Court rejects Pledge of Allegiance case

[Mara]

The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while stepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html

[RHooks]

They're not stupid. They don't want to rule on this any more than they want to rule on gun control issues. Procedurally, it was the right call. The man is not the girl's legal guardian. The girl and her mother are Christians and did not want the case pursued.

[Gaim Mastr]

It will eventually be banned. And the reference to God will be removed from all US currency as well. May not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen.

[Terry Penrod]

.

That is unless he personally objects, on the record, notarized and dated, in writing, with two reliable witnesses, two forms of proper ID, thumbprint, blood tests and the mandatory fee in the amount of $42,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000 and eighty four cents...

in cash.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Quantum Ninja]

It will eventually be banned. And the reference to God will be removed from all US currency as well. May not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen.

Well, it was that way before. Prior to 1954, the phrase "under God" was not part of the pledge. It was added by Congress during the Red Scare to distinguish the U.S. from those "evil godless Communists" living across the pond. The phrase "In God We Trust" was not added to U.S. currency until 1955 for the same reason. These phrases were born out of an obsession for the endorsement of religion's "superiority" over atheism. That's one reason I take issue with these references to God, among others; the context with which they were added is a slap in the face to atheists.

[NotSoFast]

I bet the athiest guy doesn't object to getting cash with "in God We Trust" printed on it. I doubt he refuses to be paid at work because he so strongly objects to the print.

[RangerRick]

If this country is so bad, the ATHIEST can go to some other country then. No one is forcing him to live here.

[Rob]

What is up with all the atheist bashing? So the guy is being a dingleberry, doesn't mean all atheists are like that.

I personally could care less if people say Under God in the pledge. At dinner, when most of the family bows their heads for prayer, I do not. But, I also do not interupt their prayer and I do not eat until they are ready. We have different beliefs, but I respect their opinions.

That is why I never cared when they had prayer before football games, even over the loud speaker. It does not hurt me, even though I disagree.

[NotSoFast]

What is up with all the atheist bashing? So the guy is being a dingleberry, doesn't mean all atheists are like that.

I personally could care less if people say Under God in the pledge. At dinner, when most of the family bows their heads for prayer, I do not. But, I also do not interupt their prayer and I do not eat until they are ready. We have different beliefs, but I respect their opinions.

That is why I never cared when they had prayer before football games, even over the loud speaker. It does not hurt me, even though I disagree.

Some Athiests and people that follow other beliefs do not feel the way that you do. They feel that since they don't believe in it, then it should not be mentioned. They are somehow being "wronged" by having to hear someone else mention a God that they do not believe in.

Just like some of the Jewish community wants all Christmas specials removed from TV and call everything a "Holiday Special". If they had a special of their own and Christians tried to change the name, then we would be labeled as anti-semite bastards.

In schools today, we no longer have Christmas holidays...it's now "Winter Break". Once again, if they don't believe in it, it shouldn't even exist.

I am a Christian myself. If you don't believe in the same things as I do, that's fine. Just don't make me change to fit your ideals. (speaking in general terms, not at any one in particular)

The same people that complain about their children going to a school that puts on a "Christmas play" surely don't insist on paying full price during the Christmas sales in the malls. They pick and choose what offends them based on convenience. Just like in my "In God We Trust" example above. No Athiest ever to walk this Earth has declined US currency because of religious beliefs.

[Shardos]

okay, I'm tired of people saying we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that. America has tried so hard to become non-offensive that we have lost a lot of our culture, in trying to please everyone we really have no identity of our own. I hate that, I think that we should choose how we are and if you have a problem with it, leave
the whole political correctness thing is retarded, if I offend someone by something I say, I am sorry you took offense, but I'm not going to avoid it because you don't agree. imo people need to stop being spoiled brats and own up to the fact that the world doesn't cater to your every wish

[edit] for clarification: if you feel otherwise, I completely support your right to your opinion. I may not agree, but I won't hate you for thinking by yourself. this is just how I feel about it :wink:

[Ojnod]

okay, I'm tired of people saying we shouldn't do this, we shouldn't do that. America has tried so hard to become non-offensive that we have lost a lot of our culture, in trying to please everyone we really have no identity of our own. I hate that, I think that we should choose how we are and if you have a problem with it, leave
the whole political correctness thing is retarded, if I offend someone by something I say, I am sorry you took offense, but I'm not going to avoid it because you don't agree. imo people need to stop being spoiled brats and own up to the fact that the world doesn't cater to your every wish

[edit] for clarification: if you feel otherwise, I completely support your right to your opinion. I may not agree, but I won't hate you for thinking by yourself. this is just how I feel about it :wink:

word

[Rob]

The US is supposed to be a melting pot of cultures... unfortunately we have melted into a big sticking pile of unidentifyable goo and I only see it getting worse.

I believe Mara at some point posted a thread about a report on how Ladies Night was unconstitutional (at least that was the gist of it). Who the hell cares if somewhere some woman get together to hang out with other woman. Who cares if a country club is just for men. And I am sorry, but if you have a handicap, there are going to be somethings you cannot do and some places you cannot go.

The US is so 'all about me' that the big message really turns into a big FU to everyone else.

[Gaim Mastr]

I bet the atheist guy doesn't object to getting cash with "in God We Trust" printed on it. I doubt he refuses to be paid at work because he so strongly objects to the print.


If this country is so bad, the ATHIEST can go to some other country then. No one is forcing him to live here.

:lame:



Okay, so I don't adhere to monotheism, so I shouldn't accept the ONLY legal US tender for trade or payment? Yes, that's a great argument for keeping the monotheistic reference on US currency.

Rick's argument is even sharper. :p:

How about this...

If this country is so bad, then those who believe in only one God can go to some other country then. No one is forcing THEM to live here.


I'm not an atheist. But I sure as hell don't want my government forcing a single religious belief onto me or my fellow citizens. Separation from church and state is crucial to the survival of any country.

It's real easy for people to say that they support freedom of religion. It's real easy for the government to say that they don't support one religion over another in the US. But like the old saying goes, talk is cheap.

It's when it comes time to stop saying and start doing that peoples' true colors and hypocrisy come out. Anyone who would say that they support separation between church and state, that their government shouldn't promote one religious belief over another, yet also argue that the reference to a single god should remain on all modern currency and be recited in modern classrooms funded by all taxpayers, is being absolutely, totally, unequivocally hypocritical.


I'll even go so far as to say that if the strength of your faith and the survival of your religion is based on whether or not it's made reference to on legal tender or in a nationalistic classroom pledge, then your own faith is weak, very weak.




In schools today, we no longer have Christmas holidays...it's now "Winter Break". Once again, if they don't believe in it, it shouldn't even exist.

I think that is totally off base. It has little to do with individual belief and a great deal more to do with not forcing a particular religious belief onto our impressionable children. In other words, separation of church and state. If that school receives funding from the US government then it should NOT attempt to enforce any one particular religious belief.

So what if winter break is now actually being referred to as "Winter Break" ??
Does that mean that those evil anti-Christians are trying to destroy the Christian faith in the US ??
Or does it actually mean that more and more US citizens are getting tired of having the monotheistic religions shoved down our throats ??



I am a Christian myself. If you don't believe in the same things as I do, that's fine. Just don't make me change to fit your ideals. (speaking in general terms, not at any one in particular)

It works both ways though. Don't force changes that would make us fit your ideals. Take the reference to a single god off of money and out of public classrooms.

The absence of support for monotheistic beliefs on currency and in nationalistic pledges is not the support for atheist or polytheistic beliefs. It is nothing more than keeping rule of church out of the rule of government. It is nothing more than keeping one particular belief from being shoved down the throats of those who believe in something else.


The same people that complain about their children going to a school that puts on a "Christmas play" surely don't insist on paying full price during the Christmas sales in the malls. They pick and choose what offends them based on convenience. Just like in my "In God We Trust" example above. No Athiest ever to walk this Earth has declined US currency because of religious beliefs.

So by your own logic US Christians should have NO problem if the "Christmas Plays" were removed from all schools in the US and changed into "Mawlid Al-Nabi Plays" (celebration of the birth of the Muslim prophet Muhammad) ??

By your own logic US Christians should have NO problem if the quote on US currency is changed into "In Gods We Trust", knowing that Christians aren't supposed to put any other god before their one god ??

Instead of a Christmas tree, we call it a Mawlid Al-Nabi tree. Instead of Christmas break for the kids we call it Mawlid Al-Nabi break for the kids.

You really wouldn't have any problems at all with that, NSF ??

It can be very easy to say that people not believing in the same things as you is fine, just so long as others don't try to change your own ideals or influence your own ideology. But when the shoe is on the other foot, how would the monotheistic Christians feel in this country ??

What if the US currency were changed to read "In No God or Gods We Trust" ??
Would you like that ??
If you continued to spend that US currency would that make you a hypocrite, or just someone who merely gives to Caesar that which is Caesar's ??

If children were no longer forced to listen to daily pledges to a single god, would that bring down the Christian faith and usher in the era of The Opposer (The Devil) ??



America has tried so hard to become non-offensive that we have lost a lot of our culture, in trying to please everyone we really have no identity of our own.

I can understand why someone might say that. I can understand how some people may feel that way. But I feel that it's not only false, it's also self-defeating, so to speak.

Is America really becoming more non-offensive ? Or is America just becoming more tolerant of different views from its varying citizens, and less prejudice of the ideals not held by the majority ??

You say that the US has no identity of its own.

Have you asked non-US citizens what they identify America with lately ??

I assure you, they believe that America has a very distinct identity. Not all of them like that identity very much, but they are keenly aware of it nonetheless.

America's identity isn't being lost. Not by a long shot. It's merely being changed. And without change comes stagnation, and ultimately failure and self-defeat. History teaches us that. As the old saying goes, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As far as losing a lot of our culture goes….. we're supposed to lose it !!
No country, government or people who have refused to change their culture with the times has survived with any success at all. People and their culture NEED to have the ability and the will to constantly change by virtue of improvement and betterment.

Keeping the reference to monotheism in natinalistic pledges and on US currency is akin to some of the Southern states in the US still waving the Confederate flag at their state capitals.

"It's an important part of our history, our heritage, our culture."

I've always found that line of reasoning to be brutally flawed and failed.

Certain Muslim countries continue to treat their women more like property than humans. Should we have no problem with that? After all, it does represent their history, their heritage, their culture.

Should the modern German government buildings proudly wave the Nazi flag above them because it's an important part of their history, their heritage, their culture ??

Should Britain give absolute power back to its royal family because it's an important part of their history, their heritage, their culture ??

Should we begin to support the Communist parties in Russia because it's an important part of their history, their heritage, their culture ??

The criminalizing of marijuana possession and use in the US is much older than the implementation of the reference to a single god on US currency and in school pledges. Should the US always continue to throw its own citizens into jail for smoking half a joint in the privacy of their own homes solely because it's an important part of part of our history, our heritage, our culture ??



The US is so 'all about me' that the big message really turns into a big FU to everyone else.
I consider that to be an unjustifiable overgeneralization.

A great deal of it has less to do with being all about the individual's personal beliefs and MORE to do with reversing the long-standing control of this country's general ideology and identity by a select few groups.

When someone says that they are sick of always having the US Senate, Congress and Whitehouse populated almost exclusively by wealthy, white, Christian men, it doesn't mean that that person is anti-wealth, or anti-white, or anti-Christian, or a feminist. It simply means that they are tired of having this country's social and political 'morals', 'ethics', and 'destiny' controlled by such a very select group.

America is supposed to be a great melting pot of ideals and cultures, is it not ??

It's not that those who don't believe in a monotheistic religion want THEIR views to supercede the views of those who do believe in the single god. It's that those who don't believe in a monotheistic religion are damn well tired of having the belief of a single god shoved down their throats by a government that is supposed to neutral to religious ideologies, and is supposed to support and endorse the needed virtues of separation between church and state.

When I say that I support the removal of the monotheistic reference from US currency and the national pledge to my country, I'm not doing that because I want others to share my personal ideology. I do it because I do NOT want certain people in my government and country to force THEIR ideology onto me.



What is fair for one should be fair for all. And if anyone doesn't like that, THEN they can leave and move to some other country !! :p:

[Mr. Natural]

Once again religion fuels a discussion and passion is expressed by folks. Perhaps someday, just maybe, if we're lucky, people will accept each other whatever their beliefs and realize we are all struggling to do the best we can in this plane of existence. If that ever occurs maybe we'll see harmony in this world. Diversity of life, beliefs and opinion are one of the things that make living a great thing.
Personally I think the motto should read, "in Universal Consciousness we trust".
:shades:

[Gaim Mastr]

But what if we're part of a multiverse ??
And what if there is more than a single consciousness ruling over all existence ??

Your reference to a single realm of existence and a single consciousness offends my beliefs. I'm going to take you to court to force you to remove your clearly biased and prejudice post.

:wink:




:lol:

[Impresario]

Some Athiests and people that follow other beliefs do not feel the way that you do. They feel that since they don't believe in it, then it should not be mentioned. They are somehow being "wronged" by having to hear someone else mention a God that they do not believe in.

Atheists are critical thinkers. They employ scientific technique and reason to test what is true. They reject faith because it is not based on evidence. Claiming that atheists "feel wronged" by an individual's faith is hyperbole. I would hope that most people respect the establishment clause: 1) the government action must have a secular purpose; 2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion; 3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Just like some of the Jewish community wants all Christmas specials removed from TV and call everything a "Holiday Special". If they had a special of their own and Christians tried to change the name, then we would be labeled as anti-semite bastards.

I wasn't aware that there was a big movement in the Jewish community to ban Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer?

In schools today, we no longer have Christmas holidays...it's now "Winter Break". Once again, if they don't believe in it, it shouldn't even exist.
See establishment clause.

The same people that complain about their children going to a school that puts on a "Christmas play"...
Why should a secular public school entangle itself in that fashion? A public school education is open to students of diverse backgrounds and faiths. Clearly, it is more prudent for public schools to divorce themselves from this arena entirely. In a private theist school students are free to express their faith as they so choose.

[Shardos]

Or is America just becoming more tolerant of different views from its varying citizens, and less prejudice of the ideals not held by the majority ??

But the thing is, America isn't becoming less prejudice, it's just punishing the people who express their prejudice. No one is allowed to express themselves if others find it offensive. There is no way you can form an entire nation that isn't prejudiced towards anyone.As unfortunate as it is, it's natural for people to mistrusting or hateful towards those who are different. If you try to please to many people you cannot please yourself.

I assure you, they believe that America has a very distinct identity.

yes but what do people say this identity is... A land of the free, that stands out in the world as a beacon of hope, a land of opportunity, but who are we?
The Irish (just using them as an example, since I'm Irish :wink:)have their culture, they have the Celtic mythology, they have their own traditions that are unique to them, and they don't care if anyone is offended by this. Granted, we do have the 4th of July and a few other minor holidays, but other than that, it's just recognizing holidays from other places.

We are just a large country where anyone can come and find their home, and I like that, but I think we try to be too accomodating. Think of all the schools we have that teach in a different language. We have spanish schools in America, for the people who can't speak English. Now if you went to France and demanded that they teach you in, say, German, because that was the only language you spoke, they would just laugh at you. Our national language is English (or americanized english) so you should have to know English if you want to live here. I doubt you could live long in Japan speaking only Spanish

Looking at all the separations in America, the different cultures, the different languages the different people, you see not only a lot of diversity, but also a lot of discord. Unless we are threatened from without (as we have been in the past) we live our separate lives, and don't care about the people we supposedly "accept" into our culture. We are not unified as a country unless we are in war, when we are faced with a common enemy. The people of America act more like hateful siblings than true family, and that is my problem.

now give me about 20 mins and I'll probably think half of this sounds retarded :lol:

[edit] probably a bad country combination on the school thing :lol:

[Logan]

In the end, I don't really see how printing "In God we Trust" on our coinage affects anyone at all. As a Christian, I wouldn't care if all of my quarters said "In the Devil we Trust." Whatever - you can tell me all day that it's impossible to call the United States secular because it was founded by white Christians for the most part - I'll still tell you that so long as the money pays the bills and buys me gas, I don't really care what is printed on it. I can't see how it would offend one group or another. Honestly, I can't see why anyone really cares all that much.

The same thing really applies to "under God." How hard is it for parents to explain different religions to their children, and tell them about what "under God" means? If the family is Christian, then they tell the kid its no problem. If the family is otherwise, then what do you do? You tell the child not to say that phrase during the pledge. It's not like it "doesn't count" of those two words are left out. I think the whole issue is blown way out of proportion. I'm all for freedom of religion, but how is this encroaching on that right?

[Impresario]

But the thing is, America isn't becoming less prejudice, it's just punishing the people who express their prejudice.
Sorry Shardos, I undestand what you are saying but I disagree. This country is becoming less prejudiced and that is causing us to become more polarized. The two camps stand out in stark contrast to one another. Many white people in this country now wouldn't give much thought if an African American or other minority was their neighbor - interracial relationships are not scandalous and gays are on the brink of obtaining full civil rights. Many of the youth in this country are way less prejudiced then in my day - and I think that is a very good thing. In the opposite camp there are those who are raised very sheltered and like you said fear those who they do not know. That is ignorance based upon a lack of experience and it is to be frowned upon. Finally, in the last camp ther are some who hold religious or political beliefs that preach hate and intolerance. They are free to hold these beliefs but they can not act out on them in an illegal manner. Today we are closer to judging people by the content of their character then the color of their skin, but you have to get out there and mingle with all types instead of being an armchair bigot - railing against and being afraid of those who you do not even know (note, I don't mean you Shardos but you as in the general you).
Looking at all the separations in America, the different cultures, the different languages the different people, you see not only a lot of diversity, but also a lot of discord. Unless we are threatened from without (as we have been in the past) we live our separate lives, and don't care about the people we supposedly "accept" into our culture. We are not unified as a country unless we are in war, when we are faced with a common enemy. The people of America act more like hateful siblings than true family, and that is my problem.
You can not have diversity in a dynamic society without discord. It's part of the dialectic of change. I can't think of any fundamental change in our society that didn't carry this burden. If anything our somewhat adversarial nature is a natural consequence of capitalism whereby we all are competing for limited capital. Let's not be naieve though, you are right that there are still many dinosaurs in this country who pine for the good ole days. They are entitled as much as anyone to lawfully achieve their agenda. If I was a betting man I would say their days are numbered - it's just a matter of time. As for likes and dislikes - only a fool would say you're going to like all the people all of the time, though it would be nice if our dislikes were based on individual characteristics instead of broad stereotypes.

[Terry Penrod]

.

On printing "In God We trust" on the singular, official currency of The United States of America or including any relgious reference in our Pledge of Allegiance -

These things should have NEVER been allowed in the first place.

They so clearly violate the fundamental premise of separation of church and state at the very core of all legal, educational, civil levels and they pervade all monetary transactions for all people in all walks of life, privately and in business. These and ALL other arbitrary religious references should be removed from ALL official government documents and currency. Other than to spell-out the basic rules AGAINST discrimination due to religous belief (etc.), the federal government sould NEVER promote or disregard or even comment on specific religious idealogies. It should have NO collective opinion on religion period. The individuals within the government from the oval office on down are free to pray or not pray anyway they PERSONALLY choose. But they MUST stop meddling in all such PUBLIC affairs - except to serve as totally unbiased third parties to resolve conflicts when the law is broken and to reinforce the basic rules of fairness / equality.

On our founding fathers, history and culture -

Stuff them.

They are VERY old news and the fact that the majority of the people who broke away from Britain during the revolutionary war and first established our fundamental constitutional tenets and bill of rights were predominantly caucasian, male, Chrstians has NOTHING to do with what they intended to create and even less with what we should be doing 200 years later after many generations of diversifying immigration, global expansion and supposed growth as a nation.

The fact is that we now have a huge black, hispanic and asian population of native born AMERICANS. They are U.S. citizens too and every single one of them, both male and female, OUGHT to have exactly the same rights under the law period. There should be NO favoritism and NO domination based on color, religion, sex or anything else. We are ALL members of the SAME race - the human race - and we should ALL have exactly the same status as citizens. That goes for the money we use, the pledges we take and the offical documents we use as records, laws, rules, etc.

On having at least a few basic, common rules to live by -

Yes, we in fact need a national policy on many issues, a national currency and a fundamental set of common rules and practices to govern how we do business, what language we use for official documents and a few other essential things. So we need to choose one dominant language not several. We need some standards of weights and measures too. We also need one type of official currency not a dozen and we need a single set of common laws that apply to one and all.

But adopting a set of standards does NOT imply that we should not also teach / learn / use a wide variety of alternates. We should try to learn about other languages, religions, cultures and practices simply to be aware and informed enough to communicate with the rest of the human race. It also adds depth and richness to our lives and should be strongly encouraged at every level from the home, schools and community centers to the highest government offices and most powerful media outlets.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Gaim
I'm not an atheist. But I sure as hell don't want my government forcing a single religious belief onto me or my fellow citizens. Separation from church and state is crucial to the survival of any country.And what single Religious belief would that be Gaim?


It's real easy for people to say that they support freedom of religion. It's real easy for the government to say that they don't support one religion over another in the US. But like the old saying goes, talk is cheap.I'll ask again, which Religion?


It's when it comes time to stop saying and start doing that peoples' true colors and hypocrisy come out. Anyone who would say that they support separation between church and state, that their government shouldn't promote one religious belief over another, yet also argue that the reference to a single god should remain on all modern currency and be recited in modern classrooms funded by all taxpayers, is being absolutely, totally, unequivocally hypocritical.I agree with most of this, but again, you said; "yet also argue that the reference to a single god should remain on all modern currency and be recited in modern classrooms funded by all taxpayers". I ask you where in the pledge or on the currency does it mention "a single God"?.

Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

The mere mention of God, Allah or any other supreme being printed on government issue is a perfectly clear statement of religious belief. "In God We Trust" is stamped directly on the official currency of this country. It is in effect a religious endorsement that does NOT belong on our money, in our pledge of allegiance (which is our ONLY official, legally binding pledge of citizenship) or anywhere else in government documents as an arbitrary element.

As far as WHICH specific religion it endorses, that is obviously the predominant one we have in America. It is based on Christian beliefs that worship Jesus Christ, follow the ten commandments and use the term "God" to describe his father, the supreme creator of the universe.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod
The mere mention of God, Allah or any other supreme being printed on government issue is a perfectly clear statement of religious belief. "In God We Trust" is stamped directly on the official currency of this country. It is in effect a religious endorsement that does NOT belong on our money, in our pledge of allegiance (which is our ONLY official, legally binding pledge of citizenship) or anywhere else in government documents as an arbitrary element."In God We Trust" is not an endorsement, it's just a statment. The word God is all incompasing, 97% of americans believe in a "God" and that "God" is something different to each and every one of them. To some, that God is Jesus and to some it's Allah, and to some it my be the cat down the street. As far as the Pledge of allegiance being "legally binding", thats the first I've heard of that.

As far as WHICH specific religion it endorses, that is obviously the predominant one we have in America. It is based on Christian beliefs that worship Jesus Christ, follow the ten commandments and use the term "God" to describe his father, the supreme creator of the universe. Well thats just your opinion that it "obviously" indorses Christianity. But like you said, we live in a diverse society and the term God covers many different religions. When a Muslam say's the Phrase "Ala Akbar"(sp), he's saying "God is Great", i'm sure he doesn't meen Jesus.

Lou :globe:

[Terry Penrod]

.

Originally posted by Terry Penrod
"In God We Trust" is not an endorsement, it's just a statment. The word God is all incompasing, 97% of americans believe in a "God" and that "God" is something different to each and every one of them. To some, that God is Jesus and to some it's Allah, and to some it my be the cat down the street. As far as the Pledge of allegiance being "legally binding", thats the first I've heard of that.

Well thats just your opinion that it "obviously" indorses Christianity. But like you said, we live in a diverse society and the term God covers many different religions. When a Muslam say's the Phrase "Ala Akbar"(sp), he's saying "God is Great", i'm sure he doesn't meen Jesus.

Lou :globe:


Of course it is an endorsement Lou.

It is a declarative statement technically and in effect is a federally sanctioned endorsement that is printed right on all of our official currency and included in our official pledge of allegiance (a requirement by all people who apply for U.S. citizenship that very much does carry a binding legal obligation).

As far as common, individual interpretation goes, who really cares? But it is pretty obvious that the inclusion of the word GOD as opposed to Allah or any other variation does imply a Christian bias. It was in fact proposed, supported and implemented by overwhelmingly Christian believers and does indeed serve as a specific religious reference in a place that it clearly does NOT belong.

We should remove any and all such religious references from all related items period. They have no business being there in the first place and are in direct conflict with the entire premise of separation of church and state at the most basic, fundamental level. It is therefore highly hypocritical to say that you are in favor of this important separation and then turn around and claim that printing "In God We Trust" directly on our money is just fine and dandy.

Here are just a few examples of the federal government violating the very idea of separation of church and state:

1. Praying in school during public class time. It should be outlawed. At least they got this one right - eventually.

2. Printing ANY religious references on ANY legally sanctioned government issue / currency / bonds or documents. It too should be outlawed period.

3. Reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that includes this or ANY other religious reference as a personal demonstration and statement of one's national citizenship. It too should be changed. NOBODY should ever be required to recite declarative religious oaths as part of their solemn pledges, regardless of how they feel about God, Allah or the man in the moon.

There simply is NO gray area here.

We either have clear and absolute separation of church and state or we do not. There is no room for wishy washy debate by pandering, weak-kneed, meally-mouthed politicians or cowardly supreme court justicies. We either publically, officially support (endorse in writing on legal tender and other federally controlled items) religion (specific or not) or we don't. A or B. Yes or No.

Is that really so tough to understand? Does every single issue HAVE to be endlessly "debatable" or "politically correct" or "legally expeditious" or "publically appeasing"?

Nonsense!

Some things are just plain as day and this is one of them.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Quantum Ninja]

In the end, I don't really see how printing "In God we Trust" on our coinage affects anyone at all. As a Christian, I wouldn't care if all of my quarters said "In the Devil we Trust."

So what purpose does the phrase serve in the first place if it "doesn't affect anyone at all?" Would you not care if the phrase were removed or would you oppose it? If the former is true, it shouldn't matter at all to you if the phrase disappeared from all dollar bills tomorrow. If the latter is true, then you obviously do care about it.

[RHooks]

Logan was trying to explain that money and governments are secular things. They should have no impact on a person's faith. If he's like me he's neither for it or against it. It's a non-issue.

"He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "

Luke 20:25

[Terry Penrod]

.


Logan was trying to explain that money and governments are secular things. They should have no impact on a person's faith. If he's like me he's neither for it or against it. It's a non-issue.

"He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "

Luke 20:25


I couldn't agree more and think that the government needs to make this perfectly clear once and for all to everyone. They should stop debating about religion and stop making any reference to it on our money and everywhere else where it serves absolutely no purpose other than to make it appear as if they are officially endorsing religious beliefs. They need to stop meddling altogether in private affairs where no laws are being broken and nobody's rights or freedoms are actually being infringed upon.

But most of all, they need to have the guts to simply stand up and tell whiners from EVERY faction to puleeeeease STFU, mind their own damned business and to stop crying to mommy government every single time they get their long, pointy noses out of joint. Now THAT would be a refreshing change.

Cheers, Terry

.

[RangerRick]

They have no business being there in the first place and are in direct conflict with the entire premise of separation of church and state at the most basic, fundamental level.

Ok Terry, here we go again with a 'polital correct' statement.

Let's be realistic and accept the fact that our government is based on christain fundamentals. You cannot deny that and be honest about it.

Part of those fundamentals, to a majority of people, is a seperation of church and state in regards to specific teachings and laws of the religion. The founding fathers had the foresight to not want religion to dictate our laws, but the extremists would love to force their concept of the term 'seperation of chuch and state'. That doesn't make their interpetation correct.

I said it in an earlier post, "if you do not like what the majority of people would like, no one is forcing you to stay in this country"(and I do not mean you literallly).

[Terry Penrod]

.

Ok Terry, here we go again with a 'polital correct' statement.

Let's be realistic and accept the fact that our government is based on christain fundamentals. You cannot deny that and be honest about it.

Part of those fundamentals, to a majority of people, is a seperation of church and state in regards to specific teachings and laws of the religion. The founding fathers had the foresight to not want religion to dictate our laws, but the extremists would love to force their concept of the term 'seperation of chuch and state'. That doesn't make their interpetation correct.

I said it in an earlier post, "if you do not like what the majority of people would like, no one is forcing you to stay in this country"(and I do not mean you literallly).


The point RR is that I know damned well who the founding fathers were, and who proposed that these religious references be added to our official currency, etc. in the first place They were and still ARE Christians. That isn't even debatable.

But what IS debatable and more than a little offensive is the attitude of some publically elected government officials who meddle with sensitive religious issues when they clearly should not. Printing terms like this on our money is a totally arbitrary thing and it serves absolutely no purpose whatsever other than to put a very misplaced government stamp of purely religious origin on legal tender that is used by every single person in every cash transaction here. It is hypocritical to the enth degree for them to also spout on and on about true equality, identical individual freedoms for one and all, separation of church and state and other related matters, then turn right around and propose that we all recite an official pledge of allegiance that includes a religious reference - of any kind. It too is very misplaced, improper and serves no good purpose.

The solution is simple. Get rid of all such references on all official items and be done with the entire issue once and for all.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Logan]

So what purpose does the phrase serve in the first place if it "doesn't affect anyone at all?" Would you not care if the phrase were removed or would you oppose it? If the former is true, it shouldn't matter at all to you if the phrase disappeared from all dollar bills tomorrow. If the latter is true, then you obviously do care about it.

The former. Do whatever you want with it, get rid of it, leave it, change it so it says "In flesh eating ogres we trust." I don't care, it's a non-issue to me.

[Cronus]

This is all pointless.

Our head of state is head of a church of over 70 million people. I don't care.

[Impresario]

Cronus, my understanding of the Church of England is that it is a relatively liberal form of Protestantism. What scares me is the thought of a politician in this country alligned with people who have an agenda like this.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=1728156#post1728156

[Gaim Mastr]

Shardos
But the thing is, America isn't becoming less prejudice, it's just punishing the people who express their prejudice. No one is allowed to express themselves if others find it offensive. There is no way you can form an entire nation that isn't prejudiced towards anyone.

I'm guessing that you're making reference to the problem of some Americans being overly politically correct. I'd consider that a separate issue from the topic at hand. Mainly because the movements to remove the reference to a single god from US currency and nationalistic pledges goes deeper than merely not wanting to offend anyone's personal opinions, nationality, color, etc. By its nature, striving to remove those references is indicative of striving to keep churches from having too much influence on our government.


As unfortunate as it is, it's natural for people to mistrusting or hateful towards those who are different. If you try to please to many people you cannot please yourself.

I agree that it's genetically natural for humans to fear that which we don't understand. This tends to be the basis of initial mistrust or hatred of those people who are different.


snip………The people of America act more like hateful siblings than true family, and that is my problem.

Perhaps, but that has more to do with sociological evolution than everyone merely waking up one day and choosing not to get along with people of different heritages, cultural backgrounds, etc.

American has only been around for about 228 years. There is still a great deal of old-world mentality from those who came to this land many years ago and the ones who come here today. But, things have been and continue to change in that regard in this great melting pot. For instance, extended families are common, if not expected in many countries. But in the US such things have become a source of problems as people from the same family tend to want to move away from each other as soon as possible. Clearly, not all change is exactly good, but it illustrates a point.



Logan
…I'll still tell you that so long as the money pays the bills and buys me gas, I don't really care what is printed on it. I can't see how it would offend one group or another. Honestly, I can't see why anyone really cares all that much.

With several million different people in America, you're bound to get some differing of views and opinions. Yes, some people are outright offended by having the reference on US currency. But for many others, myself included, it has FAR less to do with feeling offended than it does with the US citizens maintaining a constant vigil to keep our government from crossing the line of what is expected of it.

I expect my government to maintain arm's length dealings with any religions. By forcing reference of only monotheistic beliefs onto US currency and in nationalistic pledges sung by school children, it is not keeping that safe distance from allowing religious doctrines to dictate governmental policy.


The same thing really applies to "under God." How hard is it for parents to explain different religions to their children, and tell them about what "under God" means? If the family is Christian, then they tell the kid its no problem. If the family is otherwise, then what do you do? You tell the child not to say that phrase during the pledge. It's not like it "doesn't count" of those two words are left out. I think the whole issue is blown way out of proportion. I'm all for freedom of religion, but how is this encroaching on that right?

The point is that the government is not supposed to endorse any one belief over another. And to in fact do such a thing where impressionable young children of all backgrounds are forced to at the very least listen to it daily, in a public learning institution, is offensive to me.

Adults saying that some kid could just remain quiet when that part of the pledge comes up is somewhat naïve to me. It can be hard enough in school without giving other children a reason to make fun of them, possibly even physically assault them, the "un-cool Atheist kid".

To put a young child into the position of either reciting a pledge to a god that they don't believe in, or face humiliation and harassment from fellow students is NOT in any way, shape or form an expectable governmental policy.

I also lay blame onto the school systems for this. It would be a non-issue if the schools merely made the decision to leave out the reference to a god from the nationalistic pledge that wasn't intended to have it in the first place.

I put the shoe on the other foot and ask people what would be so wrong with our national pledge if god were once again omitted from its verses ??

Would the children feel less "American" or patriotic when they recite it ??




lou
And what single Religious belief would that be Gaim?

snip…..you said; "yet also argue that the reference to a single god should remain on all modern currency and be recited in modern classrooms funded by all taxpayers". I ask you where in the pledge or on the currency does it mention "a single God"?.

The belief in a one true god. That includes religions such as Christian, Jewish, and Islamic. The problem is that not all religions believe in a single god. Throughout the ages there have been many religions based on the belief of multiple gods.

"In God We Trust" and "… under God…" are unmistakably references to a single god. And that is the problem. It's not that the term "God" refers to Christianity alone, though its implementers clearly meant for it to. The problem is that the US government is in full effect endorsing the ideology of a one true god (monotheism). It's like saying that any religion that is based on more than one god (polytheism) isn't worth recognition because those are 'real' religions.

Great stuff for theological debates. Abhorrent for the US government to endorse.


"In God We Trust" is not an endorsement, it's just a statment.

When does a statement become an endorsement? When the statement is made public. When it's made public on such a vast scale as the reference to a single god on money and in our pledge, it becomes a very clear endorsement, if not also an arguably gigantic form of advertising.


The word God is all incompasing, 97% of americans believe in a "God" and that "God" is something different to each and every one of them.

That is not an accurate statement. Maybe 97% of Americans believe in a form of god and or gods. Aside from the Atheists there are a great many Agnostics in America. And while Agnostics do believe in the probability of a higher power, they also believe that power could be in the form of either a single god or multitude of gods.

"God" is not all encompassing, since it is not synonymous with "Gods".

At any rate, neither monotheism or polytheism should be endorsed by the US government. Even way back when America's founding fathers were establishing the US government, all of them were Christian. So why didn't they merely make Christianity the official religion of the new country ??

The answer is because even though they all believed in the same god, they knew full well how severely detrimental it is to have unselected, self-appointed religious leaders creating governmental policy. And when the US makes reference to a single god on all of its currency, that is absolutely a form of government policy.




RangerRick
Let's be realistic and accept the fact that our government is based on christain fundamentals. You cannot deny that and be honest about it.

That is a lie perpetrated by American Christian churches. The fact of the matter is that America's government is based off of the governmental structure of the old Roman Empire. That is where we get our Senate and such from. Even many of our government buildings have architecture reminiscent of Roman architecture.

Where I live you can't throw stone in any direction without hitting five churches. I know the BIG line of BS that they use to support their lie. They claim that America's laws are based off of the Christian's ten commandments.

Wrong. Those fundamental American laws are based off of the exact same laws there were present thousands of years before the ten commandment were supposedly created. What, do you think that before the ten commandments came along that no country or city-state had laws against stealing, killing, adultery, and bearing false witness ??

Of course they did, long before the ten commandments were ever "conceived". And that's only four out of the ten. The other six had FAR more relevance to city-state laws before the ten commandments was created than they ever have in America's government.

I can honestly say, by point of provable fact, that the US government was not based on Christianity.

But that may be a bit off topic here.

Any references to a specific religious conviction needs to be removed from governmental publications and sponsored items/events. And our children need to be given what I would call the very basic common courtesy of not having to recite a specific religious doctrine, or face added harassment and problems from their peers and teachers.

[NotSoFast]

I see your point about the slogan printed on the money. If it truly offends people, then it should be removed. Not all people believe in a single God.

And by the way, the "Christian"-based holiday shows (depicting the birth of Jesus) are not shown on TV. It offends the non-Christians of this country. We get plenty of Frosty the Snowman and Rudolph. But the media does not want Jesus to be in the headlines. Just because a Christmas special shows a Christian perspective does not mean that other cultures could not have their own shows.

Christianity is in the same boat as being a white male in this country. We are all supposed to be equal. You can't be equal when other, different people won't let it happen. If you practice Christianity and are proud of your faith, then you are seen as "pushing it on other people". Along the lines of it being perfectly politically correct to have the United Negro College Fund. How long do you think it would take the ACLU to shut down the United Caucasian College Fund? Christians and white males are deemed insensitive if they say one word about other cultures, but those cultures are being repressed and impuned upon if they have to drive down my street and see a nativity scene on my lawn.

I am just saying it should be a 2 way street. But it never will when people don't "want" to be equal. They want to be above.

[Terry Penrod]

.

All true NSF.

But you are talking about individual choices and separate private sector decisions not officially sanctioned federal government events or standards. There is no law against airing Christian or any other religious programs as long as they do not directly trespass on anyone else's right to free speech. But when the U.S. government issues it, mints it, prints it, dictates it, requires it or endorses it (directly or indirectly), then we do have a problem when any one idealogical view is given precedence over any other.

It just isn't right and it needs to be fixed once and for all.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

Originally posted by Terry Penrod
Of course it is an endorsement Lou.

It is a declarative statement technically and in effect is a federally sanctioned endorsement that is printed right on all of our official currency and included in our official pledge of allegiance (a requirement by all people who apply for U.S. citizenship that very much does carry a binding legal obligation).Well thats your opinion Terry, I see it as more of an all incompasing statment. As far as the Pledge of Allegiance go's I'll have to agree that it shouldn't be a requirment to become a U.S. citizen, if they removed "Under God" and inserted something else in it's place would be better. But beyond that it's not legally binding as you said, and legally no one has to say it or even salute the flag if they don't want to.

Law text (http://www.mansd.org/west/west/faculty/social_studies/wlubelczyk/fact2.htm)

"ARE STUDENTS REQUIRED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ........No, nobody Is. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that it Is unconstitutional for federal, state, or local governments to force citizens to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag. In a famous passage of that opinion, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the court said: "(But if there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, It Is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox In politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."


1. Praying in school during public class time. It should be outlawed. At least they got this one right - eventually.I'm not to sure what you mean by this statment, if you mean someone ie: Teacher, Principle or student, standing up in front of the class or assembly leading everyone in prayer, I agree.
But, if a student wants to say a prayer to himself or with a fellow classmate and they don't infringe on anyone else, thats infringing on there constitutional right.


We either have clear and absolute separation of church and state or we do not. There is no room for wishy washy debate by pandering, weak-kneed, meally-mouthed politicians or cowardly supreme court justicies. We either publically, officially support (endorse in writing on legal tender and other federally controlled items) religion (specific or not) or we don't. A or B. Yes or No.

Is that really so tough to understand? Does every single issue HAVE to be endlessly "debatable" or "politically correct" or "legally expeditious" or "publically appeasing"?

Nonsense!

Some things are just plain as day and this is one of them. I'll agree that the Supreme Court skirted there responsibilty on this issue, but that didn't surprise me because they have done it in the past on other matters concerning our basic rights.

Now this last sentence is a doosy; "Is that really so tough to understand? Does every single issue HAVE to be endlessly "debatable" or "politically correct" or "legally expeditious" or "publically appeasing"?

Nonsense!, you talk about rights and then you berate people for exercising one of our most importent rights, the freedom of speech. Whats wrong with someone debating, is your opinion on this matter superior to everyone elses, people have a right to say what they believe.
Aren't people allowed to dissagree with your point of view, I'm not saying your wrong or right, but to imply that other peoples opinions on this are "Nonsense" is wrong.
Be carefull, it's a long drop off that high horse.

[Terry Penrod]

.

Sorry Lou but right is right.

On this issue, we have all heard countless individual opinions that range from total apathy ("I don't care, it's a non-issue.") to all out attacks by ultra conservative right wingers deadset on maintaining an unfair status quo that most decisively promotes their particular brand of religion in official federal government matters.

IMO, neither of those positions is defensible and both ignore that there might even BE a problem here. So no. I say nonsense to any and all such hogwash no matter what flavor it is or who says it.

To me, this is

1. A legitimate national issue and

2. there is one and only one fair, sensible and effective solution.


BTW, this horse that I'm riding is no higher than it has to be to reach a thoroughly unbiased and honest opinion in the pursuit of the truth. If that bothers you, then all I can suggest is that you get a better horse and/or take some riding lessons. The responsibility of every debater in any serious discussion is to truly believe in what they say, stand firmly behind it and defend the right of others to do the same. But with the public expression of every opinion comes the responsibilty to accept counter arguments and criticism - not to blindly accept them or dance around conflicting viewpoints.

My expressions of opinion are never casual and they always represent what I honestly believe after weighing the pros and cons of any given issue or situation. I am not here in the heated forum to play footsy with people who don't want to read strong, definitve opinions backed-up by clearly written, logical arguments. I don't like to mince words either and don't appreciate it when others do. So yes, I use very direct, often strongly worded text. But it is never profane and frankly when it gets personal, it's never arbitrary and it is justified 99% of the time.

Cheers, Terry

.

[DanTheManPR]

I love these heated debates! Great read :D:

[Lou Cypher]

Naw, it doesn't bother me at all. And I agree, it's a legitimate national issue but I don't see it being addressed any time in the near future, probibly never. I'm just a debater of a different skin, I don't believe in berating an apponate(sp) in a debate, if I did I feel it would tarnish(for lack of a better word) my debating points. I prefer facts to stand behind my debating, and nothing else.

Lou :globe:

[Quantum Ninja]

That is not an accurate statement. Maybe 97% of Americans believe in a form of god and or gods. Aside from the Atheists there are a great many Agnostics in America. And while Agnostics do believe in the probability of a higher power, they also believe that power could be in the form of either a single god or multitude of gods.


Don't mean to sidetrack the conversation too much here, but I think it's something worth mentioning. The popularly held perception is that all atheists are people who believe (read "are convinced") a god does not exist. Most dictionaries will define atheism this way, i.e. atheism = belief that no god exists.

I prefer the definition most widely accepted by the atheist community and more in tune with the actual etymology of the word. That is, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. Notice the distinction; there is a difference between saying person A believes no god exists and person B does not believe a god exists. A has committed to the position that a god doesn't exist, whereas B has not chosen to commit to the position that a god exists (maybe he has decided not to commit to either position).

Person A is what is commonly called a strong atheist, whereas person B, assuming he does not have a belief one way or another about God's existence, is a weak atheist. That is, person B has suspended judgement because there is not enough reason or evidence for him to choose one option over the other. Most people who call themselves atheists are weak atheists, myself included. Strong atheism is harder to defend because it requires arguments to defend the assertive claim that it makes. Weak atheism is sort of the default position because it makes no assertive claim. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in/are convinced a god exists?" with a "No", "I'm not sure," "I haven't made up my mind," then you are at least an atheist of the weak variety.

Weak atheism and agnosticism are often confused. Agnosticism is something different, and has to do with knowledge, not belief. Agnosticism is the position that both the existence and inexistence of God can never be proven. It is possible to be an agnostic theist, an agnostic weak atheist, or an agnostic strong atheist, although the middle option is the most common camp of agnostics.

Here's a link with more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[Terry Penrod]

.

The following are the relevant thoughts of a lifelong agnostic.

I for one have teetered between the extreme categories of agnosticism all my life. I do not adhere to any specific denomination or organized religious faith yet I genuinely respect (and almost envy) those who do. You see, I also feel an inexplicable yet undeniable spiritual connection to all things natural. Yet my logical mind can not accept absolute faith in a single, sentient creator or a series of them as the ultimate universal truth without further evidence. And that evidence needs to be compelling beyond ALL doubt.

This leaves me and many other people with a dilemma that can not at this time be resolved by any human being that we know of past or present. There is just not enough convincing evidence either way IMO to commit absolutely and therefore, I can - with total honesty and above all else, humility - state categorically that "I simply do not know whether God exists or not.". This is a fact for me on the most personal level and it is not a point for public debate.

On the other hand, either blind faith in God or a full commitment to atheism would require that I deny my strongest logical urges to seek better information, more knowledge and far greater wisdom before making such a crucial and final decision. In the absence of that information, I feel that I have no choice but to remian openly uncertain - regardless of what my heart wants or even needs in order to be fulfilled.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Quantum Ninja]

.

The following are the relevant thoughts of a lifelong agnostic.

I for one have teetered between the extreme categories of agnosticism all my life. I do not adhere to any specific denomination or organized religious faith yet I genuinely respect (and almost envy) those who do. You see, I also feel an inexplicable yet undeniable spiritual connection to all things natural. Yet my logical mind can not accept absolute faith in a single, sentient creator or a series of them as the ultimate universal truth without further evidence. And that evidence needs to be compelling beyond ALL doubt.

This leaves me and many other people with a dilemma that can not at this time be resolved by any human being that we know of past or present. There is just not enough convincing evidence either way IMO to commit absolutely and therefore, I can - with total honesty and above all else, humility - state categorically that "I simply do not know whether God exists or not.". This is a fact for me on the most personal level and it is not a point for public debate.

On the other hand, either blind faith in God or a full commitment to atheism would require that I deny my strongest logical urges to seek better information, more knowledge and far greater wisdom before making such a crucial and final decision. In the absence of that information, I feel that I have no choice but to remian openly uncertain - regardless of what my heart wants or even needs in order to be fulfilled.

Cheers, Terry

.

Did you read my last post, Terry? I think you're a weak atheist, like myself. At least, the description of your stance on the existence of a god is pretty much the same as all self-described weak atheists I've ever met.

[Terry Penrod]

.

No QN, you need to read my last post.

I said that I have teetered between both extremes of agnosticism over the course of my life. That includes long periods of near atheism and several occassions when I was more convinced of the existence of God - and practically every level in between.

What I may feel today is of little importance as I now have a long term, self proclaimed non-commitment to a belief in either the existence or non-existence of God that can only be changed with the introduction of convincing new evidence one way or the other. And that evidence can never come from another human being - we just aren't advanced enough to independently speak with any degree of authority on matters of cosmic importance - no matter how big our knowledge base or egos may grow.


BTW, I am not actively searching for that evidence at this point either and am fully prepared to accept whatever the ultimate universal truth may be. I'm also quite comfortable with never knowing that answer and will never lose another second's sleep over the question for as long as I live.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Gaim Mastr]

To start, I'd like to state that referring to another member as being on a high horse is bordering on a personal insult/attack, which we do not allow here, heated discussions or not. We must remember to keep it civil or to refrain from replying to the topic.



lou RE: use of "God"
Well thats your opinion Terry, I see it as more of an all incompasing statment.

Ahh…. but you're adding to it then, not taking the statement at face value. If someone were to think of the term "God" as it's being used by the government to include not only all monotheistic beliefs, but also all polytheistic beliefs, then I can see where certain people might feel less offended by it. But again, that's not taking the phrases at their face value, that's adding additional outside personal views to it.

But that still leaves the problem of the US government endorsing religious beliefs, which it isn't supposed to do.


Nonsense!, you talk about rights and then you berate people for exercising one of our most importent rights, the freedom of speech.

I think that you're way off base, lou. It's clear to me that there is a very distinct difference between saying that something doesn't need to be debated and saying that people should not be allowed to debate something.

At no point in anyone's posts here does someone state that people should not be allowed to debate the issue. So your whole "freedom of speech" spiel looks more like an attempt to argue merely for the sake of arguing than having anything to do with what anyone has been posting here.

As a side note though, America's First Amendment applies to the government only, NOT the private sector. The government shall not impugn its citizens' right to freedom of speech.


Quantum
Agnosticism is the position that both the existence and inexistence of God can never be proven.

As always, there are varying degrees of any belief. "A" means "without" and "gnosis" means "knowledge." Hence, agnostic: without knowledge, but specifically without knowledge of gods. Personally, I do believe in the existence of a god and/or gods, but I don't believe that either myself, or anyone else on Earth has legitimate knowledge of such a higher power(s). In other words, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that if I were to read one bible or another that I'd suddenly have true knowledge of god's plan or would be able to quantify his/her/its/their existence.

Why am I that kind of an Agnostic and not an Atheist ??
Because at heart I'm a scientist. And based on the most trusted principles of science, I'm forced to come to the conclusion that some form of a god and/or gods must exist. As the creation of the universe and its surrounding unidentified space (or anti-space) cannot have come from absolute nothingness. It's like the "negative energy" or "dark matter" theories. All scientific evidence points to their existence, but in fact we don't truly know as we've never actually observed those things, only their effects. Precisely my position on the knowledge of a god and/or gods.



And this brings me back to the original topic. Even in the very best case scenario, where all Americans are supposed to believe that the government meant "all religions, monotheistic and polytheistic" in the use of the singular "God", it STILL alienates a certain percentage of the American population. Therefore, it is not all-encompassing, all-inclusive. Therefore it DOES promote one type of religious belief over another. Therefore, in accordance with some of the most basic principles of a free American society and its governing doctrines, the reference to "God" MUST be removed from all US currency and from our Pledge of Allegiance. US currency and the Pledge of Allegiance were perfectly fine the way that they were BEFORE they got used as a tool of America's cold war era.

[Gary V.]

There is such a huge upside to believing in God and Jesus! Why would anyone work at not believing? Eternal life in a place wonderful beyond imagination. I'll take that over eternal nothingness. If I'm wrong so what? I haven't lost a thing and won't even know it. If I'm right, Woohoo! Fun and good times way beyond anything here on earth!

[Gaim Mastr]

If you want that kind of a religious discussion, take it to a new thread.

[Gary V.]

I'm sure I saw some discussion on atheists. Pardon me.

[FredFlash]

To Terry Penrod:

Re: Printing "In God We trust" on the currency and including relgious references in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I share your view that these things should have never been allowed in the first place. "In God We trust" implies a religous duty to trust God. The only religious duty the Government should recommend to the people is the duty to render homage to the Creator as directed by their conscience and convictions, not the advice of the Government.

The prohibition is not against any relgious reference. It is against Government establishment of the duty which we owe to the Creator whether by force and with violance and by mere advice and recommendation.

Chrstianity had a lot to do with the establishment by law of the Separation of Church and State. James Madison considered the Separation of Church/Religion and State/Government to be a just and truly Christian principle and the sacred principle of religious liberty.

Madison characterized deviations from the pure principle to be givings to Caesar what belongs to God and joining together what God has put asunder. The "giving to Caesar what belongs to God" statement is a reference to the Savior's admonition to "Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which belong to God"

Madison and many others of the founding era interpreted the Savior's words to clearly intimate that the civil government and the religious government were not only to be distinct and separate from each other, but that the distinction should be perpetual.


Fred

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

In voting as I shall vote upon this question, I consider that I shall be taking nothing from God that is his, nothing from Cesar that is Cesar's; and that I shall only be giving to the people of Texas the things that belong to the people of Texas. Representative J. Pinckney Henderson (San Augustine) at the Texas Constitutional Convention of 1845 during debate on whether Separation of Church and State required ministers of the Gospel excluded from the Texas legislature. The convention decided that it did

Source of Information:

Page 165 at http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/pdf/pdf1845debates/00000016.pdf

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

[G's_Us]

He made all of it, so it's all His.

[FredFlash]

It will eventually be banned. And the reference to God will be removed from all US currency as well. May not happen for another 100 years, but it will happen.


"In God We Trust" should never have been stamped on the U. S. currency. It implies a uniformity of religious sentiment, it could reasonably be understood to be religious advice from the government; and it provides ammuniton to those who advocate government authority over the duty which we owe to the Creator.

The U. S. Government was not established for the purpose of expressing the religious views of the majority.

Fred

[FredFlash]

Well, it was that way before. Prior to 1954, the phrase "under God" was not part of the pledge. It was added by Congress during the Red Scare to distinguish the U.S. from those "evil godless Communists" living across the pond. The phrase "In God We Trust" was not added to U.S. currency until 1955 for the same reason. These phrases were born out of an obsession for the endorsement of religion's "superiority" over atheism. That's one reason I take issue with these references to God, among others; the context with which they were added is a slap in the face to atheists.

Man's Relation With God Is Above Human Legislation

In reviewing the record of religious persecutions which history presents the conclusion is inevitable that the line cannot be too strongly drawn between church and state.

If an act of legislation shall point out to the citizen one religious duty (such as to trust in God), it may, with equal propriety, proceed to define every part of divine revelation, even the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy.

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of patriotism.

The framers of the U. S. Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation with God is above human legislation.

The legislation that authorized the stamping of "In God We Trust" on the U. S. currency is an abomination that glorifies and honors Satan.

Fred

[mandrake]

Man's Relation With God Is Above Human Legislation

In reviewing the record of religious persecutions which history presents the conclusion is inevitable that the line cannot be too strongly drawn between church and state.

If an act of legislation shall point out to the citizen one religious duty (such as to trust in God), it may, with equal propriety, proceed to define every part of divine revelation, even the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy.

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of patriotism.

The framers of the U. S. Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation with God is above human legislation.

The legislation that authorized the stamping of "In God We Trust" on the U. S. currency is an abomination that glorifies and honors Satan.

Fred

For some reason, as I read that part all I can think of is Bobby Boucher's mom from 'The Waterboy'.

It's the DEBIL!!!

[FredFlash]

Well, it was that way before. Prior to 1954, the phrase "under God" was not part of the pledge. It was added by Congress during the Red Scare to distinguish the U.S. from those "evil godless Communists" living across the pond. The phrase "In God We Trust" was not added to U.S. currency until 1955 for the same reason. These phrases were born out of an obsession for the endorsement of religion's "superiority" over atheism. That's one reason I take issue with these references to God, among others; the context with which they were added is a slap in the face to atheists.

The rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of patriotism. Fred Flash (2006)

[FredFlash]

I personally could care less if people say Under God in the pledge. At dinner, when most of the family bows their heads for prayer, I do not. But, I also do not interupt their prayer and I do not eat until they are ready. We have different beliefs, but I respect their opinions.

The objection is the government recommending that the people say "Under God."

"Under God" implies a uniformity of religious beliefs; it implies government authority over our duties to the Creator; it conflicts with the principle that God alone rules the conscience of man; it is confusing; it provides ammunition to those who seek to unite Church and State; and it is a seed of bigotry that the Evil One will endeavor to grow up into persecution.

Fred

[FredFlash]

Why “Under God” in the Pledge is Wrong: The Legal Argument

by Fred T. Slicer

The U. S. Constitution of 1787 is one of enumerated and limited powers. It excludes religion from the trust granted to the general government by the people.

The First Amendment is rather ambiguous in the sense that there is more than one reasonable interpretation. This arises from the failure to define the word “religion” which in 1789 was commonly used to convey more than one idea or intellectual concept. .

In resolving this ambiguity we must be mindful of the “non delegation of authority over religion” in the un-amended Constitution. Much of the First Amendment’s ambiguity was resolved, during the first 50 years of the republic, in favor of the Perfect Separation of Church and State as generally articulated by the Jeffersonian Republicans and as particularly articulated by James Madison.

James Madison held that that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of the government. This was the same principle adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court the first time it had to apply the religious clauses.

Every major political dispute over the meaning of the religion clauses during the Early Years of the Republic was decided in favor of James Madison's view of religious liberty.

These early church-state disputes included:

· Whether Congress expressed the correct principle of the establishment clause by appointing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes. (The House of Representatives in 1811 rejected the Federalist argument that the Constitution was intended to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England and that the correct principle was not violated by the appointment of Chaplains to Congress and paying from the national taxes. The House rejected the same argument in 1832 when it refused to pass a joint resolution to request the President to issue a religious recommendation to the people.)

· Whether the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations. (Madison’s view prevailed when Congress, after the proclamations issued during the War of 1812 did nothing but “rekindle political hatred”, refused to pass resolutions asking for executive religious proclamations and Presidents refused to issue them.

· Whether the 1810 Post Office law violated the First Amendment by requiring the Sabbath to be violated. (The House found that it did not)


During the early years of the Republic, Congress never once made God the object of human legislation. It abstained from making laws regarding the people’s trust in their God or their beliefs regarding whether or not this is “one nation under God.” The Federal Government never recommended or advised the people to read, reflect upon or to obey particular religious commandments such as those God imposed on the Children of Israel.

Whether or not the nation is "under God" pertains to the duty which we owe to our Creator, over which the U. S. Government has no authority whatsoever. As James Madison declared during the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 on the Federal Constitution, "There is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

Therefore:

We must conclude that there is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with the people’s beliefs regarding whether God is over the nation.

[Torsion]

I agree with FredFlash on this one. I am all for seperation of church and state, especially in a country as polytheistic as the US.

"Why would anyone work at not believing? Eternal life in a place wonderful beyond imagination." -Gary

Thats a great reason to believe in god(sarcasm) , its like he payed you off or something.

[FredFlash]

"Under God" should be removed from the Pledge because:

It is an interference with the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to his conscience and convictions. Affirming a belief in “one Nation under God” is an act of homage to the Almighty. All acts of religious homage are to be dictated by one’s conscience and convictions, not the advice of the government.

It is s a violation of the natural right of man to be free to exercise his duty to the creator according to his religious convictions and the dictates of his conscience. In matters of religion, a man must obey his conscience, not the recommendations of the civil magistrate.

It is a violation of the rights of conscience because God alone is the Lord of the conscience of man. Any attempt by the government to influence a man’s conscience regarding his religious sentiments and manner of rendering homage is a sinful trespass upon the prerogatives of Jehovah.

It implies a need for the uniformity of religious beliefs, which is the foundation of religious bigotry that the Evil One will endeavor to grow up into persecution.

It implies government authority over our duties to the Creator. A man cannot serve two masters. Render not unto Caesar the things that belong to God.

It provides ammunition to those who seek to unite Church and State because it confuses those of us who are naive.

Fred T. Slice

[RangerRick]

Tell ya what, let's put it to a vote and see who believes what. Let the American people vote on it.

[bmn]

Tell ya what, let's put it to a vote and see who believes what. Let the American people vote on it.

Actually, isn't that sort of missing the point? As I recall, most people in the US belive in some form of the Christian God -- thus almost negating any real choice in the matter. I doubt there are many Christians like Fred up there who would vote against such a bill.

The point is to protect the desires of the few (atheists and agnostics and non-Christians in general) from the views of the many. It's all about the choice in the matter. Let the atheists say it how they want, and let the Christians have their way too. Just leave it up to the speaker what to do, don't legislate religion into state. :wink:

[FredFlash]

The point is to protect the desires of the few (atheists and agnostics and non-Christians in general) from the views of the many.

The views of the majority do not override the law of nature and of nature's God that God alone is Lord of the Conscience; the same be true of the requisition, of Christ our Lord and Savior, to separate the laws of his Kingdom from the laws of Caesar.

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.


--James Madison 1875

[Terry Penrod]

.

I see this old thread has recently been resurrected from way back when I was still one of the regular forum members that started at Gamespot, moved to PCGO and later came over here.

Although time has passed, the central issue hasn't changed one iota and neither has my stance on the government endorsing any particular religion. I support the complete removal of all arbitrary religious phrases from our Pledge of Allegiance, currency and all other similar materials issued by the government.

Obviously there are numerous exceptions like archives, museum displays, text books, etc. that cover a wide variety of religious references. But printing IN GOD WE TRUST on our one and only form of official currency ignores any and all non-Christians. It shows distinct favoritism for one specific religion over all others and that clearly violates the primary intent of separation between chuch and state.

To me this couldn't be more clear and I don't care that most of the founding fathers were Christians. They did NOT issue a proclamation stating that only their chosen religious faith be represented on U.S. dollars or anywhere else. Quite the opposite, it is a direct violation of a founding principle they fought hard to establish in the first place and it is a huge insult to the freedom fighters who died in order to finally break free from the long, oppressive arm of England and its insideously corrupt church.

As a matter of fact, the founding fathers were deadset against this sort of thing. It wasn't until many, many years later during and after the Civil War that a few self-serving morons thought up the idea and got it passed into law. (The idea of adding a religious motto to our money came from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861, and a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.)

Now, these stupid mistakes need to be fixed once and for all.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Rafal Dudek]

You mean like putting in "In President We Trust" ? :p:

[Terry Penrod]

.


You mean like putting in "In President We Trust" ? :p:


No... but I would support IN OURSELVES, THE PEOPLE WE TRUST.

Cheers, Terry

.

[Lou Cypher]

..

[FredFlash]

Well, it was that way before. Prior to 1954, the phrase "under God" was not part of the pledge. It was added by Congress during the Red Scare to distinguish the U.S. from those "evil godless Communists" living across the pond. The phrase "In God We Trust" was not added to U.S. currency until 1955 for the same reason. These phrases were born out of an obsession for the endorsement of religion's "superiority" over atheism. That's one reason I take issue with these references to God, among others; the context with which they were added is a slap in the face to atheists.

Religion should never be made the object of human legislation or used to achieve the objectives of civil government.

One who trusts in God upon the recommendation of the government rejects the religious authority of Christ for that of the government. God is to be trusted according to the dictates of one's conscience and religious convictions.

One who delegates the manner and methods of discharging his duty to trust in God (or any other duty which he owes to his Creator) to the U. S. Congress is on the Highway to Hell. A man's duty to render homage to the Creator cannot and may not be delegated to the U. S. Congress.

When God asks why you ignored his directions regarding your duty to trust in him, you will have no answer but to tell him that you delegated that duty to the U. S. Congress, which discharged your duty by stamping "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins?

[SupaTroopa]

.

I see this old thread has recently been resurrected from way back when I was still one of the regular forum members that started at Gamespot, moved to PCGO and later came over here.

Although time has passed, the central issue hasn't changed one iota and neither has my stance on the government endorsing any particular religion. I support the complete removal of all arbitrary religious phrases from our Pledge of Allegiance, currency and all other similar materials issued by the government.

Obviously there are numerous exceptions like archives, museum displays, text books, etc. that cover a wide variety of religious references. But printing IN GOD WE TRUST on our one and only form of official currency ignores any and all non-Christians. It shows distinct favoritism for one specific religion over all others and that clearly violates the primary intent of separation between chuch and state.

To me this couldn't be more clear and I don't care that most of the founding fathers were Christians. They did NOT issue a proclamation stating that only their chosen religious faith be represented on U.S. dollars or anywhere else. Quite the opposite, it is a direct violation of a founding principle they fought hard to establish in the first place and it is a huge insult to the freedom fighters who died in order to finally break free from the long, oppressive arm of England and its insideously corrupt church.

As a matter of fact, the founding fathers were deadset against this sort of thing. It wasn't until many, many years later during and after the Civil War that a few self-serving morons thought up the idea and got it passed into law. (The idea of adding a religious motto to our money came from Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania in a letter to then Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase in 1861, and a Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.)

Now, these stupid mistakes need to be fixed once and for all.

Cheers, Terry

.


I agree completely.

[FredFlash]

I bet the athiest guy doesn't object to getting cash with "in God We Trust" printed on it. I doubt he refuses to be paid at work because he so strongly objects to the print.

How about we put "In Satan We Trust" on the nation's coins and see if you refuse to be paid at work because you so strongly object to it?

If this country is so bad, the ATHIEST can go to some other country then. No one is forcing him to live here.

If you love civil authority over religion so much, why don't you show me where the people ever gave Congress authority over their religion.

I personally could care less if people say Under God in the pledge.

The issue is not what they say, but why they say it. They say it because the government recommended it, not because God dictated it.

Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner and methods of discharging it is to be dictated by one's conscience and convictions, not by the government. That is why the founders established a system of government to avoid even the slightest interference with the right of conscience and so wisely exempted religion from civil jurisdiction.

[FredFlash]

The Executive Religious Recommendations of Early U. S. Presidents Are Not Legitimate Legal Precedent For “Under God” in the Pledge

The eight executive religious recommendations issued during the first twenty-eight years of the American Republic by three of its first four Presidents are frequently cited as authority for the view that the U. S. Constitution was not intended to prohibit the U. S. Congress from making a law prescribing an affirmation of belief that the people of the United States are “under God”, or as some claim “a nation under the authority of God and subject to God’s natural law.” [Note 1]

The implied logic of this argument is that by issuing executive religious recommendations the Presidents were exercising authority under the Constitution to proclaim the nation as one “under God.” However, the logic fails for several reason including the fact that the Constitution grants no such authority to the President in the first place.

The argument also fails to consider the inconvenient fact that no executive religious proclamation ever claimed its authority came from the Constitution. It also fails to considerer the fact that during the Early Years of the Republic executive religious proclamations were eventually judged to be illegal, or at least improper, and the practice was discarded.

The American people gave President Washington a pass with respect to the single religious recommendation he issued without a request from Congress despite it obvious political objectives. However, ten thousand people took to the streets of Philadelphia when John Adams did the same thing. [Note 2] Adams was booted from office and replaced by Thomas Jefferson who would have taken a bullet rather than assume authority over the people’s religion.

In July of 1832 a worldwide cholera epidemic had reached Canada and was headed for New York. President Andrew Jackson refused a request from the Dutch Reformed Church of New York to issue a religious recommendation to the people. His letter of refusal was released to the press and was widely published.

In violation of what many considered the rules of morality and etiquette, the Senate passed and sent to the House a resolution requesting the President to issue a recommendation of fasting and prayer. In the 1830’s many held that a gentleman should never request another gentleman to perform an act that was known to go against the other man’s conscience and convictions. The House took up the matter on June 30, 1832 and again on July 5, 1832.

The champions of the rights of conscience argued that:

· No one could believe that the General or State governments ought to have anything to do with the subject of religion;
· The President of the U. S., unlike the King of England, was not the head of the Established Church;
· The Constitution conferred no authority on the President to appoint a day for religious purposes;
· The President had made it publicly known that he believed he had no power to issue religious recommendations;
· Although it was only a recommendation, it would come to the people clothed in executive authority.

The sponsors of mixing religion and politics argued that that Presidents Madison, Washington and Adams had issued religious recommendations. One supporter advanced the nonsensical argument that the resolution should not be objected to on Constitutional grounds because it was not obligatory. He then argued that was an “extra official act based on upon no claim to legal authority.”

The debate deteriorated into a partisan argument over whether Congress was being intimidated by the President. The statesman of the day was Representative Gulian Verpanck, the future mayor of New York, who urged the House to reject the argument that President Madison’s issuance of religious proclamations during the War of 1812 as legitimate precedent. He recounted that

“I well remember that fact, as well as the other days of political religious observance under State authority during the same eventful period.

That fast, I well remember, was kept, not in that unmixed spirit of humility and innocence enjoined by President Madison in his peculiar style of accurate and condensed eloquence, but (as it will now be allowed on all hands) with to much of the “old leaven of malice and bitterness.” The pulpit was made the rostrum of turbulent and rancorous political declamation. The language of scripture itself was employed by divines in their sermons, and by magistrates in their proclamations, to point political sarcasm and to rekindle political rage.

Such was then, and such will always be, “the inequities of our holy things,” when they have been made subject to political legislation.”

Verplanck closed with the words, “Let us leave prayer and humiliation to be prompted by the devotion of the heart, and not to the bidding of the State.” The resolution was defeated without even getting an up or down vote.

In law, a valid precedent or authority is something that establishes a principle or rule which may be adopted in subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The executive religious proclamations did not involve the law making authority of Congress as did the 1954 legislation that inserted in “under God” in the pledge. The precedent established by the early executive recommendations was superseded by the termination of the practice after the War of 1812.

In view of the fact that the Constititution was adopted with the understanding that it granted the national government no authority whatsoever over religion; and the termination of the practice of issuing executive religious recommendations after the War of 1812, the recommendations during the first twenty-eight years of the republic cannot be accepted as legitimate legal precedent for Congressional law making authority over the religious issue of whether the nation is one “under God.”

End Notes

[Note 1] See ‘Under God,’ without doubt by Randy Singer (Mar 25, 2004) at http://www.bpnews.net/bpcolumn.asp?ID=1349

[Note 2] "I have no doubt you were]fast asleep in philosophical tranquility, when ten thousand people, and perhaps many more, were parading the streets of Philadelphia, on the evening of my Fast Day; when even Governor Mifflin himself, thought it his duty to order a patrol of horse and foot to preserve the peace; when Market Street was as full as men could stand by one another, and even before my door; when some of my domestics in frenzy, determined to sacrifice their lives in my defense; when all were ready to make a desperate salley among the multitude, and others were with difficulty and danger dragged back by the others; when I myself judged it prudent and necessary to order chests of arms from the War Office to be brought through by lanes and back doors: determined to defend my house at the expense of my life, and the lives of the few, very few domestics and friends within it." Source of Information: Letter of John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 30 June 1813, in Works of Adams, 10:46-49—p196

[NeedForPower]

You want to know why America is having so many problems right now? TOO MANY IMMIGRANTS COMPLAINING ABOUT THEIR CRAPPY RELIGIONS. They come here and then complain. And most immigrants complaining are illegal and I think congress is being retarded to even think about changing anything.

[Rob]

Just remember, Christians were the first illegal immigrants complaing about their religions.

[Rafal Dudek]

Just remember, Christians were the first illegal immigrants complaing about their religions.

“veni, vidi, vici.” -Julius Caesar

[FredFlash]

When a duty to the Creator is laid upon men's consciences by any form of human authority, it becomes a shadow between the soul and God, an intolerable yoke, an impertinence and a tyranny. The duty to be "under God" should be removed from the Pledge.

[FredFlash]

. Although time has passed, the central issue hasn't changed one iota and neither has my stance on the government endorsing any particular religion. I support the complete removal of all arbitrary religious phrases from our Pledge of Allegiance, currency and all other similar materials issued by the government. .

You're damn close, my friend. The central issue is whether the government is taking cognizance of the duty (or duties) which we owe to our Creator.

If the placement of the religious phrases were determined by chance, there might not be a problem. If the placement was determined by deciding what is, or is not, a duty that is owed to the Creator, there is a big problem.

--James Madison (1785) See my Memorial and Remonstrance

[FredFlash]

We need a President like ole Andy Jackson who, even as a cholera epidemic descended upon New York City and the Counterfeit Christians pressured him, refused to issue an executive religious recommendation to the American people.

President Jackson considered the total separation of church and state to be the best safeguard for the health of each. As Jackson explained, in refusing to name a fast day in 1832 as a cholera epidemic loomed, he feared to "disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country, in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government." Source of Information: Andrew Jackson letter to the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, June 12, 1832.

[bmn]

Be careful what you wish for... Jackson was a radical racist and very violent as well. :scared: Probably not the best example you could have used. :p:

[FredFlash]

Be careful what you wish for... Jackson was a radical racist and very violent as well. :scared: Probably not the best example you could have used. :p:

How dare you spread that unfounded rumor bout sweet lil ole Andy Jack.

Here is another example of James Madison as the premier authority on the meaning of the Constitution as it pertains to the relationship of the church to the state.

The House of Representatives in 1854 rejected the "Merely Prohibits A National Religion" interpretation of the establishment clause in favor of James Madison's "Prohibits Everything Like An Establishment of a National Religion" interpretation. The House Committee recommended termination of the payment of the House Chaplain from the national taxes and requested "the ministers of the Gospel in this city to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty."

They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit an establishment of religion such as the English church presented, or anything like it.

--House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Report (1854)

The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion... The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles...

--James Madison (Circa 1820) Detached Memoranda

[FredFlash]

I bet the athiest guy doesn't object to getting cash with "in God We Trust" printed on it. I doubt he refuses to be paid at work because he so strongly objects to the print.

Let's put "In Satan We Trust" on the cash and see how many "real" Christians there are.

FF