Originally posted by: Doboji
There is no question that often times the seperation of chruch and state zealots step over the line. This business of trying to block kids from praying on their own is disgraceful, and a violation of the first amendment. The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
But as for the evolution vs creation bullcrap.... Evolution is a scientific theory, the same as the theory of relativity, or any other theories being taught in school. Whether atheists believe it or not... it is not the basis for their "religion". Myself as a Jew who practices, I see evolution as a viable theory, and not necessarily incompatible with the Torah(you call it the old testament). And it is taught as just that... a theory. As a product of the public school system *crack jokes here*, I was taught the evolution theory, and it was always presented as a theory, and furthermore one that is under intense research. Creation on the other hand is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief, and does not need scientific evidence in order to be supported.
Furthermore, in school I did learn about Christianity, I even studied the bible as literature, and understood it from an objective position. It is however impossible to study every religious belief there is in school... and what is important is the objectivity in the teaching process not necessarily the number of religions taught.
The first amendment is so clear... You can't make laws or allow the government to promote religion, because it uses public funding to do so. And you can't make laws or allow the government that bars people from practicing their religion wherever and whenever they want. It's a tough balancing act.
-Max
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
It does seem much ado about nothing to me. It's not as if your are forced to recite it or forced to recite it in the new abridged version with "Under God" included. However it seems that those who know much more about the Constitution than most of us have ruled that it should be struck from the Pledge if it is to be recited in Public Schools. Hey remove it, what's the big deal? Why not stick to the original Pledge and be done with this nonsense?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
I think that the people pissed about the push to have "Under God" are tired of two things, the constant pettyness of everything to be Politically Correct and the battle that is heating up between Atheists and Non-Atheists.
It does seem much ado about nothing to me. It's not as if your are forced to recite it or forced to recite it in the new abridged version with "Under God" included. However it seems that those who know much more about the Constitution than most of us have ruled that it should be struck from the Pledge if it is to be recited in Public Schools. Hey remove it, what's the big deal? Why not stick to the original Pledge and be done with this nonsense?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It does seem much ado about nothing to me. It's not as if your are forced to recite it or forced to recite it in the new abridged version with "Under God" included. However it seems that those who know much more about the Constitution than most of us have ruled that it should be struck from the Pledge if it is to be recited in Public Schools. Hey remove it, what's the big deal? Why not stick to the original Pledge and be done with this nonsense?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
I think that the people pissed about the push to have "Under God" are tired of two things, the constant pettyness of everything to be Politically Correct and the battle that is heating up between Atheists and Non-Atheists.
LOL, this coming from someone who is constantly calling for a Revolution. You are way out of line questioning my Patrioptism Bubba, especially when it's all about your religious beliefsOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It does seem much ado about nothing to me. It's not as if your are forced to recite it or forced to recite it in the new abridged version with "Under God" included. However it seems that those who know much more about the Constitution than most of us have ruled that it should be struck from the Pledge if it is to be recited in Public Schools. Hey remove it, what's the big deal? Why not stick to the original Pledge and be done with this nonsense?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
I think that the people pissed about the push to have "Under God" are tired of two things, the constant pettyness of everything to be Politically Correct and the battle that is heating up between Atheists and Non-Atheists.
Well, it would have to be debated if it was "added" unconstitutionally. The Country has much bigger fish to fry than dealing with such petty nonsense. The freedom part is still there, The Athiests could simply not say the "Under God" part while saying the pledge, no one is holding a gun to their head that they must say it.
Well typically in the Grade schools during attendance Role call is when the class would begin the day with the Courtesy Bow to the Country by reciting the Pledge. There is no one holding a gun to anyone's head and in fact was changed to state to youngsters they could just use the time for a moment of silent reflection/prayer etc or a moment of silence is called for after the pledge. Doesn't mean you have to pray to God or Allah etc. It is simply a Courtesy. The Country does not ask for much, just pride in being in such a wonderful place where men and woman have fought and gave their lives for the pursuit of individual human freedom.
Where is the pride? If you are not proud to be here, not proud of the Country then what are you people doing here? Go to some Dictator controlled Country that you would be proud to be in and fight for.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
LOL, this coming from someone who is constantly calling for a Revolution. You are way out of line questioning my Patrioptism Bubba, especially when it's all about your religious beliefsOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It does seem much ado about nothing to me. It's not as if your are forced to recite it or forced to recite it in the new abridged version with "Under God" included. However it seems that those who know much more about the Constitution than most of us have ruled that it should be struck from the Pledge if it is to be recited in Public Schools. Hey remove it, what's the big deal? Why not stick to the original Pledge and be done with this nonsense?Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
If Under God was struck from the Pledge then I don't see where those who insist on it not being recited have a reason to complain. As for silent reflection. where is it said or prohibited from being done? Do you mean an orginized moment of silent reflection? If so why would that even be necessary? Praying silently can be done at any time during any moment, you have to know that during Mid Term Exams it is a common practice.Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Under God was inserted during the 50's to counter what was feared as a Communist insurgency within our own government and society. It now stands as a legacy to one of the shameful times of American History and should be struck from the Pledge for that purpose alone.The battle over the pledge to me for example, seems kinda petty, and counter productive. The "under god" section is only relevant in terms of the slippery slope argument... in either direction.
I agree. It is the people that say that you cannot recite the Pledge or a moment for silent reflection that is wrong.
I think that the people pissed about the push to have "Under God" are tired of two things, the constant pettyness of everything to be Politically Correct and the battle that is heating up between Atheists and Non-Atheists.
Well, it would have to be debated if it was "added" unconstitutionally. The Country has much bigger fish to fry than dealing with such petty nonsense. The freedom part is still there, The Athiests could simply not say the "Under God" part while saying the pledge, no one is holding a gun to their head that they must say it.
Well typically in the Grade schools during attendance Role call is when the class would begin the day with the Courtesy Bow to the Country by reciting the Pledge. There is no one holding a gun to anyone's head and in fact was changed to state to youngsters they could just use the time for a moment of silent reflection/prayer etc or a moment of silence is called for after the pledge. Doesn't mean you have to pray to God or Allah etc. It is simply a Courtesy. The Country does not ask for much, just pride in being in such a wonderful place where men and woman have fought and gave their lives for the pursuit of individual human freedom.
Where is the pride? If you are not proud to be here, not proud of the Country then what are you people doing here? Go to some Dictator controlled Country that you would be proud to be in and fight for.
since we both agreed that atheism is a religious viewpoint, do you include the atheistic religious view in that comment?[/quote]Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
And as long as he does not intimidate others into believing what he believes and as long as he doesn't cause others to be forced (via taxation) into supporting any specific religious beliefs.
Wrong. But it's clear that you consider a courthouse your place of worship, so I'll let that pass.in our earlier conversation you did not seem to. you justified the minority oppressing the majority as a better substitute for what you call the majority oppressing the minority.
If socient were tolerant, they wouldn't try to impose their religious beliefs via the government.if society was truly "tolerant" would it even matter? no it would not.
The government shouldn't be involved in sponsoring anyone's religious viewpoint. I don't care if it's atheist, monotheist, or polytheist. They're all subjective opinions and have no place being promoted by government.differing views could be expressed(at their own expense) with no one going on a crying jags to congress about how offended they are at seeing monuments of other views, no matter what view or position in the argument either party held.
Only if you consider the government to be your place of worship. If you worship using the government, then you are by definition forbidding others from having their opinions about what we don't know.in all the discussions no one has ever refuted the legal point i raised, which is:
the government is bound by it's own laws, for example: laws decreeing that no one can be discriminated against because of race, nationality..etc. apply TO the government as well as priviate companies..there can be no discrimination WITHIN the government. in fact the founding fathers including jefferson view the constitution as a limitation on the government, not the people.
the same holds true to the law stipulating congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. so there can be no favoritism to one view(including atheism), likewise there can be no law forbidding the free exercise WITHIN the government.
Again, if the government is used for religious purposes, that is forbidding someone else from following their own religious beliefs.the ONLY way for the law to be followed WITHIN the governmental entity is for as the law simply says very literally. especially the last part some here are loathe to quote. "the free exercise therof" WITHIN the government.
Forbidding atheism is an atheistic stance? Huh? Why does your freedom of exercising religion involve imposing that religion on others via the government?so using an incorrect interpretation of the law to forbid ANY religion the freedom of exercise within the government itself is in fact breaking the law. it is taking a federally mandated atheistic(the "A" in front of "theistic" meaning "non") stance, which is respecting an established relisious view.
I know it's convenient to bunch all non-Judeo-Christians into the "atheist" category, but that's just plain incorrect.this is evidenced by the main ones wanting the government to do so being mainly atheists themselves who because of thier religious view are offended at any religious public display and are using an abuse of the law in order to get rid of them.
No duh. Big surprise that theists, who by definition believe in gods, are fine with talking about them. Please learn what the word "theos" means.this holds even more true to the word "God" in the pledge. a muslim is not offended at that word, niether are jews, christians, hindus, etc...etc. to many "new agers" and pantheists it would be a partial reference to themselves about the only people that are truly offended at the word "God" are some atheists,
So when an atheist doesn't want the government to oppose their religious views, it's intolerance, but when a theist wants the government to oppose an atheist's religious views, it's tolerance?who in thier intolerance expect the government and everyone else to pander to thier view to the detriment of most other views...illegally.
Originally posted by: SViscusi
The phrase Seperation of Church and state comes from Jeffersons letter to the Danbury baptists. That along with other writings are used quite frequently the the courts to try and decipher the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
If you read other writings of Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc you will find that this "wall" was intended to be a 1-way wall. One that prevented government from interfering with religion. The intent was never that religion would be barred from government. The writings of the Founding Fathers make it plain that they felt that for government to survive the religious beliefs of the Bible were essential.