If you want to say "Under God", then say it. If you don't want to say "Under God", then don't say it.

People need to stop complaining.

Nobody is forcing you to say "Under God". It isn't a law. For all those parents who don't want state/religion mixed, STFU. I don't think your son/daughter hearing the words "Under God" is going to brain wash them into joining the secret underground "God Cult"!

------------------
I’m not going to die, I’m going to see if I was ever alive. - Spike
It's not your right to decide whether they live or die. They deserve a chance! - Vash
BABIES EVERYWHERE!!!

It's the principle of the thing. I, personally, didn't think it was worth making a fuss over, I just don't say the pledge (i'm against the pledge itself anyway) but now that it IS an issue, the right answer is pretty obvious to me.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Lets rent out "Under God" to companies. We'll make cash as we do it. "One nation, under SKITTLES" etc. Each month there can be a new company. But, I don't want my son being told to eat junk food, so we can't do that. Everyone has different belives. You can't please everyone.

------------------
I’m not going to die, I’m going to see if I was ever alive. - Spike
It's not your right to decide whether they live or die. They deserve a chance! - Vash
BABIES EVERYWHERE!!!

Yeah, you'd think ppl are too strongly bonded to their religion (or disbelief) to worry about that.

Bill Cosby once said: "I don't know the key to success; but the key to failure is trying to please everyone".

That should be published. It's so true.

------------------
I am Darth Slaw.
The Dark Lord of the Sith,
And part of the Nightfire mod team

[This message has been edited by Darth Slaw (edited March 24, 2004).]

No, it's not true. At all. Are you an atheist? I am. I know what I think. Unlike religious types, my motivation for every thought and feelingisn't the fear of being "zapped".

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

[This message has been edited by BobTheMasher (edited March 24, 2004).]

One compromise I might not object to is if they changed "under God" to "under the sun." No mistaking that or having any controversies. Unless science has something to say about it.

What? What purpose in the world would that serve? Why not just take it out?

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

*looks at his dog taking a crap in the yard. stares for a moment, then points at the huge pile* That's how much I'd care.

YES! The way the current system is, there is absolutely no way to support the government and our country without supporting God at the same time. It's because of our Pledge that people all around the world assume that if you support America, you support God.[/satire]

I agree with that up until the "indoctrination" part. For something to be "indoctrination", it actually has to work.

That's not the Pledge's fault. That is because of ***hole administration.

*looks at the turd his dog did that has now been roasting in the sun and is crispy and white* Yep, still care that much. I think it would be funny as hell actually.

strange feeling....I actually want to kiss you........

I just don't get how some of the atheists can get so worked up about it. It is so minor and inconsequential that if you are so passionate about it, that is really sad and you need a hobby. Like masturbation.

Even though I disagree with Bob on the issue, he's doing pretty good.

------------------
If you ever want to be hated by your peers, make them look bad. That's what America did.

I still prefer my answer

------------------
Ω of 14

Alright, alright, but the INTENT is indoctrination.


Why thank you.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

oSiRiS, the problem witht hat plan is that public schools are just that, public. No one is whining about private schools (and if they are, they need to stop, it's stupid) but public schools are government-run. My view on the situation is that the school shouldn't STOP religion from being in the school, that's jsut stupid, and yes, unconstitutional (and that's not even debatable). These cases of kids being punished for praying in school are just plain wrong. They should be allowed to pray all they want. However, the school DEFINITELY shouldn't support it, encourage it, set aside special time for it, or standardize it or anything like that. If they want to teach a class ABOUT christianity, fine. If enough students want to take it, as with any other class,a llow it. Same should go for any other area. However, the class would have to be the study of the religion, NOT some sort of in-school church. there is a difference. The difference being that a person of another religion taking the class in order to learn more about it, not to be converted, gets what he wants.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

I often wonder why people care so much about this ****. You'd think if atheists didn't believe in a God, they wouldn't give a damn about some stupid phrase. This is why the world sucks, everyone is too busy *****ing too much about how other people are practicing same sex, other people are practicing another religion, other people have different morals, HOW OTHER PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE THEIR OWN DAMN LIVES, that that is what their life becomes, trying to run other people's lives. What a sad little life.

------------------
The Matrix is not Linux compatible.

Here's a challenge to anyone. Point out in the constitution, with EXACT QUOTING of this Separation of Church and State idea everyone talks about?

------------------
Prowling out of the tundra, swinging a jeweled meat hammer, cometh Outlaw Torn! And he gives a gutteral bellow:

"I'm seriously going to hump you until you scream like a banshee!"

That's true, but still, you could avoid all that just by removing it.

What's the point of the pledge anyways? It's excessive patriotism if you ask me - and one of the many reasons why I wouldn't touch america with a ten foot pole.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Somewhat to Outlaw Torn's challenge

Article VI


First Amendment


This might not be a whole lot relavent but might be noteworthy.
Article II: Section 8


Nope. I couldn't find the exact quote of this seperation of church and state.

------------------
<scribbly handwriting barely resembling name>

That's because there isn't one.

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

Yeah, because that's not totally hilarious given the oft-remaked on proto-Christian sun worship.

But, kudos for the Constantine reference, assuming it was intentional.

Atheists don't want to say it because it's the eqivalent of a homophobe getting up and pledging aligance to homosexuals. Sure, it doesn't matter anything, because the homophobe knows he's striaght, and that's all that matters to EVERYONE ELSE, but to that poor homophobe, he's saying something that just isn't true. He's not gay. And he sure as hell doesn't want to make a pledge to 'em. And that's the case here - it's not that atheists shouldn't care because they don't believe. It's the fact that all us atheists are just godophobes (that even a word?). Regurdless of whether they believe or not. It could just be a guy who believes in the existence of God, but chooses not to worship. Should he still have to pledge his alliegance to his country under a lord he does not wish to follow? Should he then leave his country because God would want him out for being a difficult little **** for not going to church on Sunday? No. That's not the case at all.

It's a matter of principle. Jesus put himself up on a cross for his beliefs - who's to say the atheist can't do the same? Our opinions matter just as much as anyone else's.

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

Theophobia. Theophobic.


These threads always turn into the saddest possible religious debates. Always.

On one side you always have a plethora of polytheists, atheists or agnostics who feel they are being discriminated against, plus those religious people who stand up for them.

On the other side, you have a group of monotheists (almost always Christians) who can somehow claim with a straight face that "one nation under God" is somehow symbolic for "many gods" and "no gods" and isn't discriminatory at all, but removing all mention of religion would rend a great tear in the face of the earth, suck them personally down to hell and rape their mother.

I'm sorry if I already made a post like this in this thread, but these debates tend to blur together like a feverish nightmare.

I think it's somehow hilarious that the inclusion limitation behind the "One God" concept is frighteningly similar to the membership requirements of the Freemasons, being that you need to believe in exactly one entity greater than yourself; it doesn't matter which one. Shadow government ahoy?

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 25, 2004).]

While we're at it let's remove all the stuff from the US National Anthem about God as well. Though to be fair that was in there from the get-go. And then ignore the fact that the Pledge of Allegience was penned by a Socialist Baptist Christian pastor.

And for that matter around here at least, we haven't said the pledge of allegience in school since like the 3.grade.


Is this still the same guy that lied about and misquoted his daughter claiming she had a problem with having to say 'under God' when in fact she had never said any such thing and he just fabricated it.. it kinda screams publicity stunt and attention-whoring to me.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Yeah, and this slippery-slope "LET'S EDIT HISTORY TO REMOVE GOD FROM EVERYTHING!" BS you people always pull out of your behinds is really annoying too. It's like a horrible slippery-slope fallacy multiplied by a strawman fallacy and then raised to the power of more annoying.

The last time I checked, you aren't required to sing the national anthem or read the declaration of independence in order to become an American citizen. Then again, maybe I'm completely off-base when I assume that the Pledge of Allegiance is an affirmation of citizenship. Meaning a binding oath to one nation under God, even though they may or may not believe in said God. (I'm guessing this is how a certain American president was able to get away with saying "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens..." while he was still campaigning.)

ps. Maybe you're ignoring something here, but even though the Soviet communism was decidedly atheist, socialism does not always imply it. That was a pile of McCarthy-ist bullcrap and trying to imply that "Well, if this soviet high priest templar duder was okay with it everybody should be too!" is just ridiculous.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited March 25, 2004).]

Heck, you don't even have to say the pledge, for crying out loud. I don't read anywhere in the rules that saying the pledge is going to get you shot. I'm a Bible toting Christian and I don't say the pledge half the time.

And to Gandalf1120, good try. That particular line of the Constitution is what gets people in an up roar. And it does leave itself open for misinterpretation. But, the way it reads says that you can be of any religion or no relgion to hold a political office. They can't discrimnate against that. I had a better thought of how that reads, but I know it doesn't say that church and state should be seperate.

------------------
Prowling out of the tundra, swinging a jeweled meat hammer, cometh Outlaw Torn! And he gives a gutteral bellow:

"I'm seriously going to hump you until you scream like a banshee!"

I would like throw a couple more things into the mix, if I could.

1. "Separation of Church and State" does not appear in the constitution, but it does exist. The phrase was lifted from a correspondence of Thomas Jefferson's (possibly to his wife, I don't remember for sure). The context reveals that Jefferson was saying that the state should not go fingering around in the church. I.E., if separation of church and state was meant to be applied at all, it was a one-way thing: the state has no business meddling with affairs of the church.

2. The English language has changed slightly since the 18th century: to the writers of the constitution, "religion" held the meaning that "denomination" holds for us today. Thus, there are references to the "Anglican religion", the "Lutheran religion", ect. Christianity was simply a foregone conclusion.

I have to conclude that the US was meant to be a Christian nation from the beginning.

[edit]The Massachusets constitution origially stated that a man had to be an upstanding member of his church in order to run for office. I'm not sure it's been changed (not that it makes any difference in MA today).[/edit]

------------------
Young men make wars, and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of old men are the vices of peace: mistrust and caution. It must be so.

-Laurence of Arabia

[This message has been edited by Yen (edited March 25, 2004).]

Actually, the letter I know of where Jefferson mentioned the wall of separation was in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Church or something, because they'd written him about their concerns that they would be persecuted by other churches or the state for having radical/liberal/different beliefs (what those beliefs were, I'm not entirely sure). Basically, what TJ said back to them was that they should be free to practice however they wanted and nobody should be hatin on 'em for it. I think this letter was cited in some court case back in the 40s.

Jon, the pledge isn''t like that at all. I mean, I'm a Christian and an average American, and I don't really see the point of the pledge, except for indoctrination purposes. I suppose this would aid in avoiding another civil war or straying toward communism or the like. However, in no way is an American citizen required to say it.

That's why I think the "you must now remove god from history" argument is a totally legitimate one, and I was planning on using it until I saw your post. My main concern is the money, actually. If atheists get so worked up about the pledge, and think they're "lying" to themselves, don't they feel the same way everytime they spend a dollar?

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

No, cause then they're getting rid of it!

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Since when is this case about joining the army, doing public services and the 101 other ways you can help your country? It's about a phrase that in itself is pretty hollow, but still signifies something. If the term 'under god' is of little importance, then so is the pledge itself, yet administrators in many states make it important.

How would you feel about the pledge if it included "under Darwin's theory of evolution"? I do not buy your claim that you wouldn't care about it. Judging by the fact that the term 'under god' wasn't originally supposed to be there anyway, why not leave the issue be and let it resolve itself? The very fact that you're so strongly arguing here prooves to me that you wouldn't take the above Darwin scenario very lightly.

/me sits back and laughs at all of you.

------------------
http://www.napalmdeathsquad.com

Yes, the "Zap Factor Clause," also known as the 11th commandment. "And God said 'if thou willst not worship me, thou shalt be zapped'." *shakes head*

Back to the topic at hand:
I'm going to first go back further than simply the phrase in the pledge. Why are we forced to say the pledge at all (in grade school and such)? I remember saying it in grade school. Guess what? Children that young have no idea what they're pledging allegience to. They know nothing about the government, how it works, the things it does, etc. Yet they're forced to pledge allegiance to it. And it's not even to the nation, but to the flag and "the republic for which it stands."

The pledge means nothing. Simply saying something doesn't make it true[/i]. The very same idea can be carried over to the "under God" phrase.

If you don't want to say "under God" in the pledge, then don't. If you do want to say "under God" in the pledge, then do. It's so damn simple, people.

It's really sad that we have to make a national case out of a two-word phrase, yet we can't take the time to solve more serious problems our nation faces. Cripes.

------------------
"Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend."
- Proverbs 27:17

Catalog of Electronic Components - Complete IC data sheets
National Electrical Code® (NEC®) Online - Legal requirements for wiring projects.

The "Under God" or the administration?

Don't worry. We'll be more than happy to reach out and touch you with a tomahawk missle.

*gets down and begins worshipping Bob* I still think you care too much about "Under God" though....

*gets down and begins worshipping Jon while laughing*
I pledge a allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under Bob and Jon, for liberty and justice for all.

And in his version it had no mention of God in it, just so you know.

*points to his first post* I actually wasn't joking about the part where I'm atheist. I still wouldn't care anyway.

------------------
If you ever want to be hated by your peers, make them look bad. That's what America did.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 25, 2004).]

I agree. It seems like the same reason we celebrate President's day, and have them all glorified in busts, statues, paintings, our money, have bridges and highways named after them, present them as flawless heroes in our textbooks, decorate a freaking mountain with carved images of their likenesses: to inspire nationalism. You couldn't be Catholic either, though I don't think that's in the official oath. Pennsylvania allowed full freedom of religion, including Jews.

And Massachusets also wouldn't let you join the militia if you were Catholic, and then fined you for not joining the militia. It was also illegal for a person to harbor a priest, and a priest could be executed on his second attempt to enter the colony. So colonial Massachusets was not exactly a good picture of the whole of the colonies.

Note also that Thomas Jefferson, one of the founders of our current government was a deist, not a theist, and not a member of a christian church.

------------------
Steal my dreams and sell them back to me.....

Actually, I can't really say I know what I believe. Honestly, I don't know what the truth is, but if you ask me it most likely ISN'T the common conception of a God and most of Christianity. And you know what? It doesn't bother me one way or another... I really don't understand why it bothers you.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

I'm part of an after-school church one of the teachers runs at our public school, like a club. I think that's how school's should handle it.


------------------
BV's rendition of Titanic: Let's have sex. I won't let go. I don't need this stone.
The End.
~ Wolfy

I think only 2 people mentioned me, but if i missed one, sorry.


That was mostly just a joking jab at the religious types in return for the jab at my principles. My point was that I don't need a god to tell me what's right and wrong, I have developed my own principles based on my experiences. Also, yes, there is a commandment stating almost exactly what you just said. It's actually the very first one. Not exactly a "zap" but definitely eternal damnation. Which is pretty close to "zap".


I think I said earlier in the thread, it really doesn't bother me that much. I don't go around worrying about my integrity for LYING to myself or anything silly like that. I just don't say it. I think it's wrong, so I don't say it. However, whether for a good reason or a bad reason, someone made it an issue, and I have a clear view of which side i'm on.

As for the money thing, yes, I feel the same way about the money as I do about the pledge. Except of course that the money actually has a purpose (the pledge, as I said, is a pointless piece of crap intended for indoctrination of a sort). If someone made the money thing an issue, i'd also know which side i was on and i'd defend my position in much the same way I have defended my position on the pledge issue.

So, hopefully you now see how all that comes together and why i'm discussing it.

Perhaps the reason it "bothers me" is because I have a very clear idea about what my beliefs are, and you do not. I felt like this was quite an important thing to be sure about, considering it concerns my eternal soul, so I made damn well sure I knew what I thought. Obviously you've decided you don't care, so things like this fall under your apathy category. (And please don't misinterperet and think i'm saying there's anything wrong with that, I don't think there is."

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Yeah, that's a good way to handle it. My school has one of those, and it's fine with me. I mean, I have my issues (it was incredibly awkward when i came to class early one morning and they were meeting in my classroom...and singing and chanting and swaying and doing lots of things that really bothered me.) but it's nothing i'd complain about.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%

Well whatever "under <insert Buhdist god here>"

Yes, i realize very well that 'under god' wasn't in there when he first penned it, i just find his affiliations to be ironic is all.

And Jon, i was by no means saying that this'll turn into some orwelling anti-religion trend or whatever, just that there's lots of national things that have similar wording, being there originally or no. For instance i don't think i've ever encountered someone who has seriously had an issue with the things about god in the US National Anthem. That was all i was saying with that.
I'm not meaning to mock or patronize people who take issue with this by any means, though i do find the basis or initiation of the legal proceedings to be more than a little suspect if this is the same guy who fabricated all that about his daughter having a problem having to recite it.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

I almost forgot that before I became a Christian, this really got to me too. I was in favor of it, because I called myself a "Christian", but I just thought it was weird and should be more subtle and less goofy-looking. I still feel that way a little bit. For instance, sometimes I feel like some folks put on a show on the outside when they don't have one going on the inside.

I do agree, Bob. Christian worship is pretty odd looking. But I do believe it's fairly necessary. I don't know that the music is the only way to worship, like a lot of folks think, but hey...whatever works.

...but...you...don't..have a soul

------------------
If you ever want to be hated by your peers, make them look bad. That's what America did.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited March 25, 2004).]

Well, of course, that's the conclusion I came to, silly.

------------------
WOOSH|-----@%