Not forcing religion.

[crazyfingers]

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.

However, Eisenhower's point was clear when he said, while signing the law, that all schoolchildren would pladge to the flag and the "Almighty".  That term is pretty specific to Christianity and perhaps Judeism.  The intent to  push the Judeo-Christian god is very clear.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by seebs
Maybe your school was different; when I went to school, I got in a lot of trouble for refusing to say the pledge.

Me too.  I was told to go stand in the hall.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
DONT HAVE TO SAY IT IF THEY DONT WANT TO. 

[/B]

]

That is not the point.  The point is that the state is telling everyone that to be a good patriot, all should believe in the monotheist god and by Eisenhowers'd commemts, the "Almighty" monogod of 3.

 

[Havoc]

Warrior

but I cant understand is the idiocy of our judges on the 9th circuit court out in the west.

Hmmm all those judges are idiots are they, because YOU say so? Their expertise and experience in matters of constitutional law are public record. Tell me please what education experience and expertise you have in dealing with constitutional law that gives you the credibility to be able to call them idiots? I'd speculate that the idiot is rather closer to your house than are those judges, perhaps as close as your bathroom mirror?

 

[Brimshack]

Well then warrior if you read the opinion, then your argument that no-one is being forced to practice Christianity in this is a deliberate straw man, since you should know full well tat this is not the central issue in the case. The fact that you also ignore issue of implicit coercion, as well as the coercion of teachers whose job it has become to lead this prayer/pledge, and the coercion involved when our tax dollars are used for an open endorsement of religion also demonstrates lack of good faith on the part of your position. But of course non of these things count as coercion as long as you don't call it that, and the pledge isn't actually an endorsement of a religious view as long as you choose to view it otherwise, and who cares what the real issue is anyway, the judges are idiots because you don't agree with you regardless of whether or not they have actually applied the proper case law to real issue. I will never understand how such deceitful politics is supposed to glorify your God.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Rufus, what make syou think I didnt read it before?

The fact that you said that you "couldnt care less," for one.

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.

Then you should read it again since it was the judges in Washington that ruled on the dilemma in Lee. I guess the 9th court judges are so "idiotic" that they actually like to apply SCOTUS case law. How crazy of them!

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.

Once again: "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." (Newdow v US Congress)

As you can see the fact that they can not say the religious message of the pledge doesn't remove the dilemma but helps create it.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Warrior4Jah
Im going to answer some things anyway.

Id already read it and I knew what it said

Okay then. Have you read this before?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Guess what? Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion.

Compare: "a law" vs. "no law."

See the difference? Pretty simple, huh? Even for you, I hope.

 

[Morat]

  My child stands in a schoolroom. He recites "One nation, under God, for liberty and justice for all".

  What has my child just learned? That I am not a part of this nation. That I'm probably against liberty and justice and everything America stands for.

   Actually, from my experience with my siblings, he'd probably learn "irony".

 

 

[Raging Atheist]

Are there any Christians left on this forum?

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Raging Atheist
Are there any Christians left on this forum?

Rapture

 

[Mid]

Pagans/Wiccans believe in Gods with one supreme God.


wrong! God, seems to be a male deity. Pagans that worship one deity, the deity is neutral, and therefor is not god.

 

[Mid]

I mean if you were to have this, why put...... one nation under god. Why not put One nation, undivided................ I guess that would be just as much a laugh as the first one

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Mid
Pagans/Wiccans believe in Gods with one supreme God.


wrong! God, seems to be a male deity. Pagans that worship one deity, the deity is neutral, and therefor is not god.

The Christian God is not male or female.

 

[Lacmeh]

Well, why is it is necessary to say a pleadge of alliance in school every day? I personally think this is quite um hm.

I think, this is patriotism gotten quite out of hand.

 

 

[Mid]

The Christian God is not male or female.



I have heard many people argue to say that it is male.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Mid
The Christian God is not male or female.



I have heard many people argue to say that it is male.

They are seriously mistaken, putting they sexist beliefs onto God. God has no body, so He cannot have a gender. The masculine pronoun is used by convention because it would be odd to call God "it."

 

[Divinus]

Its also carries connotations of insult in our culture, fragmentsofdreams.

I thought neo-pagans worshipped many gods and believed in a principle of two gods - one male and one female - worshipped under many different names?

 

[Mid]

but, what about the christian trinity? THe SON? That is undeniably refers to male

 

[Havoc]

Sorry Mid you've got it wrong. You'll never hear a Christian refer to "God the Father and God the Son". They always refer to "God the Parent and God the Child" therefore God is not Male or Female. In fact if you read the bible you'll find there are just as many references to God being a Mother as God being a Father and the use of the pronouns He and She when referring to God are pretty much equal in the number of times they are used in the Bible.

Havoc

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Mid
but, what about the christian trinity? THe SON? That is undeniably refers to male

The second person of the Trinity is called the Son because it was incarnated in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. It is also refered to as the Logos, a title without gender implications.