this is NOT a Christian Nation this is a nation that allows it's citizens the freedom to express all sorts of religious beliefs.[/b][/quote]

TK-007, and others who believe this violates the Establishment clause, I could not disagree more. The Court has articulated tests in determining whether a law violates the Establishment clause. The Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman espoused a three prong test to determine if the law violates the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. The first prong of the test asks whether or not the law has a secular purpose. The phrase "Under God," in the POA is nothing more than a reference to our religious heritage. This is something the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be permissible in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly. Specifically, the Court said the following:Other examples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto 'In God We Trust'...One nation Under God, as part of the Pledge of Allegiance Congressman Louis Rabaut said the purpose of the 1954 act that amended the POA to include the words "Under God," was to have the [/I]children of our land be daily impressed with a true understanding of our way of life and its origins. Now that sounds very close in meaning to what the Court in Lynch refers to as a religious heritage. Since this is a permissible purpose according to the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly, the first prong of Lemon is not breached.

The second prong of [b]Lemon[B]asks whether the primary effect of the legislation is to advance or inhibit religion. In this instance the fact the legislation's purpose was done to have the children acknowledge the religious heritage of this country, as opposed to advocating support for a particular religion or religious denomination, is a significant finding. Especially since the test focuses upon [I]whether an objective observer, acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation of the statute, would perceive it as state endorsement of religion. Someone familiar with the fact the legislative history demonstrates the purpose of the legislation was to illuminate the country's religious heritage as opposed to endorsing a particular religion, would not perceive the current POA as an endorsement of a particular religion. This in addition to the fact the current POA has been recited monotonously since 1954 at sporting events, in schools, and other public occasions has effectively minimized, if not completed eroded any benefit to religion. The POA is done for no other reason than it is expected. It is a commonplace ritual and habit. It has been done so often few if any pay attention to the meaning of the words. People simply recite it without thinking about it. Not only has any benefit to religion been eroded away but arguably so has the patriotism in saying it. Considering these facts, the second prong of Lemonhas not been violated.

The last prong asks whether or not the legislation creates an excessive entanglement of government with religion. Based on the evidence introduced in relation to the first two prongs, this can be answered in the negative. Since none of the three tests have been met, then there is no violation of the Establishment clause.

Furthermore, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not call for nor require an absolute separation between church and state. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such a contention. In 1812 James Madison used the following language to inaugurate a National Day of Prayer: And whereas such a recommendation will enable the several religious denominations and societies so disposed, to offer, at one and the same time, their common vows and adorations to Almighty God, on the solemn occasion produced by the war, in which He has been pleased to permit the injustice of a foreign Power to involve these United States;

Now this is a very religious passage and it was used by the man with the title "Father of the Constitution". This was a passage written by a man that advocated a separation between church and state. However, President Madison was also a moderate and realized a strict separation was not required by the Establishment clause. This would explain his choice of language in this passage and his calling for a National Day of Prayer.

Furthermore, the Court in Lynch v. Donnelly had the following to say on the issue: At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that "total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable...the reality that, as the Court has so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible...The concept of a "wall" of separation is a useful figure of speech probably deriving from views of Thomas Jefferson. [FN1] The metaphor has served as a reminder that the Establishment Clause forbids an established church or anything approaching it. But the metaphor itself is not a wholly accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists between church and state..."It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation.... Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation

More evidence to strengthen my argument comes from the fact many of those that participated in the process of proposing a new form of government in the 1787 Constitutional Convention were also members of the first congress. These same individuals approved the establishment of the chaplain prayer in Congress and did so evidently without believing there was a violation of the Establishment clause.

[Master Cephus]

Yeah, what he said style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>To touch on your mention of San Francisco -- the government has no place issuing marriage licenses. What is a marriage license? It's the government giving you permission to marry someone. Why should the government have to give you permission to do something that is your right? Something that, if you are a religious person, you believe is your God-given right?[/b][/quote]

The government gives licenses to give you legal rights. If there was not for this, and your other dies, what real right to the stuff that was owned by the other would you have? God gives us the right to marriage but God also says obey the laws of the land as long as it doesn't over stop your christian obligation.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Most certainly not. The First Amendment guarantees one of your rights, which in our system of government cannot be taken away by the majority. We do not live in a Democracy -- we live in a Constitutional Republic.[/b][/quote]

The first amendment does not really say anything about religion in our lives. It just says they can't start a state religion or they can't stop your free exercise of your religion. Do we not have votes for other things affecting our lives (lottery, alcohol, some taxes)


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>. I don't believe there should be a public school system, I don't believe that the government should issue marriage licenses. If we had a privatized school system this wouldn't be an issue for debate -- schools would be free to have prayer, not have prayer, whatever they wanted and you would be free to send your child to the school that is best for him or her, and probably pay less to do it than you do now in school taxes. Private enterprise has always been more efficient than government -- they can't afford not to be, the government can, unfortunately.
[/b][/quote]

So if you want to privatize school, who pays for the children to go. It costs what $5-10k per child to go to school a year? Who can afford that? If you did that, about 60% of the children would have education, 40% would not. Then when they aren't educated and can't get jobs, who will support them? I bet you don't believe in welfare or anything like that either. You can't have a system like that. They did have a system like that a long time ago and it didn't work then and it wouldn't work now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It does not mean that they have the right to allocate tax dollars for religious monuments and prayer programs in public schools.[/b][/quote]

The monument was a gift to Roy Moore who was the Supreme Court Justice so it cost tax payers nothing. When have they allocated tax dollars for prayer programs in school (I really don't know this I am asking)

[goodwije]

If it was a gift to Judge Moore why didnt he display it in his offices or private residence i would certainly have no problem with this.

I am sure there are many non-religious people in the south, as well as religious non-christians. What you are seeing is part of the problem. You where taught and wholly expect that all those around you are practicing Christians, your school system and community is set up for that. Just as you obviously believe there are no same sex couples in Alabama who would like to legally enter into an union. You are making my point for me.

As far as to whether anyone is being expected or forced to take part in the pledge or school prayer. There has been story after story of how non-christian students where made to feel if they or their parents chose not to have their children join in. There has even been more than one lawsuit of ex-students who do not feel their right of religious freedom was upheld because of the way they where treated when they did not join in these activities. I even made a point of a first hand experience.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>There has been story after story of how non-christian students where made to feel if they or their parents chose not to have their children join in. There has even been more than one lawsuit of ex-students who do not feel their right of religious freedom was upheld because of the way they where treated when they did not join in these activities. I even made a point of a first hand experience. [/b][/quote]

That is more of a personal issue and a different story. That can then be considered a form of religious racism or discrimination and that's a whole different ball part - where action can be taken against those who do these things. If a person "feels bad" because they didn't participate, that's really their issue. They need to either say I don't care what people think and move on, or contact the leader of the school or whatever and say Hey you have a problem here...or get a lawyer or whatever but AGAIN it's parents that will drive this. Some people in my schools never said the pledge at ALL and no one cared --- and that was LONG before all this hubbub started.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I am sure there are many non-religious people in the south, as well as religious non-christians. What you are seeing is part of the problem. You where taught and wholly expect that all those around you are practicing Christians, your school system and community is set up for that. Just as you obviously believe there are no same sex couples in Alabama who would like to legally enter into an union. You are making my point for me. [/b][/quote]

Well honestly, I wouldn't care if same sex couples were allowed to be a union. Personally, I think all couples should just have a legal union and let there religion cast them in a marriage. That would be equal treatment. I am against same sex marriages but I don't think there should be an amendment for it, because the constitution is there to grant rights, not take them away. You can do the same thing with laws.

You know I have to comment also on what T is saying. Kids are always going to get teased. It's not mandatory that they do things. And if everyone in the room besides one or two, if a student asks for people to join in a prayer, isn't that ok?

What if a child is muslim and has to pray 5 times a day. Would the child not have to go somewhere and pray? Wouldn't that raise some eyebrows to the other children? Don't you think that child would get ridiculed in the same way it would if it didn't say under God or not pray? Fact of the matter when someone is different from the majority crowd, they are just different and kids are going to get teased for it. Bottom line and no law is going to protect the child from it.

[T-bone]

It's true - you can't say this phrase is illegal because my kid's going to be teased. That's a behavioral issue. If you go to school in a burka, kids are going to tease you no matter how innocent it may seem. They might not understand but everyone who was a little bit different from any group got teased when I was growing up - and they seemed to get over it. In certain extreme circumstances where violence occurs, etc. authorities were called, punishments delivered, suspensions, etc. Discipline. It had nothing to do with teasing at that point, it was just kids being stupid and they learned from it. Actually a little bit of teasing here and there toughened me up a little. I hardly care what people think. At that Jewish camp I went to as a kid, EVERYONE thought I was weird. I mean, Jesus? They were like - oh no, you're wrong. I didn't care - I got past it and got through the days but honestly, there was some sort of little knock every day but when you're a kid - who cares? I wanna play ball, etc. I don't care about this stuff.

Truth is, this is a paren't battle and they are using their kids to get this thing passed. No one cares about this but adults for some reason and they are hardly affected by this.

[goodwije]

actually i agree somewhat with teasing point, it is part of life and part of growing up. My issue comes in when teachers or administraters turn a blind eye towards excessive teasing because they consider what the child is doing somehow deserves it.

My partners cousin, who is now 15 had a lot of problems 2 years ago at school. He is a good kid but has had a rough go at life and when he hit 13 all that emotion really poored out of him. He got into a more alt scene and dressed in black and spiked his hair up, really nothing much different than a lot of 13 year olds do. Of course he got teased for it. So much so that he and he was banned from the bus because three other kids would daily abuse and ridicule him the entire ride to school, which of course led to fights, the other 3 where not punished. When his mother came in to talk with the principle his words where.. well he asked for it, look at the way he dresses, etc. Now his dress and hair didnt break any of the rules, it was simply a little different. A little teasing is to be expected, i mean unknown to himself he really was looking for attention. The problem IMO is when it became violent and instead of defending this childs right to self expression they punished him and even told him and his mother that it was his own fault.

Where i work we have policies against harassment and violence. Sure we tease each other in fun but only with the people we know and never with the intent to hurt feelings. Are we not supposed to be teaching our kids about the real world? Increasingly the kind of behavior that makes someone feel bad about themselves and that brings the moral of any company down is becoming unacceptable. Buisnesses are spending millions of dollars each year to teach tolerance and diversity. The training i received as a diversity coordinator has shown a buisness (and i would assume classroom) that allows one member to emotional or physically harass another is not good for the individual nor is it good for the entire group. Absenteism sky rockets while things like attention to task at hand and comfort level drop dramatically.

For the record i do not think the phrase "under god" within the pledge should be illegal because i am worried someone might be teased. What i believe is that it is biased towards one group over another, that it is government sponcership of a specific religion, and that it ultimatly harms a classroom more than helps.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>My issue comes in when teachers or administraters turn a blind eye towards excessive teasing because they consider what the child is doing somehow deserves it. [/b][/quote]

And again - this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Anything can cause teasing.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>specific religion[/b][/quote]

There is a GOD in many religions.

[Master Cephus]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>My partners cousin, who is now 15 had a lot of problems 2 years ago at school. He is a good kid but has had a rough go at life and when he hit 13 all that emotion really poored out of him. He got into a more alt scene and dressed in black and spiked his hair up, really nothing much different than a lot of 13 year olds do. Of course he got teased for it. So much so that he and he was banned from the bus because three other kids would daily abuse and ridicule him the entire ride to school, which of course led to fights, the other 3 where not punished. When his mother came in to talk with the principle his words where.. well he asked for it, look at the way he dresses, etc. Now his dress and hair didnt break any of the rules, it was simply a little different. A little teasing is to be expected, i mean unknown to himself he really was looking for attention. The problem IMO is when it became violent and instead of defending this childs right to self expression they punished him and even told him and his mother that it was his own fault.[/b][/quote]

This is an extreme case. Your partner should have left the principal's office and went to a lawyer and then came back and ask him to restate his opinion about the boy. These are individual cases that cause the whole country to have to change.

[Javen]

It's amazing that people who say they are christians, oppose and want God in a little box all nice and cozy in their own little house. Sorry, but I will talk about God when I like. People at work talk about porno, having sex, cheating, stealing etc, etc and I can't talk about God?

In restaurants, I pray before eating, if that offends someone, well I'm sorry. Where I live there are Muslims and they get to spread out their sheets outside and pray towards the East. I certainly don't get offended about that. I don't scream and holler about it and call a lawyer.

[goodwije]

hmmm.. i never once said that one shouldnt talk about God, infact i said there should be more open and honest discussions about God. I talk about God more than any one person i know. I just choose to do it in a safe and respectful place.

Pretty much in a work environment i stay away from the "big three" discussions; politics, religion, and sex. And i expect others around me to also respect those guidelines. It is a place we have to be and i would not and do not wish to offend others. I do talk about my family, including my partner, and i do talk about things i am envolved in like American Cancer Society and Community Aids Networks.

Anywho.. this is pretty much a pointless thread from here on out. Obviously i believe one way and others believe another all we are doing now is risking offending one another.. so thanks for the discussion.

[Virus]

This country was founded on Christianity, so thats just how it is. Plus, who cares if its "Under God", why even bother putting up a fight for something like that. There are bigger problems out there. Get a life people

[Justin]

"Under God" doesn't necessarily have to do with Christianity exclusively, because you don't have to believe Jesus is the son of God to believe in God.

[The Bandit]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>This country was founded on Christianity, so thats just how it is.[/b][/quote]

While what was to become the United States was colonized by Christian sects, many of the men who rebelled against British tyrrany and helped frame the ideals of our government were not Christian.

A few examples --

Thomas Paine, who's "Common Sense" helped spark the embers of the American revolution and whose essay "The Crisis" (that's the one with "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.") wrote -

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.[/b][/quote]

Thomas Jefferson --

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained.[/b][/quote]

Also Jefferson -

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.[/b][/quote]

Jefferson once more -

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.[/b][/quote]

James Madison -

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.[/b][/quote]

The Treaty of Tripoli was ratified in 1797. The treaty states that "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The full text of the treaty is available here -- http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty...ty_tripoli.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)

-- 2bq

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen+Jun 18 2004, 04:37 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Javen @ Jun 18 2004, 04:37 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> It's amazing that people who say they are christians, oppose and want God in a little box all nice and cozy in their own little house. Sorry, but I will talk about God when I like. People at work talk about porno, having sex, cheating, stealing etc, etc and I can't talk about God?

In restaurants, I pray before eating, if that offends someone, well I'm sorry. Where I live there are Muslims and they get to spread out their sheets outside and pray towards the East. I certainly don't get offended about that. I don't scream and holler about it and call a lawyer. [/b]
Javen your right to publically or privately practice christianity is not what this debate is really about, it's about the government endorsing a specific religion, which is illegal.

<!--QuoteBegin-Justin
"Under God" doesn't necessarily have to do with Christianity exclusively, because you don't have to believe Jesus is the son of God to believe in God.[/quote]
But not everybody who believes in God believes in the SAME God. The statement "Under God" obviously refers to a specific diety, and thus to specific religion(s).

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 25 2004, 03:12 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 25 2004, 03:12 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Javen@Jun 18 2004, 04:37 PM
It's amazing that people who say they are christians, oppose and want God in a little box all nice and cozy in their own little house.* Sorry, but I will talk about God when I like.* People at work talk about porno, having sex, cheating, stealing etc, etc and I can't talk about God?*

In restaurants, I pray before eating, if that offends someone, well I'm sorry. Where I live there are Muslims and they get to spread out their sheets outside and pray towards the East.* I certainly don't get offended about that.* I don't scream and holler about it and call a lawyer.
Javen your right to publically or privately practice christianity is not what this debate is really about, it's about the government endorsing a specific religion, which is illegal. [/b][/quote]
Which has yet to be proven. And I say once again, prove this. If it was illegal I would be in jail. Which I'm sure at some point the The Pharasee's...I mean the Supreme Court will soon do that next.


It is not illegal, it wasn't a problem until the last 10 years. It isn't the Muslims, or Hindu's etc, etc that ha sthe problem with it, it's the ones who doesn't believe in God. This junk about it's illegal and using the"Specific Religion" is exactly what it is a Smoke screen for those who do not believe in God at all. Because those who practice other religions are the ones that are not having a problem.

But to me taking Under God out, go ahead because you can't box God up anyway. This "so called" seperation of church and state is a myth, considering most people doesn't even know what the Church is. It's the people.

[Master Cephus]

The more I think about it, you can't really ever put the word's "Under God" out. Because people who already know it will always say it and we will teach our kids to say it as well.

The only people who probably won't be saying will be atheists (sp?).

[T-bone]

Semantics.

Everyone's going to be offended by something or someone in these days of political correctness going overboard.

I miss the 70's.

[blacksaber]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>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.[/b][/quote]

a lot of the constitution goes to i have the right, but should i exercise it. So do you go up to a teacher and swear at him or her? Why of course! it's legal isn't it? But the teacher is the authority figure over you so, you have to adhere to the rules he/she sets up.

Same can be applied to all parts of the constitution and national *ahem* phrases. Such as the pledge of alligence, if you don't believe it don't say it. But then if you do or do not say something becasue the teacher is forcing on you, isn't that an infringement on personal freedom?

[Javen]

Originally posted by blacksaber@Jun 25 2004, 10:22 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>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 lot of the constitution goes to i have the right, but should i exercise it. So do you go up to a teacher and swear at him or her? Why of course! it's legal isn't it? But the teacher is the authority figure over you so, you have to adhere to the rules he/she sets up.

Same can be applied to all parts of the constitution and national *ahem* phrases. Such as the pledge of alligence, if you don't believe it don't say it. But then if you do or do not say something becasue the teacher is forcing on you, isn't that an infringement on personal freedom? [/b][/quote]
See you have it backwards and so do many people in this Country. Freedom of Conscience means not forcing Baptists to worship like Presbyterians. It means not forcing one atheist student to join in the school prayers. It does not mean forcing 29 Christian students to stop beginning their school day in prayer.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 05:50 AM
This "so called" seperation of church and state is a myth, considering most people doesn't even know what the Church is. It's the people.
It's no myth, it's the law. The government cannot establish an official state religion and also cannot promote or favor any specific religion over other forms of worship, it's unconstitutional.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Such as the pledge of alligence, if you don't believe it don't say it. [/b][/quote]
See I don't have a problem with people practicing their religions out in a public forum or whatever, that's not the issue, If you want to say "Under God" during the pledge I have no problem with it, the problem is that "Under God" is officially part of the pledge of allegiance.

[T-bone]

again - no one's forcing anyone to say or not say anything so i'm not sure what the big thing is...
well, the big thing is that people are trying to create a secularist society i guess, which at this time is something the majority of people don't seem to want...i could be wrong.

religion is a private, personal thing yes.
i don't enjoy Bible thumpers and people who run around pushing their stuff on people.
however i don't see this as the case here... I see it as a small piece of a bigger secularist movement and there will be other things if this wins.

the money will change, the state seals, all that stuff - there will be no trace of religion anywhere and if you do, you're breaking the law which is some weird way kills part of the 1st amendment to me...i dunno.

it's just weird.
people are dying in the world, there's terrorism all over, AIDS and other diseases, etc.
wouldn't this guy REALLY be helping people more by doing something along these lines instead of worrying that he's going to be offended by something he sees on a state's seal?
imagine all the wasted time he spent fighting this going towards helping homeless or kids with terminal illness or whatever...

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 07:45 AM
again - no one's forcing anyone to say or not say anything so i'm not sure what the big thing is...
The big deal is the government endorsing one religion more than another. You may argue that "Under God" or "In God we trust" or similar statements doesn't necessarily refer to a specific religion, but some would disagree, including myself.

I agree that there's more important things to deal with, but I don't think this is an issue that should just be set aside and forgotten about, I think it is important for the government to have the same respect for all religious beliefs and to do that IMO they can't endorse any religion.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 25 2004, 10:44 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 25 2004, 10:44 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Javen@Jun 25 2004, 05:50 AM
This "so called" seperation of church and state is a myth, considering most people doesn't even know what the Church is. It's the people.
It's no myth, it's the law. The government cannot establish an official state religion and also cannot promote or favor any specific religion over other forms of worship, it's unconstitutional.

[/b][/quote]
Yet, you still prove nothing. It isn't against any law. It wasn't against the law 200 years ago or even 50 years ago. And just 10 years ago, until the rise of the ACLU and the myth of the "separation of church and state," the Constitution never prevented a politician from publicly acknowledging God or performing his public duties in accord with God's Commandments. But there is nothing in the Constitution which separates anything to with"Under God" or anything to do with God.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 08:02 AM
Yet, you still prove nothing.
I didn't realize I was trying to, or needed to.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>It isn't against any law.[/b][/quote]
What exactly isn't against the law Javen?

This?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The government cannot establish an official state religion and also cannot promote or favor any specific religion over other forms of worship, it's unconstitutional.[/b][/quote]

I don't see what else you could be talking about because I havn't been talking about anything either than those things. So if that's what you're trying to say then you're wrong.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 25 2004, 11:17 AM
I don't see what else you could be talking about because I havn't been talking about anything either than those to things. So if that's what you're trying to say then you're wrong.
I'm afraid I'm not. This Under God thing isn't establishing a religion. I have proved that serveral times. And it isn't aginst any law.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 08:19 AM
This Under God thing isn't establishing a religion.
Unlike what I posted up there, this is open to opinion, if it weren't, then we wouldn't be debating about this now would we?

My opinion (and several others) is that statements such as "Under God" violate the first ammendment.

[Greedo Boy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The government cannot establish an official state religion and also cannot promote or favor any specific religion over other forms of worship, it's unconstitutional.[/b][/quote]

I don't see how "Under God..." would go against this. Just about all religions have a God, or Gods. Now, if it were "Under Allah..." or "Under Christ...", that would go against the law, but God is such a general term, it can't apply to any one religion when taken full face value.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 25 2004, 11:29 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 25 2004, 11:29 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Javen@Jun 25 2004, 08:19 AM
This Under God thing isn't establishing a religion.
Unlike what I posted up there, this is open to opinion, if it weren't, then we wouldn't be debating about this now would we?

My opinion (and several others) is that statements such as "Under God" violate the first ammendment. [/b][/quote]
I'm not debating, you are. You have established my point from a few pages back. I think I will call this generation the bumpersticker generation.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Greedo Boy@Jun 25 2004, 08:31 AM
I don't see how "Under God..." would go against this. Just about all religions have a God, or Gods. Now, if it were "Under Allah..." or "Under Christ...", that would go against the law, but God is such a general term, it can't apply to any one religion when taken full face value.
Well first of all, not all religions include a God of any sort.

And besides that the statement doesn't say "Under god, whoever or whatever you think that might" the statement is "Under God" with a capital G, so even if the statement isn't entirely specific it was meant to refer to a specific and personable diety.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The big deal is the government endorsing one religion more than another. [/b][/quote]

that's your interpretation of it - they're not coming out and saying, HEY - endorse this!

and why is this some kind of issue now all of the sudden?
i'm not sure the point holds water...

there should be a VOTE in each STATE to declare majority.
I don't have a problem with that.
i do feel it's just a big waste of time and energy in the system when there are far more important things to worry about.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>My opinion (and several others) is that statements such as "Under God" violate the first ammendment. [/b][/quote]

and it also violates the same amendment to say that I can't say it.
no one is forcing you - you don't have to say anything.
i don't see the problem again - no one's endorsing anything, it's quite a global term and very traditional for the last few years (50's?) or so.
really doesn't bother me either way - i just don't like the agenda behind it and how that guy tried to use his kid to push it, which is what this thread was originally about.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>And besides that the statement doesn't say "Under god, whoever or whatever you think that might" the statement is "Under God" with a capital G, so even if the statement isn't entirely specific it was meant to refer to a specific and personable diety. [/b][/quote]

but i still don't see the big deal or why people have to be so offended about it.
when i was in that jewish camp i didn't get offended, i just went on with life - big deal.
they were sort of even forcing it on me - made me learn the prayers.

i just think people are way too uptight.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 09:48 AM
that's your interpretation of it - they're not coming out and saying, HEY - endorse this!
You don't consider statements in our pledge and money like "Under God" and "In God we Trust" to be endorsing or respecting one religion (or several religions) more than others? I geuss you're entitled to your opinion, but I will just have to disagree on the basis that not all religions are centered around belief in a god or gods.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>and it also violates the same amendment to say that I can't say it.
no one is forcing you - you don't have to say anything.[/b][/quote]
The problem I have is not people saying it, the problem I have is that it is officially part of the pledge.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>You don't consider statements in our pledge and money like "Under God" and "In God we Trust" to be endorsing or respecting one religion (or several religions) more than others? I geuss you're entitled to your opinion, but I will just have to disagree on the basis that not all religions are centered around belief in a god or gods.[/b][/quote]

No - where's the specificity? What religions don't have some sort of deity besides non-religions like atheism, etc? I'm just a little uneducated on the issue I think, that's all. I don't consider things like wicca a religion, etc. My definitions of religion include some kind of worship, etc.

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French religieus, from Latin religiosus, from religio
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>

this is the one i always think of.
not trying to make trouble, just curious.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The problem I have is not people saying it, the problem I have is that it is officially part of the pledge.[/b][/quote]

but why?
who is this harming?
i'm not sure what the big deal is still.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 09:48 AM
I just don't like the agenda behind it and how that guy tried to use his kid to push it, which is what this thread was originally about.
Ah I didn't realize this, I thought it was a more general thread about the whole "Under God" debate. I also don't like the way this guy is going about this, I think the issue is an important one (though not as important as other things) but I think there are people who are doing a much better job of dealing with it.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 10:00 AM
What religions don't have some sort of deity besides non-religions like atheism, etc?
I know they're only a small majority here in America compared to some, but Buddhists for one.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>but why?
who is this harming?
i'm not sure what the big deal is still.[/b][/quote]
Well it's not effecting me personnally, I mean I can live with it or without it.

I just feel that because this nation is built upon so many different cultures and peoples that the government should be equally respectful of all religious beliefs, IMO statements like "Under God" in the pledge are being more respectful towards certain religions than others.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>I just feel that because this nation is built upon so many different cultures and peoples that the government should be equally respectful of all religious beliefs, [/b][/quote]

agree with this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>IMO statements like "Under God" in the pledge are being more respectful towards certain religions than others. [/b][/quote]

don't agree with this.
can't please everyone.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007@Jun 25 2004, 01:12 PM
IMO statements like "Under God" in the pledge are being more respectful towards certain religions than others.
Considering that no one had a problem for over 200 years, until recently. What you are saying doesn't make sense. It was only a problem in the last ten years. Half the buildings in D.C. have scriptures on them, plus the dollar bill.

The culture that is coming into the U.S. should respect our History and not the other way around where we have to stop all things that say God on them just for their sake. That is rediculous, IMO.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Considering that no one had a problem for over 200 years[/b][/quote]
i think "under God" was put in after WWI or something like that...not sure, Krog?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>The culture that is coming into the U.S. should respect our History[/b][/quote]

agree with this part

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>not the other way around[/b][/quote]

don't agree with this part

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>where we have to stop all things that say God on them just for their sake.[/b][/quote]

agree with this part - and do think it's just a weird thing to get uptight about, considering the country's history.
shouldn't be a big deal.

[Javen]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 01:37 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Considering that no one had a problem for over 200 years
i think "under God" was put in after WWI or something like that...not sure, Krog?

[/b][/quote]
Yes, that is true. I think it was in the 1950's.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 10:32 AM
Considering that no one had a problem for over 200 years, until recently.
'Under God' has only been in the Pledge since the 1950's, 'In God we Trust' has appeared on our money since the 1850's. The debate over those and similar things is not just recent, it's been going on for several decades now, it didn't start getting big until the 60's, but no doubt there were at least some people talking about it even before then.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 25 2004, 01:43 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 25 2004, 01:43 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Javen@Jun 25 2004, 10:32 AM
Considering that no one had a problem for over 200 years, until recently.
'Under God' has only been in the Pledge since the 1950's, 'In God we Trust' has appeared on our money since the 1850's. The debate over those and similar things is not just recent, it's been going on for several decades now, it didn't start getting big until the 60's, but no doubt there were at least some people talking about it even before then. [/b][/quote]
Not really. All the States has a their own constitution full of mentioning God and practices. And it was most recent, thanks to the ACLU. And I know it's been since the 50's I mentioned that.

If all these are taken out, including Under God. Then all Adult porno stores should be condemed, oh wait that is "supposedly freedom of speech." Oh wait and again so is "Under God." Freedom of speech. Which isn't illegal.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If all these are taken out, including Under God. Then all Adult porno stores should be condemed, oh wait that is "supposedly freedom of speech." Oh wait and again so is "Under God." Freedom of speech. Which isn't illegal. [/b][/quote]

I'm totally not getting this.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 12:21 PM
Not really.
Yes really, those are factual statements.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>In the 1960's under Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court continued to bolster the wall. In the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale, the court ruled "it is unconstitutional to offer verbal prayers in a school, regardless of denominational neutrality and voluntary participation. Prayer in the public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State." Again, no legal precedent was offered. In Reed v. van Hoven, the Court went so far as to rule that it is unconstitutional for a student to pray aloud over his lunch during school hours. The Free Exercise clause was all but ignored by the Warren court.[/b][/quote]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But in the 1960's this began to change. We began to make great steps toward secularizing our nation and removing religion from its honored place.

In 1962 the Supreme Court in the New York prayer case banned the compulsory saying of prayers. In 1963 the Court banned the reading of the Bible in our public schools. From that point on, the courts pushed the meaning of the ruling ever outward, so that now our children are not allowed voluntary prayer. We even had to pass a law -- we passed a special law in the Congress just a few weeks ago to allow student prayer groups the same access to schoolrooms after classes that a young Marxist society, for example, would already enjoy with no opposition.

The 1962 decision opened the way to a flood of similar suits. Once religion had been made vulnerable, a series of assaults were made in one court after another, on one issue after another. Cases were started to argue against tax-exempt status for churches. Suits were brought to abolish the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and to remove ``In God We Trust'' from public documents and from our currency. [/b][/quote]

This whole "Under God" issue really isn't anything new Javen.

[Javen]

Yes and it doesn't prove that it's illegal. No court can censor my choice or yours. The Constitution does not require eliminating all references to God in the public sphere. The signature line of the document itself refers to "this year of our Lord" the Declaration of Independence and the national anthem and motto all refer to divinity, Thanksgiving and Christmas are national holidays.

[Javen]

Originally posted by T'bone@Jun 25 2004, 03:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If all these are taken out, including Under God. Then all Adult porno stores should be condemed, oh wait that is "supposedly freedom of speech." Oh wait and again so is "Under God." Freedom of speech. Which isn't illegal.

I'm totally not getting this. [/b][/quote]
What is there not to get? I was refering to if Adult video stores can hide under the"Free Speech" Then it isn't illegal to use "Under God". Because that is free speech. As far as I know, it's still a free country, right?

[T-bone]

i didn't understand your mastery of the language style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Adult video stores can hide under the"Free Speech"[/b][/quote]

is this true? do they?
i have no idea, just asking.

[Javen]

Yes, they do. The most successful companies in the adult industry use information obtained from the Free Speech Coalition.( this is a bit off of the subject, sorry)

[goodwije]

are adult stores ran or endorsed by any government? None that i have ever heard of.

as far as religions that do not whorship or use God.

Secular Humanism
Wicca and Mother Whorship
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Asatru (Norse Paganism) *
Druidism
Native American Spirituality
Scientology
Rom, Roma, Romani, Rroma, (Gypsies)

Here is something else many outside of Judaism may not know. Spelling the name or title of the deity in full is prohibited in Jewish law. In essays and documents you will see it spelled G-d.

[Marbleman]

I'm up for a compromise. I'm not sure the pledge's wording as it stands can be truthfully proclaimed by all Americans, and it seems agnostics/atheists should be able to recite a pledge to their country without negating their own beliefs in the process. I realize that the term "God" has a very wide range and that it is a good reminder that human government shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter of law (to be attributed to Natural Law, Rights of Man, etc.).

Let's take "under God" out, or make it a new "under _____" clause, on the condition that Michael Newdow be enclosed in a room filled with theology major velociraptors for a week.

[Javen]

How about One Nation Over God? Yeah that sounds good. See problem solved. People don't like Under God.

[Javen]

Originally posted by goodwije@Jun 25 2004, 04:58 PM
are adult stores ran or endorsed by any government? None that i have ever heard of.

as far as religions that do not whorship or use God.

Secular Humanism
Wicca and Mother Whorship
Confucianism
Shinto
Taoism
Asatru (Norse Paganism) *
Druidism
Native American Spirituality
Scientology
Rom, Roma, Romani, Rroma, (Gypsies)

Here is something else many outside of Judaism may not know. Spelling the name or title of the deity in full is prohibited in Jewish law. In essays and documents you will see it spelled G-d.
I never said they were endorsed by the government. But they sure do nothing about them, do they? Because they are protected by freedom of speech.

[Darth Vegas]

Originally posted by Javen@Jun 25 2004, 04:47 PM
But they sure do nothing about them, do they?
Could that be because there's nothing illegal about them? There are plenty of people (namely religious people) that have a problem with them though. But this is totally unrelated to the topic at hand.

[goodwije]

I, Bond, and everyone else who takes exception to the Under God being in the pledge do so because it is a literal oath given to our country and as it stands can only be done by using a specific religous term. We are not against public or private display or faith or public or private practice of religion, only when such practice or display is endorsed, sponcered, or representative of our country. So while i certainly pray, and while i certainly us the word God and while i do believe that God is real and still moving in out lives, i do not believe it is right for my government to assume or expect it of me.

OK i said i was going to leave this subject be and i shall. I just do not feel we are getting anywhere.

[Javen]

Originally posted by TK-007+Jun 26 2004, 04:22 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TK-007 @ Jun 26 2004, 04:22 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-Javen@Jun 25 2004, 04:47 PM
But they sure do nothing about them, do they?
Could that be because there's nothing illegal about them? There are plenty of people (namely religious people) that have a problem with them though. But this is totally unrelated to the topic at hand. [/b][/quote]
As far as I know. "Under God" in the pledge doesn't make pediphiles.

And no your poke at "namely me" isn't on topic.

[Javen]

Originally posted by goodwije@Jun 26 2004, 07:59 AM
OK i said i was going to leave this subject be and i shall. I just do not feel we are getting anywhere.
I guess you mean when I came in and disagreed. I'll stay out too.

[goodwije]

not at all Javen what i mean is that i do not think we are going to change our minds nor are you and Lou going to change yours. I am afraid we will just end up hurting each others feelings.

I respect you and your opions no matter how much i might disagree with them. If i have done something to make you feel otherwise please pm me and let me know it has never been my intent.

[T-bone]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>nor are you and Lou [/b][/quote]

whoa - i'm not spearheading this style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif
you guys wanna argue, go ahead - i'm just saying how i feel.
i think people are making a big deal over things that are really silly to me and not a big enough deal about things that are really important.

[Handothrawn]

I just wanted to see what everyone's opinion was on a few issues concerning the seperation of Church and State, and have a few little things to share.

Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

Click here to read the article on the original site

By: ANNE GEARAN
Press Organization: Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday allowed millions of schoolchildren to keep affirming loyalty to one nation "under God" but dodged the underlying question of whether the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The ruling overturned a lower court decision that the religious reference made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. But the decision did so on technical grounds, ruling the man who brought the case on behalf of his 10-year-old daughter could not legally represent her.

It was an anticlimactic end to an emotional high court showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It also neutralizes what might have been a potent election-year political issue in which the Bush administration argued strongly that the reference to God should remain part of the pledge.

The outcome does not prevent a future court challenge over the same issue, however, and both defenders and opponents of the current wording predicted that fight will come quickly.

For now, five justices said the court could not rule on the case because California atheist Michael Newdow does not have full custody of his daughter.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Newdow, who has fought a protracted custody battle with the girl's mother, was angered by the decision and the basis for it.

"She spends 10 days a month with me," he said. "The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible."

Three other justices went along with the outcome, but seemed to accuse the majority of using Newdow's legal standing as a fig leaf to avoid the harder constitutional issue. The three, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, made clear that they would have upheld the religious reference.

The court's ninth justice, Antonin Scalia, removed himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.

The phrase "one nation under God" is more about ceremony and history than about religion, Rehnquist wrote. He likened the phrase to the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and to the call that opens each session of the high court itself: "God save this honorable court."

"All these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our nation's religious history and character," Rehnquist wrote.

Nathan Diament, policy director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, said most Americans would be relieved by the ruling.

"There is a consensus in this country that there is an appropriate place for expressions of religion in the public square," Diament said.

The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court already has said schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America." The court also has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

Before 1954, when the United States was in the middle of the Cold War, the pledge did not include a reference to God. In adding it, members of Congress said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."

In a ruling last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the language of the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."

That decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other Western states covered by the appeals court.

Children were never barred from saying the full pledge, because the lower court ruling was on hold while the Supreme Court considered the issue.

Like most elementary school children, Newdow's daughter hears her teacher lead the pledge each morning. The case began when Newdow, a lawyer, doctor and self-proclaimed atheist minister, sued his daughter's Sacramento-area school district, Congress and President Bush to remove the words "under God."

In one of the many odd twists to an odd case, Newdow served as his own lawyer when the Supreme Court heard arguments in March. He argued that each day his daughter hears the pledge is another day that a teacher tells her, in effect, that her father is wrong.

The mother, Sandra Banning, told the court in legal filings that she makes the decisions about the girl's education. Newdow can fight the pledge on his own, but should not drag their daughter into it, Banning argued. She added that she supports leaving the pledge as it is, and wants her daughter to continue reciting it at school.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

ON THE NET

Ruling in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow: http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/040614newdow.pdf

SCOTUS PRESERVES GOD PLEDGE, RULES AGAINST NEWDOW ON STANDING
Constitutional Merits Of Case Ignored

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that "under God" would remain -- at least temporarily -- in the nation's Pledge of Allegiance, and that California Atheist Michael Newdow lacked proper legal standing to challenge the controversial practice.

The decision comes in the case of ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NEWDOW.

Newdow, an attorney and physician, filed suit against the unison recitation of the Pledge arguing that it interfered with his rights as a parent to direct the upbringing of his daughter, and violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

The words "under God" were not a component of the original pledge which was adopted as an official patriotic tribute by the U.S. Congress in 1942. At the height of the Cold War, however, the Roman Catholic Church, Hearst newspaper chain, American Legion and other organizations demanded that the phrase be amalgamated into the Pledge as a statement against "godless Communism." Federal lawmakers approved, and then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the measure in 1954.

Previous attempts to challenge the religionized Pledge including a suit filed by prominent Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair were turned down by the courts. In 2002, however, the legal challenged filed by Newdow reached the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a panel of judges ruled that the inclusion of "under God" violated the First Amendment.

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin opined:

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no God,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."

Newdow argued the case personally in front of the Supreme Court two months ago. Legal observers, including those supporting the "under God" version of the Pledge, praised his performance noting that he raised persuasive legal arguments. Today's ruling against Newdow, however, was based on the peripheral issue of standing. Newdow remains in a protracted custody fight with the mother of his daughter. The eight Justices agreed that he lack sufficient status to file the case on her behalf.

Justice Antonin Scalia recused himself from the case after making public statements prior to oral arguments that he supported the religionized version of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Writing today for the eight other jurists, Justice John Paul Stevens opined: "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course if for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist supported that decision, but penned a separate opinion arguing that the Pledge as recited today does not violate the Constitution. News reports indicate that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas concurred.

Is this the end of the NEWDOW case?

"There will be another case -- soon -- challenging the 'under God' portion of the Pledge of Allegiance," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.

In a statement to the news media, Johnson declared that by denying NEWDOW on the basis of standing, "the high court conveniently circumvented any substantive legal arguments over the constitutionality of this invasive practice which insults and marginalizes millions of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and
other nonbelievers."


Personally, I think that it is just wrong for Newdow to get his Constitutionally supported case thrown out on such a small technicality. There were far more important things to be considered with this case to just have it tossed out based on a loophole of a frightened Justice.

I think that the Pledge of Allegiance is a great thing, I say it every day in ROTC, and I have no problem with any of it except the part that states that this is a nation "Under God." That is unconstitutional thanks to the provisioned seperation of Church and State in government. So then, why should your loyalty to this country be based on your willingness to subject yourself to the will of "God?"

It needs to be taken out. Now.

[T-bone]

There's a thread for this - mods?

[Whitesaber]

Merged. To quote Hando, from the previous page for your viewing pleasure:

Originally posted by Handothrawn@Sep 4 2004, 09:40 AM
I just wanted to see what everyone's opinion was on a few issues concerning the seperation of Church and State, and have a few little things to share.

Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

Click here to read the article on the original site

By: ANNE GEARAN
Press Organization: Associated Press