Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!

One Nation, Under God...

So, whats your opinion of the court ruling?

Myself, I hope and pray that it will be overturned. Why should the views of one aetheist take precidence over the billions of Christan/Catholic/Protestant/etc 's that live in the US? It states simply, and concicely, that we are a nation under God, meaning under Gods protection. Let us hope He never removes his protection...

------------------
[b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
[b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
[b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
---
[b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
«13

Comments

  • TycoTyco Ranger Texas
    well...teach me to quit watching TV....

    what are you talking about? -is tp lazy to look it up- [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    Religious beliefs (or the lack of them) aside, to change the laws of a country based upon one persons view would be ignorant in my opinion.

    If a sufficient amount of people feel this way then it is a different story. While I might not like the result, I would defend the decision because "The People" had spoken.

    I reall am annoyed that things like this are finding their way into the courts and law makers forums though. It seems so devolutionist in nature. We can spend so much manpower and financial resources on things of the past, but to actually solve current issues is too great a strain on the system.

    - "Welcome to California, now ****ing go home..."

    [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
  • David of MacDavid of Mac Elite Ranger Ca
    An appeals court ruled that the "Under God" addition to the Pledge of Allegiance during fifties McCarthyism was unconstitutional, violating the laws of separation of church and state.

    Which, strictly, is correct.

    I'm inclined to agree with the ruling. This was added years and years after the pledge was written, and, if memory serves, bitterly opposed by many people.

    You know why that was added? To set us apart from Those Godless Communist Bastards. This was an era when thousands of people were "blacklisted" and couldn't get any work for decades. You couldn't say that you didn't like ice cream(!) without being accused of being a communist. This is just like celibacy for priests or the editing at Nicene. A policy put in place for, more or less, selfish reasons, which, over time, has became the norm. Considering that this country was founded on the principal of religious freedom (and Atheism is a religion), those of us who are good, God-fearing folk have no right to impose on those who believe differently.

    Same with the ice cream. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
  • Admiral AndyAdmiral Andy Earthforce Officer
    If Blacklisting was bad, then take note that that Communists are responsible for the largest death toll of the 20th Century such as the Bolshevik Revolution, Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, etc. I don't recall the U.S. amassing a death toll even remotely close to over 1 billion people. Heck, we're not even anywhere near close to Hitler's 11 million murders. So yeah, there is quite a bit of a difference between the U.S. and the Communists.

    No one is forced to recite the Pledge, so therefore there is no violation of the First Amendment. Another thing is that "Under God" does not endorse any particular religion. The Pledge is also not a prayer, so it is not forcing one's belief on another and like I said before it doesn't endorse any specific religion.

    Now if we were to say "one nation under Krishna, or Muhammed, or Buddha," that would be a violation because it endorses a specific religion.
  • WarbleWarble Ranger
    With the number of pointless wars relating to religion you would have hoped the whole thing would have been ditched by now.
  • [quote]Originally posted by Admiral Andy:
    [b]If Blacklisting was bad, then take note that that Communists are responsible for the largest death toll of the 20th Century such as the Bolshevik Revolution, Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, etc. I don't recall the U.S. amassing a death toll even remotely close to over 1 billion people. Heck, we're not even anywhere near close to Hitler's 11 million murders. So yeah, there is quite a bit of a difference between the U.S. and the Communists.

    No one is forced to recite the Pledge, so therefore there is no violation of the First Amendment. Another thing is that "Under God" does not endorse any particular religion. The Pledge is also not a prayer, so it is not forcing one's belief on another and like I said before it doesn't endorse any specific religion.

    Now if we were to say "one nation under Krishna, or Muhammed, or Buddha," that would be a violation because it endorses a specific religion.[/b][/quote]

    Just to keep on-topic I'll put off explaining what was wrong with the black-listing.

    As far as the pledge goes, "Under God" dosen't endorse any particular religion. But it endorses the idea of religion. And since it does that it is techniclly a violation of the seperation of church and state.
    Although I think this is of course an extremly minor violation, and personaly don't care if this stays or not. But it's nice to see the supreme court follow a law to the letter.

    ------------------
    "Ambassador we all know that the first casulty of war is the truth."
    -John Sheridan

    Ok so it's not exactly Max's journal but I think it's good
    http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40551
  • KonradKonrad Ranger
    I alway felt the "...one nation, ~under god~, indivisible..." part seemed kind of choppy. "One nation, indivisible..." sounds better to my ear.

    However, being a god fearing/loving person AND strongly supporting a seperate church and state, I still have no problem with it in there.

    In short I agree with JackN, aren't there better things we could be fighting for with my tax dollars in the courts.... speaking of dollars that are "In god we Trust"

    Do we have to spend money to reprint them all (again)? To quote John Stossel, "Give me a break!"
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    Welcome to the world of lawyers. People are becoming increasingly aware that they can get their personal views, whether good or bad, enforced on huge numbers of people through the courts system.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • Entil'ZhaEntil'Zha I see famous people
    [quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
    [b]Welcome to the world of lawyers. People are becoming increasingly aware that they can get their personal views, whether good or bad, enforced on huge numbers of people through the courts system.

    [/b][/quote]

    I happen to agree that "Under God" should be removed, it should never have been added, It wasn't there when written.

    whenever i have said the pledge, from the time i was in gradeschool when we had to say it every morning, until now, i NEVER say "Under God" i say the pledge as it was written. One Nation, Indivisible, With liberty and justice for some. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
  • WHY_oldWHY_old Elite Ranger
    ...and minature american flags for others !


    My thoughts on this; as part of a native american religion that doesn't have a "god" proper, I AM OFFENDED !!! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/tongue.gif[/img]

    but seriously, I think it shouldn't have been added in the first place, the US HAS done some pretty nasty stuff (see above), and saying the pledge should be optional.

    and I wasn't aware that there were *BILLIONS* of catholics/protestants in the US.

    [This message has been edited by WHY (edited 06-27-2002).]
  • A2597A2597 Fanboy
    Hrumph,

    This nation was founded to get away from religious prosecution. Founded on the principals that there IS a God (Note the "that all people are endowed by their creator as equal..." in the Declaration of Independance (Not certain if I got the quote word for word, to lazy to look it up, but it was definetly along those lines). This tells me that America was founded as a God following nation, not necassarily the god of the Christans, or the muslims, or what have you, but the belieif that there WAS and IS a God.
    If the Pledge said "One Nation, under Jeses.."

    or "One Nation, under Budda.."

    I could see this argument, because it is forcing the beliefs of one religion on to others. However, the words are "One nation, under GOD..."
    I'd like to belive that most humans in the would belive in God, and I know that many evolutionist do as well. the ONLY group that doesn't belive in a God are those damned (And I mean that in it's literal term, not as a cuss word, K?) Aetheist. thus, we return to the earlier problem of the views of ONE RELIGION (Yes, religion, belief in no God is still a belief) enforcing their views on all other religions.

    In other words, all persons that belive in a God, are being prosecuted. (Which is why we FORMED the U.S., to get AWAY from religious prosecution). So, seems pretty clear that ousting those words is not good. I for one, will always say the pledge as it currently stands. And to quote a local politition "And they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands off the Flagpole to make me stop." or another:
    "So they say it's OK to burn our flag, but not pledge aligence to it?"



    ------------------
    [b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
    [b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
    [b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
    ---
    [b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
  • my opinion: who cares.
  • David of MacDavid of Mac Elite Ranger Ca
    [quote]Originally posted by A2597:
    [b]the ONLY group that doesn't belive in a God are those damned (And I mean that in it's literal term, not as a cuss word, K?) Aetheist. [/b][/quote]

    "Judge not lest ye be judged."

    There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that annoys me more then people presuming God's opinion on something. You don't second guess the Almighty. It just doesn't work, it seems so arrogant to presume that someone is or is not going to be damned to eternal firey torment. Geez, can you picture St. Peter up at the pearly white gates saying this:
    "Next.
    "Okay, so, let's review your life. At age twenty two you opened you opened a home for the poor, complete with educational, health care and job placement facilities. Your new paradigme of poverty assistance quickly wiped out unemployment in your area. You were provided with a grant from the government to take you program nation at age twenty seven. At thirty five, you had enough money in you organization's treasury to go global, and you did so. At fourty five, after wiping out poverty in the industrialized world, you began a program to bring the industrialized world to whom ever wanted. Thanks to you, by age fifty seven, mothers could no longer use the phrase "There are starving children in other countries." to guilt their kids into eating.

    "All through this, you never took a salary, and only lived off gifts, and then only modest gifts. You stated that you had no right to get rich off of helping others.

    "Oh, my. You also stated that it was your [i]lack[/i] of belief in God or in any sort of afterlife that prompted you increadable philanthropy. You said that, "Since this is our only chance, we can't afford to let a single person suffer."

    "As you can no doubt see, you were wrong on that count, so, dispite your good deeds, I'm afraid I'll have to let you go."
    *St. Peter pulls large leaver. Trap door opens and philanthropist falls screaming to Hell. Whoops.*

    "Next. Okay, at age twenty five, [url="http://www.theonion.com/onion3604/nfl_star_homicide.html"]you commited a double homicide against your ex-girlfriend and a nightclub bouncer. And you were in the NFL at the time, but since you thanked Jesus for allowing you to brutally muder these two people,[/url] I'll let you in with a warning."
    *Pearly gates open and NFL muderer goes into an afterlife of eternal bliss.*

    Does that make any sense to anyone? Because that's what was implyed.
  • Admiral AndyAdmiral Andy Earthforce Officer
    Actually, you forgot the whole "Thou shall not murder" commandment, so the NFL allstar probably won't be having a chat with Christ, but slaving away in Hell.

    Uh, WHY, saying the pledge IS optional.

    A2597, WHY's got you there! Our country doesn't even have 1 billion people. Think you meant millions. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]

    You know what was funny is that Congress actually approved adding "Under God" and passed legislation which Ike signed in 1954.

    Funny that, seeing how Senators and Reps are supposed to represent the people. One can only assume that not that many people had a real problem with it! I also wonder why this is causing so much heart-ache now as opposed to when it came into play 48 years ago.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    I pretty much agree with DofM. In my opinion, what people do with their lives is more important than them going around saying "I believe in this particular God."

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • it was added during the age of mccarthyism to set us apart from the commies. The knights of columbus petitioned it.. and there it was.
  • BigglesBiggles <font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
    [quote]Originally posted by A2597:
    [b]the ONLY group that doesn't belive in a God are those damned (And I mean that in it's literal term, not as a cuss word, K?) Aetheist.[/b][/quote]

    That is completely wrong. There are religions that believe in the Earth, in nature, but not in a god.

    [quote][b]In other words, all persons that belive in a God, are being prosecuted. (Which is why we FORMED the U.S., to get AWAY from religious prosecution). So, seems pretty clear that ousting those words is not good.[/b][/quote]

    I fail to see how this is prosecuting/persecuting people who believe in a God.

    [quote][b]I for one, will always say the pledge as it currently stands.[/b][/quote]

    You do that. [i]That[/i] is what religious freedom is about.

    ------------------
    [b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
    Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
    "Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
  • CanuckCanuck Ranger
    "If I take a lamp and shine toward the wall, a bright spot will appear on the wall. The lamp is our search for truth, for understanding. To often we assume the light on the wall is god. But the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search. The more intense the search, the brighter the light on the wall. The brighter the light on the wall, the greater the revelation upon seeing it. Similarly, someone who does not search, who does not bring a lantern with him, see nothing. What we perceive as god is the by produce of our search for god. It may simply be an appreciation of the light, pure and unblemished. Not understanding that it comes from us. Sometimes, we stand in front of the light and assume we are the center of the universe. God looks astonishingly like we do or turn to look at our shadow and assume all is darkness. If we allow ourselves to get in the way, we defeat the purpose, which is use the light of our search to illuminate the wall in all its beauty and all it flaws. And in so doing better understand the world around us."
  • Entil'ZhaEntil'Zha I see famous people
    [quote]Originally posted by A2597:
    [b]Hrumph,

    In other words, all persons that belive in a God, are being prosecuted. (Which is why we FORMED the U.S., to get AWAY from religious prosecution).

    [/b][/quote]


    And what about My right not to have your god imposed on me, That is what the country was founded on, for me to have the freedom to not have to believe in your god.
  • CanuckCanuck Ranger
    Everyone should have the freedom to choose for themselves what they want to believe in, how they want to believe, or not at all if they so choose. Its not our place to tell them they're wrong. Its not our place to tell them to worship this one God. Time would be better spent talking about it and trying to understand why they chose to beleive what they chose. We have no right to forcably convert people to our belief system...

    Freedom and equality for all... uh-huh
  • AnlaShokAnlaShok Democrat From Hell
    I stopped saying the pledge, despite being required to do so, back in 1981, when Reagan took office.

    I've never liked the "Under God" line in there. Never. Also don't like the "In God we trust" on money. Maybe that's why I get rid of the stuff as fast as I can! (upgrades and games have nothing to do with that....)

    There are also religions that believe in more than one god or goddess. Hinduism, for example. The line "Under God" can be a form of persecution (not prosecution) toward them.

    The United States was never meant to be a christian nation. The happy days of the 1950s never really existed. We've ALWAYS had problems, no matter how much the religious right tries to tell us otherwise.


    ------------------
    AnlaShok, Captain of the Gray Hand of Fate Squadron
    Sidhe-1
    Wielder of the Big Heavy Hammer of Obvious Truth
    "FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC!"
  • JackNJackN <font color=#99FF99>Lightwave Alien</font>
    I much prefer "...One Nation underdog..." and
    "In Dogs we trust" myself...

    But I don't wish to rebel against Cat lovers...

    So I feel that the seperation of Pets and State should stand...

    [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]

    Seriously, there's a little too much seriousness over a few words going on here. Either vote to remove it, or just skip it when you say the pledge as a US citizen. I mean really!

    I am a firm believeing Christian follower myself, which doesn't necessarily mean I am even close to perfect, nor do I want someone feeling uncomfortable because I feel and believe that way.

    Peace!
  • shadow boxershadow boxer The Finger Painter & Master Ranter
    we all have imaginary friends...

    some are just bigger than others and friends with more than one person... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
  • Admiral AndyAdmiral Andy Earthforce Officer
    And once again, no one is being forced to say the Pledge so it cannot infringe on another person's religious beliefs and since God does not pertain to any one religion it cannot be considered an endorsement.

    Besides, a person can only endorse one religion, not more because that would be hippocritical of them. And since no religion is being endorsed, there is no violation.

    Shadow Boxer, JMS is not imaginary. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]


    [This message has been edited by Admiral Andy (edited 06-27-2002).]
  • A2597A2597 Fanboy
    See, thats just it, "Under God" doesn't promote ONLY my God, it promotes YOUR god, be it Budha, Mohamid (OK, not certain of spelling) or any other.

    (And yes, I ment millions, typing to fast when I'm to tired gets me in trouble)...

    and as for your post DoM, I belive that belief in Jesus is how one gets into Heven, not though works. (Not just belief in Jesus, but that he is your only hope of eternal salvation, etc). Now, in your story, first one is absolutly correct. (Works cannot get you into heaven) second one is compleatly worng, thanking Jesus as described in that story would be slander, and he would get tried and sent to hell. Now, I belive that if, say a year, or even the day after, he was saved, then he would make it to heavan. (OK, kinda hard to explain, but this is true, It happened to me, and I've seen it happen to others, once you are saved, you will still do bad things, but you TRY to do only good things, so, a saved person wouldn't murder in cold blood, I suppose in a war they might, myself, I'd shoot to injure, not kill. )

    Anyhoo..this got way off the topic, and turned into a theological post...

    And Biggles....Are they not still Aetheist? They don't belive in a God, and thats what Aetheism is all about...

    Frankly, I can't wait to see this Judge, and this entire ruleing get thrown out so hard it leaves skid marks when it lands.

    ------------------
    [b]whitestar90: [/b]"it would give the computer a heartattack just looking at it" -
    [b]Sanfam: [/b]"And Drazi didn't like it one bit.-
    [b]Mr.Bungle: [/b][i]"So that's where the forum went..."[/i]-
    ---
    [b][i]ahhh, the good old days of HTML.[/i][/b]
  • SanfamSanfam I like clocks.
    Just a note: I'm Athiest, and I have no problem with the pledge. Just because I don't believe in a god doesn't mean everybody else cna't. I don't see why this is always such a problem, but it is.

    I don't hold a grudge against the pledge because it states "...One Nation, Under God, Indivisible..."

    What a confusing world we live in.
  • CanuckCanuck Ranger
    Dont quote me on this... but isn't JMS an aethiest?
  • ArikArik Galen's Apprentice
    Here's my take on all of this...

    First, a little disclaimer -- I don't really care about whether that part of the pledge stays or goes. However, I find some lines of reasoning worrying, so I'll comment on that.

    The 'under god' part was not originally intended to be a part of the pledge. It is unfair to atheists as well as people following a polytheistic religion to have to say that part since it does not apply to them.

    When you say "under god" and explain it as "god protects this nation", that may be offensive to an atheist, because to an atheist there is no god, so whatever nation this "god" of yours protects is not his/her nation. Same goes for any polytheist.

    My second comment is for people who make statements along the lines of "We aren't perfect but at least we are better than Blah". The "under god" part was added during the days when everyone who didn't conform was a commie. This is not something to be proud of, obviously. One of the biggest mistakes we could make today is to look back at those events and say that we have wronged people, but not as badly as someone else. It's like saying "Sure we slaughtered hundrerds of thousands, but hey, look, this group over here killed millions so we are not so bad after all!".

    It is never enough to be "better than X"... we must always try to just be 'good' (and I know good is a very subjective concept so let's not get into that-- you know what I mean by it).


    [This message has been edited by Arik (edited 06-28-2002).]
  • David of MacDavid of Mac Elite Ranger Ca
    [quote]Originally posted by A2597:
    [b]and as for your post DoM,
    -snip-
    [/b][/quote]

    Oh, well, I'm Catholic, so I still look at people cockeyed when they claim things like, "Mother Therisa is the devil! Oh, she thinks her good works will save her, but they won't!"

    And for the record, I really did hear a preacher say that once.
  • "One nation, under some sort of rightious divinity/ies and/or moral principles, preferably the latter while incorporating the former."

    It's the 21st Century folks, wake up and realize that [G/g]od(s) have nothing to do with domestic or foreign security. The Israelis learned that the hard way. Faithful words repeated at prayers or printed on pennies doesn't hold up against concentration camps or suicide planes.

    Buddha is not a god, just a very enlightened individual. I think the idea of religions involving no absolute supreme being or polytheisms boggles some people's mind.

    I don't want to walk beside any god in whatever heaven if he believes that the repetition of his name in prayer and the expression of ultimate devotion to him and him only is the only way to avoid eternal torment in hell. Someone who declares himself more worthy than all the good deeds towards fellow human beings isn't worth my pocket change, much less my undyling love and devotion. And I don't carry pocket change.

    The Rupture can kiss my Pikachu-tailed agnostic butt, I think the world will not be such a bad place if couple million Christians just disappeared one night.

    Oh yeah, I think they should have left the Pledge alone. No one really cares about it unless you make it an issue. Suddenly a whole bunch of people are going to start forcing their kids to say it, and a whole bunch are going to prohibit their kids from saying it.

    [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img] Americans. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/rolleyes.gif[/img]

    ------------------
    "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
Sign In or Register to comment.