»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Let us not offend... Yeah, right... well I'm offended!
| The Alley |
|
Let us not offend... Yeah, right... well I'm offended! |
|
suthern
since 1999-07-29
Posts 20723Louisiana 
|
From CNN Headline News Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT) SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state. "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel. The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said. "Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said. The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial. "I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal. But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism." |
||
| © Copyright 2002 suthern - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Janet Marie Member Laureate
since 2000-01-22
Posts 18554 |
So....I assume then that this "Michael A. Newdow" is also going to find a new currency to spend, as our American money says "In God We Trust" on it. I suppose he will make the ultimate sacrifice for his rights and beliefs and no longer accept his paycheck. I mean someone with his conviction would want to be totally Politically Correct wouldnt he?  The things that people with power wastes time and money on and ties up the judicial system with has always been offensive to me. |
||
|
Sven
since 1999-11-23
Posts 14937East Lansing, MI USA |
you know, when I heard about this on the news. . . I just couldn't believe it. . . I mean, what's next??? the Pledge of Alligence is something that's become a basic tenet of our delcaration of being Americans. . . it gives our highest promise that we will defend and protect everything that the flag stands for. . . well. . . here. . . you read it. . . I pledge alligence to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all. "under God. . ." which God?? You could argue semantics here. . . but, the term so vague that you would be agruing about it for days. . . how does this enforce Monotheism? simply because it says "under God"? what if it said, "under the God and Goddess"? would that be the same thing? what if it did say "under Vishnu" or "under Zeus"? is that "forced Monotheism?" some would say yes. . . others would have other things to say. . . the Pledge is a pledge to the Flag of this country. . . it says that we give it our allegience to it and to everything that this country stands for. . . one nation, under God (whichever God you may choose or choose not to follow), indivisible (no matter what those divisions might be), with Liberty and Justice for all (for all. . . including those who would try to have us believe that they are all) ok. . . I've said enough. . . this is going to the biggest thing in the News and on the minds and hearts of people (not just Americans) everywhere. . . let's hear some more opinions. . . for both sides. . . ----------------------------------------------------------- To the world, you may only be one person. But to one person, you may be the world. [This message has been edited by Sven (06-26-2002 04:24 PM).] |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
What if the Government was Satanist and required you, as Christians, to say 'one nation, under Satan'???? |
||
|
Sven
since 1999-11-23
Posts 14937East Lansing, MI USA |
now that's a good question!!!! can't wait to see the answers. . . --------------------------------------------------------------- To the world, you may only be one person. But to one person, you may be the world. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't really have a problem with 'under God'(and I smile when the same child who says under God followed by 'invisible'), and I don't think we should deny our history and our traditions, but in some ways I think this is the best thing for those who advocate religious activism. It polarizes, it forces one to choose sides, and brings questions of private belief to the forefront of public service. I think they're irrelevant to public service or rather that private beliefs shouldn't be used as litmus test-- unfortunately, we now have every politician running to wrap themselves in God's cloak. So, what do you do if you're a good, hardworking public servant and an aetheist? I'm of the mind that the term is so vague that most people don't give it a second thought in their daily lives and that's the way it should be. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I’ve never really understood this particular ritual even before the ruling. I’m not sure but I’d take a wild guess that some people who recite them don’t believe in them and will say the words but do as they please in any case. While the people that honestly believe in the sentiments behind the words don’t really need to constantly chant them to be reminded. The inclusion or exclusion of God is probably, as some have said, a minor point to most people, which may be why the case was rejected initially. The reason that judgement was overturned could be that it was a major point to some people who deserved a fair hearing. At the end of the day you either trust in God or the Justice System to reach the right decision or you change the one nation part to reflect the difference of opinions. Thanks for the chance to read and reply. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Sharon - I'm going to be laughing for DAYS about that!!! ROFLMAO!!! I'm kind of twisted on this one and will likely think about it more as the day goes by. On one side, i agree with brad that it's history, and to deny the religious factor (which, you have to admit, brought about as a catalyst a good portion of what has happened in the past) is to basically deny the entirety of our "upbringing" as a country. On the other hand, it's almost like a declaration of values - implied, of course - that i can understand some being upset about. On the other hand (i have three of them today) - who cares? don't we have better things to spend our time, money, and effort on than something which, sadly, holds little meaning to the American public in general anymore? Sharon - that was beautiful!  C |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
I am outraged. Period. |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
So let me get this right...Now that God has so richly blessed our country (remember our founding fathers and the basis of our existance as a country) we no longer need Him? Is that right? I think we're in trouble. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
actually it is ironic that this headline shares the page with robber barron CEO's accounting scandals.... it is the perfect illustration of how unbridled ideology (in either direction) self destructs |
||
|
suthern
since 1999-07-29
Posts 20723Louisiana |
Sharon, there are those who already think that's the case. *S* I can't imagine I'd be living in this country if that were so... and I certainly wouldn't be pledging the flag. Hypotheticals aside, I'm writing anyone and everyone who even THINKS they have power... and stopped dead in my tracks this morning to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag waving over the federal building. I thought my tolerance for other people and their beliefs had no limits. I was wrong... for this 9th circuit opinion outrages me, offends me and infuriates me. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Suthern, girl, see my link in announcements. You'll feel better. Then send it to everyone you know! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Well, I can't say that I am outraged. And, as a practitioner of an "alternative" religion--I can't say that I was outraged by the Pledge of Allegiance before either. I did find it interesting, however, that according to the article I read, the words "under God" were a rather recent inclusion to the Pledge. (1954 Smiling, well, it seems recent to ME--I forget how old I am sometimes.) But at the risk of offending anyone further, I have to say that I understand the reasoning. This country was founded on the principle of freedom. Freedom of religion, which, logically, has to mean freedom FROM religion, if that is the preference of some. I loved Sharon's point, as well. But let's say instead of using the extreme of Satanism, let's try, hmmm, say, BUDDHA. I know many Christians who would be offended to be forced or coerced into reciting a pledge that offered up an "allegiance" that recited a belief in another deity. Again, I mean no offense, but I think that we have to understand, that "we the people" means ALL citizens of this country--even those outside of the mainstream. Okay. sigh. Let the "stoning" begin. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
...and the sensibilities have been, Serene One, that no one is forced to say the pledge of allegiance. All children, all People, have the right to refrain from doing so. But I see no reason to waste tax dollars and people's time to get into the bruhaha of having it removed from the schools. None whatsoever. It gives children a start from which to base their opinions. At an age that is comfortable to them, they can then opt out, or opt to stay with a symbol, and words, that should have bearing and weight to them. Just as the USA allows all forms of practice of religion, business, personal pursuits, and the like. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (06-27-2002 11:18 AM).] |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
If it's to be a 'start' a base from which to form opinions, then leave out "under God" and let the child's family religion come into play then. I am a Christian, but I also am very tolerant of others religions and would not like to force MY way of thinking on anyone. I would not want to tell a child, raised in another religion, that he/she must pray to my God. This is just the Circuit Court for the western U.S. - you in the midwest and east are NOT affected. If pursued, it could go as far as the Supreme Court though. And realistically? Who's going to monitor this? If my child was standing in a group of kids reciting the Pledge and inserted the "under God" phrase, who would know? Who would say anything? Would he/she be arrested? I think this is something that is unenforceable except in large Government groups (and even Congress was outraged and proceeded to recite the Pledge after hearing this). As I said, it's the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco - it's NOT the Supreme Court. Yet. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
My brother was once doused with sodas and had food thrown at him at a baseball game in the early seventies because of his refusal to stand during the National Anthem. Agreed, it was a very different political climate in the late sixties, and yet, knowing the infamous cruelty of children, I don't think it a stretch to imagine what could happen to a child who rebelled against the norm. Interestingly, I just spoke to a Christian friend, and he also refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. According to his beliefs, God is offended by "swearing" and oaths, and even with the editorial "under God"? He is adamant regarding the issue. But I do agree--if they can add words, they can remove them. Oh, and popped back in to add, that I do seem to remember that I was taught the Pledge of Allegiance in school. It WAS a part of the curriculum that I learn to recite it. Oh, and I used to work for the State of Louisiana, and I also recall being "written up" for having a Bible on my desk, in plain view of the public. That was a "no-no" apparently. (and yes, grin, I have an avid interest in ALL religion, and I am NOT anti-Christian. In fact, in the study group that I belonged to, the teachings of Christ were a major part of my studies.)But I do believe that the separation of church and state was a cautionary measure to avoid the religious persecution which was suffered by many of our founding families. I realize mine is not a popular opinion, but alas, in according to my conscience, popularity has no influence of what I actually believe. (smiling again, I suppose that has been obvious for some time, eh?) [This message has been edited by serenity (06-27-2002 12:04 PM).] |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Janet Marie said, quote: He already tried the argument of having God removed from currency once, JM, in Florida. Then he changed residence, and could no longer try his matter in that circuit. Then he "did some research" and felt that he would make a bigger impact if he took this approach. I think he needs a life. [This message has been edited by Sunshine (06-27-2002 01:45 PM).] |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Poet DeVine ~ excellent point. Brad ~ I agree with your statement most of all. Larry C “So let me get this right...Now that God has so richly blessed our country (remember our founding fathers and the basis of our existance as a country) we no longer need Him? Is that right? I think we're in trouble.” ~ The founding fathers were not injecting Christianity into the country, but Deism, big difference. Southern “I thought my tolerance for other people and their beliefs had no limits. I was wrong... for this 9th circuit opinion outrages me, offends me and infuriates me.” ~ And you have every right be so infuriated, just like the court had the right to make the decision they made. That is what makes this country so great. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Maybe we're all looking at it from the wrong direction. If this is simply the flip side of the Creationist/Evolution debate, if it is one more battle for or against school prayer, maybe the Establishment clause isn't the problem. Maybe it's compulsory education. Let's dismantle the whole thing and let private schools take care of education. |
||
|
Toad Member
since 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
I’ve been reading the threads, including a couple of poems that have been posted on this subject, and I’m surprised at some of the things that have been said. One person wants to start tattooing people that hold different religious beliefs and another is promoting the idea that it would be better if they just left the country. Are people really that wound up about this issue, and if so aren’t some of the comments being used contrary to the meaning behind the words of the pledge itself? I’m not American by the way, I’m just curious. Brad Wouldn’t private schools given full autonomy on religious matters only lead to segregation along religious lines? Thanks for the chance to read and reply |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Toad? It pained me to even offer up my opinion on this one. Emotion is still high so soon after the horrific assault of terrorism on our country. I am not the least bit surprised at the vehemnence of reaction--but it does pain me to feel the lack of understanding--I personally am dismayed to find that because I support a separation of church and state, I am perceived as an atheistic ingrate. I can only hope that through discussions such as these, that I can somewhat nullify that viewpoint. I agree with you about the private school issue as well, and there are many more issues besides that ONE, regarding the dismantling of the public school system. But that is another thread, and one worthy of addressing, considering the problems we are now facing regarding it. As to the currency issue? What is printed on it is of no importance to me. I agree with a certain famous quote that we should, "render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's..."  (And actually, I don't hang on to the stuff long enough to consider it as reading material!  GROAN...I knew I would misspell vehemence. Oh, what the hell? IT STAYS.  [This message has been edited by serenity (06-27-2002 09:33 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I don't know what would happen. I was working from principle. We allow the free exercise of religion or of no religion and if people feel that compulsory education interferes with that right, it supercedes the right to Education. Last time I checked the right to Education was neither in the constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. |
||
|
hush Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653Ohio, USA |
Well, regarding currency, the guy can always deal exclusively in plastic and checks. I don't remember the last time my credit card said I trust God. In all seriousness though- Someone made the point that the founding fathers founded the country with Christian ideals in mind. It seems to me that the seperation of Church and State is meant to keep one denomination's views from influencing legislation. I mean, let's face it- in Puritanical Colonial America, I'm sure Jefferson and his cronies weren't terribly concerned with the rights of atheists. They weren't even terribly concerned with the rights of other ethnicities, let alone other belief systems. To them, in that time period, accepting different denominations of Christianity was probably a radical sign of tolerance. With that in mind, it is also evident to me that the Constitution needs to be read in context of time periods. To say "All men are created equal" now is saying something radically different from what you were saying 200+ years ago. Now, we are saying that all people are created equal.As a nation, we still need to work on that concept, but we are leaps and bounds away from the definition of the phrase being: "All white, Christian, landowning men are equal." So, we must also adapt to the provision of a seperation of Church and State. What it meant then, and what it means now, are two different things, and the government should adapt to that. Take the words "under God" out of the Pledge- how hard is that? If there is no real religious pressure in that phrase, and in the PLedge itself, it doesn't much change the meaning, does it? And if the removal of those two words really does change the meaning of the pledge that much, maybe it should be removed; maybe it is too much religious pressure, especially when it is recited as a matter of course in grade-school classrooms. Interesting subject. |
||
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
One thing that I'm really confused about, is why there wasn't a huge controversy over this when those two words, eight little letters, were put into the Constitution. Maybe there was; I'm not American, and I wasn't around at that time. But what's with the controversy NOW? I find it rather ironic, that people who don't believe in God, or have different religions, or who get on the backs of Christians for being "intolerant", seem to be the ones who are being the most intolerant. Sharon raised an interesting question earlier, which wasn't really addressed. If I, as a Christian, and as an American, had to say the Pledge with the words "under Satan" in it, I just wouldn't say it. Fortunately, I don't have to make that decision, and I wouldn't even if I were secure in my faith in God. Or maybe it's unfortunate. It all depends on the point of view. I just don't get it... it's so remeniscent of what happened a few years ago when one of Canada's politicians tried to get the word "God" removed from our Constitution. "God" is just a word. To Christians, yes, it has meaning. But why get in a flap about a word? Just my point of view, and my very confused questions. Sorry if I offended anyone |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Mr. Newdow made a very strong point that inclusion of the mention of a diety in a public school curriculum (paid for by ALL citizens of the United States--including atheists) amounted to "coercion"--and as to why the words were added in the first place? That confounds me as well, but as always I take into regard political climate of the TIME. We are speaking of the same political agenda that spawned McCarthyism... (serenity lights the fuse, and cautiously backs away...) |
||
|
Opeth Senior Member
since 2001-12-13
Posts 1543The Ravines |
Personally, I couldn't care less if the phrase is removed or stays. My daughter attends public school and recites the Pledge every morning. So what? She knows that I do not believe in any ONE denomination's god and I have explained to her my logic and reason in not believing or confiding in any religious faith. So she recites, "One nation under God" ~ I couldn't care less. I believe this is all a publicity, money-making, let me have a moment of fame stunt pulled by someone who doesn't have anything else better to do...and it is too bad in this country that people like that get the fame, when countless of other people who deserve it, do not get any recognition at all...but that is a whole other topic. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Opeth--I thought I felt the same way. But I find it interesting that the passionate reaction of some simply proves the point of Mr. Newdow. It was said that a child could simply choose not to participate in the recitation. Sure. Until they were questioned about why. Just read around the forum a bit, and see the rage displayed by some--and I'm assuming these are rational adults who claim to have a spiritual leaning...I shudder to think of the trauma a child could suffer, not just through peer pressure, but the blatant prejudice of ADULTS entrusted to educate them. Shame. But you're right on one issue. None of this is very important. The Pledge will stand, as is. And the world will continue to go round. And kids everywhere will continue find a reason to hate the "outsider" kid--and mainstream society will continue on, smug and in denial of their privelage and prejudices. This WAS very interesting... now I think I'll go write something. Pledge some PEACE good poets. [This message has been edited by serenity (06-28-2002 09:28 AM).] |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
I am really curious. Actually I find it hilarious that such matters take so much importance, almost like there is nothing more useful to do any more. Does not reciting those two words make any American un-American? I am not an American, and I don't care how the pledge is said. In fact even not reciting the pledge is fine by me. To me, it doesn't change any fact in the life of an American to even pledge. Most pledges made are farcical. Most promises are meaningless. So what's the big deal about pledge, under or not under God. Believe in oneself first, be sure of oneself. By the way "In God we trust" is also the funniest thing I have seen on a man made currency; but then maybe even the entity of God could be argued as man-made... A passing comment, I guess about a million americans must be busy debating endlessly on this subject, some more vehemently than others... I wonder if half of these could go and help in fire-fighting in and around Arizona, wouldn't that be a better use of the time at hand? I suppose we should let life be simple. anyway, my personal opinion... Regards, Sudhir P.S. do they still use the Bible in court rooms before swearing to say the truth? |
||
|
Sven
since 1999-11-23
Posts 14937East Lansing, MI USA |
ah yes. . . leave it to my good friend Sudhir to inject a wake-up call into the room. . . well said my friend. . . -------------------------------------------------------- To the world, you may only be one person. But to one person, you may be the world. |
||
|
Nicole Senior Member
since 1999-06-23
Posts 1835Florida |
I'm surprised at how "new" this seems... As some of you know, I live in Oregon - I'm 27...graduated high school in 1993. Our schools stopped saying the Pledge just as I began my Freshman year. I'm no different (in person or beliefs) now than I was before. My youngest brother, who is going to turn 17 in a few months never had to memorize it like I did. He doesn't even know what the words ARE. (what's ironically funny to me, and not important by any means, but just funny is that out of every person in my family, HE's the one that attended church.) serenety, I just want to applaud your stance. Your open-mindedness and the way you present your opinions - it's very refreshing, and inspiring. More people should learn to exhibit themselves that way. |
||
|
Nicole Senior Member
since 1999-06-23
Posts 1835Florida |
Damn, I forgot one thing - I remember back when I was 5, there was one time in class when a new student sat during the Pledge. That's the only time I've ever seen it, and I remember it clearly...the poor thing was chastised by the teacher, and stared at by the whole class. That's not right. Not right at all. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Sudhir? oddly enough, I have never been asked to swear an "oath" in court---grin...I HAVE been there, but only as "immoral support!" But from what I have seen? yes, the Bible was still proffered as establishment of truth. Thank you, luvie...sometimes we have to step outside ourselves to see...and Nic? thanks...I didn't feel so alone doing that! [This message has been edited by serenity (06-29-2002 03:50 AM).] |
||
|
PhaerieChild Senior Member
since 1999-08-30
Posts 1787Aloha, Oregon |
Since everyone wants to be so polictically correct maybe the wording should be changed to "Under the God of my choice" that way nobody can snivel. I know that sounds simplicistic but if it keeps everybody from fighting and everybody gets to worship their own God whether Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Satan or whatever then go for it. There's the man I chose. There's my territory.....Shakira |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
? Some? do not recognize a GOD/DESS at all...  and THAT is what WE need to recognize...and respect. [This message has been edited by serenity (06-29-2002 10:15 AM).] |
||
|
S Arthur Grey Senior Member
since 2001-03-19
Posts 719woven by a poet's loom |
P.C. & Others, How about "none of the above"? That's a choice too, and one that is no less valid than the rest. I suppose it is in the nature of "belief" that the believers find it "unbelievable" that anyone could or should live a life that worships no god(s). Many believers seem to be proud of their magnanimity in accepting another version of their beliefs but swoon to the floor at the prospect of "no belief". At that point they are unconscious. I understand at least some of the reasons why religious practice is important to believers. So be it. I don't need it. I understand life and death well enough to accept both and to fear neither. S Arthur |
||
Marge Tindal
since 1999-11-06
Posts 42384Florida's Foreverly Shores |
I recite loyally, attesting to my loyalty to the flag symbol of my country ... inserting - 'to the Maker of MY knowing and understanding'  quote:Perhaps 'indivisible' should be considered for review~ indivisible adj : impossible of undergoing division, "an indivisible union of states", "one nation indivisible" And then we run into the glaring lie of it all- 'with Liberty and Justice for all.' lib·er·ty (lbr-t) n. pl. lib·er·ties a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. ______________________________________ jus·tice (jsts) n. 1. The quality of being just, fairness. 2. a.The principle of moral rightness, equity. b.Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude, righteousness. 3.The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. ________________________________________ all (ôl) adj. 1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity ~JMLCO  ~*The pen of the poet never runs out of ink, as long as we breathe.*~ |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Perhaps 'indivisible' should be considered for review~" you, M'FRIEND, ARE a passion's gem! roflmao.... love you! *wish I'd started this thread--so I could end it--HERE* (BEAUTIFUL) [This message has been edited by serenity (06-29-2002 02:14 PM).] |
||
|
Marshalzu
since 2001-02-15
Posts 2681Lurking |
When an atheist receits the oath and in particular the words "under god" it should mean nothing to him/her because they do not believe in god therefore receiting those two words is meaningless because there is no god they cannot be a nation "under god". However When a christian receits the oath they are confirming in the precence of god that they will honour their obligations as they have stated within the oath. Now this is obviously just an exercise in attention seeking, he clearly has too much time on his hands, too much money in his wallet and too little sense to realise that this little crusade is dividing a nation at a time that it needs to be drawn together. Andrew "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance." |
||
|
Nan
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-20
Posts 21191Cape Cod Massachusetts USA |
Last I knew, "God" was quite non-sectarian. I see no allusion to any organized religion in the Pledge of Allegiance. God can be the Christian God, Buddha, Allah, or any number of sectarian appellations... Perhaps our atheistic friends could give their "non-God" a name, and everyone would have a point of reference. Then we could just move on...  |
||
|
Skyfire
since 2000-12-27
Posts 3381Riding |
Is he going to try and get the "In God we trust" taken off of your money as well? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Closed by request of originating poster. Alicat Alley/Lounge Mod |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
