• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

humanism running rampant

Discussion in 'News & Current Events (Articles Required)' started by PrinceJeff, Jun 26, 2002.

  1. PrinceJeff

    PrinceJeff Well-Known Member

    +0
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    As a child I could never honestly recite the pledge because it made me endore the idea of a god - which I believed to be false.  I'm very that the courts finally ruled that it's unconstitution for the government to push monotheism in a pledge.

    This is a great day for religious freedom!!!!
     
  3. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat


    The analysis is flawless and quite correct.
     
  4. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +72
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    Great day for religous freedom?  I think it is a great day for the ones who want a totally areligous government but not a great day for religous freedom. 

    blackhawk
     
  5. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +72
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    "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. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60."

    The problem with this is how is this going to be done. It can't. You can't be neutral towards religion.

    blackhawk
     
  6. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
     

    No!  It's only a bad day for those who what to use the government to force religion onto everyone. 

    The government must be be neutral on religion.  Would you feel the same if the pledge said on nation under Allah?
     
  7. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    An excellent decision. Read it. Every sentence relies on solid Supreme Court precedent.

    The presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance fails every test of the establishment clause that has ever been applied.

    It's a vestige of the McCarthy era and never had any business being accepted as a required expression of patriotism. All Americans, and especially conservatives, should respect the Constitution and resist the government's involvement in any professions of religious belief whatsoever.
     
  8. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Yes you can.  You can not bring it up. You can not address it.  The pledge with out the "under God" part was neutral.
     
  9. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +72
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
     

    Sure but it does not say Jesus.  In fact it can be argued it could not even meana more New age kind of God or even Pantheism.  It just says god like The declaration of independence does. 
     
  10. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat


    <SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Crazy formatting</SPAN>
     
  11. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +72
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    How do you not address religion?&nbsp; What does the governement do when it has to judge a religous person or when it has issues with a religous organization?&nbsp; What does it do with cults that are destructive?&nbsp; This whole court proceeding shows that one can't just not talk about it.&nbsp;
     
  12. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Monkey Boy

    +72
    Eastern Orthodox
    Married
    US-Republican
    "The DoI says "creator". It is also not something that the government endorses as an OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance. The DoI is simply an historical document that has no force in law. You do know that the DoI is not part of the Constitution or part of law?"

    I do know that but I am just showing that the government has never been religous neutral and will never be that way. Oh wait the government does not endorse the DoI as official?

    " I find it unfathomable how any honest person can insist that it's appropriate for the government to have an OFFICIAL pledge that endorses monotheism."

    Which it does not.

    "Again I ask you, how would you like it if it said “One nation under Allah” or “One nation under the Invisible Pink Unicorn”"

    How does this have anything do with it? The pledge does not say which god to worship or what kind of god. It does nto speak about Christianity or Judiaism. It does not even say that the "god" is personal or intelligent. Heck it could be nature.

    blackhawk
     
  13. A Sheep

    A Sheep Stop the suffering in Iraq

    +1
    Bad examples there mr.crazyfingers. AFAIK, none of the founding fathers believed in allah or an "invisible pink unicorn", in contrast to the number of the founding fathers that believed in a single diety (either the Christian true God, or a God that left after creation). As well as the current beliefs of the US population, many, many more US citizens believe in the true Chrisitian God, then allah, or a unicorn, or as in the atheistic/humanistic religion "no gods". Why should we endorse your religion with few adherents instead of the Christian one with more adherents??? Don't even try to pull the old "atheism is not a religion":

    Taken from Merriam Webster:
    Religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" that is Atheism, thank you very much.
     
  14. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    Trying this again, those fonts are strange.

    The DoI says "Creator".&nbsp; The DoI is also not an official pledge of allegence. It is not part of the Constitution and not part of law.&nbsp;

    It's unfachomable that an honest person would believe that it's appropriate for the Government to push monotheism in a pleadge of allegence.

    Again how would you feel if the pledge saud "One nation under Allah" or "One nation under the Invidible pink Unicorn"?
     
  15. A Sheep

    A Sheep Stop the suffering in Iraq

    +1
    Also from dictionary.com:
    Religion:
    3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
    4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

    The "spiritual leader" talked about in #3 is obviously a scientist or politician. :)
     
  16. crazyfingers

    crazyfingers Well-Known Member

    +318
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Democrat
    We all know EXACTLY what god they meant when they altered the pledge during the red scare and the MaCarthy era.

    &nbsp;
     
  17. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    Sheep, have you read the opinion, and are you familiar at all with establishment clause precedent?
     
  18. Chris†opher Paul

    Chris†opher Paul Based on a True Story

    +4
    As the country removes God(Allah) from itself, I wonder if God will be forced to remove Himself from the country.

    :(
     
  19. A Sheep

    A Sheep Stop the suffering in Iraq

    +1
    We are only going by what is specifically IN the Pledge of Allegiance, so if a diety is not referenced by NAME then it is just any random god.

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;

    &nbsp;

    fixed mix-up.
     
  20. D. Scarlatti

    D. Scarlatti Well-Known Member

    +82
    Atheist
    Right. There&nbsp;are no references to "god"&nbsp;whatsoever&nbsp;in the Constitution. That was for a reason.
     
Loading...