Not forcing religion.

Warrior4Jah

Conservative on a mission
Jun 26, 2002
285
0
42
Ohio!!!! YAY!
Visit site
✟692.00
I didnt vote in this poll because its set up. If I said that I thought forcing Christianity in schools is wrong, which I do, you would say I thought that saying under God in the pledge was wrong. Which its NOT! It does not in any way force christianity. The pledge says under GOD, not CHRIST. Islam believes in God, Rastafarian believes in God, Jews believe in God, even  Pagans/Wiccans believe in Gods with one supreme God. It works out for everybody. You have to believe in Christ and God to be a christian. Oops, I almos forgot the atheists, you dont believe inn God. Well im awfuly sorry freind, but wether you like it or not the rest of the world DOES believe in God. Even we do say it, your entire argument immediatly crashes to the ground with a few simple words. You dont have to. In school, no one is forced to say the pledge. It is optional.
 

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,914
1,529
18
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟55,225.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Actually, many pagan groups do not believe in "one supreme God". The Hindus believe in a polytheist system.

How would you feel if, somewhere down the road, the U.S. had a majority Hindu population, and they changed the pledge to say "one nation under Vishnu", and when you complained, they said "it's okay, Christ is just another aspect of Vishnu"?

If you wouldn't be okay with it, why are you doing it to someone else?
 
Upvote 0
Warrior4Jah,

The issue isn't whether it is wrong for the government to endorce the 1954 version of the pledge of allegiance. The issue is if it is unconstitutional. The Opinion of the 9th district is pretty clear why it is unconstitutional. I suggest that you read it, before you continue with this thread.

Newdow v. US Congress

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
You dont have to. In school, no one is forced to say the pledge. It is optional.

If it is optional, then why are you so upset that it was ruled that schools can't endorce it? Don't you still have the option to say it if you want to? I don't see how this would affect you one bit.
 
Upvote 0

Warrior4Jah

Conservative on a mission
Jun 26, 2002
285
0
42
Ohio!!!! YAY!
Visit site
✟692.00
The government doesnt endorce anything. I wish they did but they dont. Im not upset that schools cant endorce it. Im just making it perfectly clear that the pledge does not say anything about christianity, and that no one should be making a big deasl out of it cuz no one has to say it anyway.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
The government doesnt endorce anything. I wish they did but they dont. Im not upset that schools cant endorce it. Im just making it perfectly clear that the pledge does not say anything about christianity, and that no one should be making a big deasl out of it cuz no one has to say it anyway.

You didn't read the opinion, did you? Until you do, your run the risk of aruging points, as you are now, that the court has already addressed.

It makes is very clear that the 1954 law and the school district's policy is unconstitutional because it does create a government-established link between patriotism and piety. This violates the Lemon Test. Furthermore, it also fails the coersion test, even if people don't have to say it. The court opinion is very clear on this, any endorcement of religion, not matter how generic is still an endorcement of religion.
 
Upvote 0

Warrior4Jah

Conservative on a mission
Jun 26, 2002
285
0
42
Ohio!!!! YAY!
Visit site
✟692.00
I couldnt care less. In the previous discussion it was debated that the pledge of allegiance forced the christian religion upon others. My goal was to make it clear that not only is christianity beliefs in the pledge, but no one has to say the pledge, therefore no one is being forced to do anything.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Havoc

Celtic Witch
Jul 26, 2002
4,652
91
61
Realityville
Visit site
✟14,135.00
Faith
Pagan
Amasing how this "But it's really any god their talking about (insert big toothy grin)" crap has crept into the Christian arguement. Does anyone really have any doubt what is meant when an American says "Do you believe in God?", of course not. If it really was a generic diety it would say "one nation under a god" with the word god not capitalised. When you say "under God" it's very clear that it means the Abramic God. If you want further proof just read the reasons put forward for inserting the phrase long after the pledge was written. You'll soon see which particular diety was being referenced.

Why do Christians always need a smokescreen when they appear to be losing. Talk about a "lukewarm" excuse for holding onto a clearly unconstitutional and johnny-come-lately phrase.

Havoc
 
Upvote 0

Warrior4Jah

Conservative on a mission
Jun 26, 2002
285
0
42
Ohio!!!! YAY!
Visit site
✟692.00
Havoc, I dont care what they ment its what they say that is taken in. When someone says God, they cant mean on God of a certain religion, if they do at least make it apparent.

Why do atheists always run on with arguments that hold no water? You cant speak for the rest of the nation and how they interpret something. And just for the record, how can somethin be unconstitutional when nobody even has to say or follow it? Dosnt make sense to me.
 
Upvote 0

mac_philo

Veteran
Mar 20, 2002
1,193
4
Visit site
✟9,892.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Havoc, I dont care what they ment its what they say that is taken in. When someone says God, they cant mean on God of a certain religion, if they do at least make it apparent.

Why do atheists always run on with arguments that hold no water? You cant speak for the rest of the nation and how they interpret something. And just for the record, how can somethin be unconstitutional when nobody even has to say or follow it? Dosnt make sense to me.

Finally, a question with a clear answer.

Something such as that can be unconstitutional because the establishment clause prohibits congress from passing any law that establishes a religion. Thus if congress passed a resolution that satanism or christianity or purple people eaterism or whatever is the chosen religion, a mandate that nobody had to follow, it would still be unconstitional.

Why does that sound familiar? Oh yes, in the 1950's the House passed a resolution that unlike godless commies our pledge would pay homage to a monotheist invisible entity....
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Why do atheists always run on with arguments that hold no water? You cant speak for the rest of the nation and how they interpret something. And just for the record, how can somethin be unconstitutional when nobody even has to say or follow it? Dosnt make sense to me.

Warrior,

I highly suggest you read the opinion before you embarrass yourself any further.


From Newdow v. US Congress:
The Court formulated the “coercion test” when it held unconstitutional the practice of including invocations and
benedictions in the form of “nonsectarian” prayers at public school graduation ceremonies. Lee, 505 U.S. at 599. Declining to reconsider the validity of the Lemon test, the Court in Lee found it unnecessary to apply the Lemon test to find the challenged practices unconstitutional. Id. at 587. Rather, it relied on the principle that “at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise to act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court first examined the degree of school involvement in the prayer, and found that “the graduation prayers bore the imprint of the State and thus put school-age children who objected in an untenable position.” Id. at 590. The next issue the Court considered was “the position of the students, both those who desired the prayer and she who did not.” Id. Noting that “there are heightened concerns with protecting freedom of conscience from subtle coercive pressure in the elementary and secondary public schools,” id. at 592, the Court held that the school district’s supervision and control of the graduation ceremony put impermissible pressure on students to participate in, or at least show respect during, the prayer, id. at 593. The Court concluded that primary and secondary school children may not be placed in the dilemma of either participating in a religious ceremony or protesting. Id. at 594.

See there is clear case law that makes your argument fall apart upon investigation.

Similarly, the policy and the Act fail the coercion test. Just as in Lee, the policy and the Act place students in the untenable position of choosing between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting. As the Court observed with respect to the graduation prayer in that case: “What to most believers may seem nothing more than a reasonable request that the nonbeliever respect their religious practices, in a school context may appear to the nonbeliever or dissenter to be an attempt to employ the machinery of the State to enforce a religious orthodoxy.” Lee, 505 U.S. at 592. Although the defendants argue that the religious content of “one nation under God” is minimal, to an atheist or a believer in certain non-Judeo-Christian religions or philosophies, it may reasonably appear to be an attempt to enforce a “religious orthodoxy” of monotheism, and is therefore impermissible. The coercive effect of this policy is particularly pronounced in the school setting given the age and impressionability of schoolchildren, and their understanding that they are required to adhere to the norms set by their school, their teacher and their fellow students. Furthermore, under Lee, the fact that students are not required to participate is no basis for distinguishing Barnette from the case at bar because, even without a recitation requirement for each child, the mere fact that a pupil is required to listen every day to the statement “one nation under God” has a coercive effect. The coercive effect of the Act is apparent from its context and legislative history, which indicate that the Act was designed to result in the daily recitation of the words “under God” in school classrooms. President Eisenhower, during the Act’s signing ceremony, stated: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.” 100 Cong. Rec. 8618 (1954) (statement of Sen. Ferguson incorporating signing statement of President Eisenhower). Therefore, the policy and the Act fail the coercion test.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

D. Scarlatti

Well-Known Member
Jun 3, 2002
1,581
88
Earth
✟2,620.00
Faith
Atheist
Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Oops, I almos forgot the atheists, you dont believe inn God. Well im awfuly sorry freind, but wether you like it or not the rest of the world DOES believe in God. Even we do say it, your entire argument immediatly crashes to the ground with a few simple words.

I find it remarkable that practically the only word you managed to spell correctly was "atheists." Congratulations.

I also urge you to read the 9th Circuit's opinion, to which Rufus has helpfully provided a link. Maybe you can come up with a few simple words, further to a lame invocation of de minimis, that might crash the opinion to the ground. No one's managed to do it yet.
 
Upvote 0

Warrior4Jah

Conservative on a mission
Jun 26, 2002
285
0
42
Ohio!!!! YAY!
Visit site
✟692.00
Im glad you caught that Scarlatti. Yet Im going to answer some things anyway.

Rufus, what make syou think I didnt read it before? Id already read it and I knew what it said, but I cant understand is the idiocy of our judges on the 9th circuit court out in the west. primary nor secondary school children are in any dilema. Nobody has to say it, simple as that. I appreciate mac_philo making the true reason apparent, but what im saying is that no one is being forced religion. Children in school arent in any dilema, because they DONT HAVE TO SAY IT IF THEY DONT WANT TO.

Havoc- I didnt say you were, just asking, lol.


Really though, im done arguing about this. Nobody really cares to much except you people, and as long they arnt gonna pass it, I realize arguing about it is a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ashibaka

ShiiAce
Jun 15, 2002
953
22
36
Visit site
✟9,047.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
*shrugs* I wouldnt care. I dont have to believe something because its in a pledge. I just wouldnt say it.

What if, for some stupid reason, the majority of people wanted the pledge to say: "One nation, whites only, indivisible..."

Black people wouldn't have to say it.

Would you have a problem with that? I've actually gotten some "no" answers for this question; I'm asking you honestly.
 
Upvote 0