Pledge Unconstitutional

[Gerry]

Originally posted by Mallory Knox


 

You can't force someone else to agree with your religion. That's where it stops. You can have your Bible and talk about religion. People can wear daisy-dukes but they can't force me to wear them. Get it?

We're not complaining about it being offensive. We're complaining about the fact that we're forced to pledge to a religion we don't believe it!!

 

Mallory, you got to be kidding. You are not now mor ever have been in AMERICA FORCED to pledge to anything. No one has ever been FORCED to pledge to any "religion".

So your protest is so many words about nothing. It is YOU who infringes on MY right to pledge to what I wish. You cant have it both ways. Eithere you are for freedom or you are against it.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
I disagree. The government supporting a religion or group of religions is de facto establishing a state religion (or group thereof). 

It is?  Show me how?  How is it literally forcing anyone to believe in anything?

The words "under God"  could, in anyone's own mind, mean any god.  Don't believe me?  Then you are underestimating the potiential of the human mind to view things in the context that it is comfortable with.

 

 imagine that instead of stressing "God" they were stressing "Budha". Would you truly be this supportive of this point of view if that were the case? Honestly now? Would you be encouraging our government to keep using "Buddha" in an official capacity? 

 

Sure I would, but you would find me in the minority. 

I personally find no reason to change the status quo because of my personal beliefs.  If I were part of only 1 percent of the country that were Christian, it would not bother me in the slightest that the majority of the country was Buddhist.

But then, here is the difference in myself.  I am mature enough not to care if everyone around me prays to Buddha, puts him on their clothing and uses him as part of a publicity campaign.  It does not make a bit of difference in what I believe. 

If this were an Islamic country, I would not care.  I believe what I believe and who cares what the pledge says?  That is part of being mature enough to admit:  "hey I am in the minority here...So what?  If i am truly committed to my beliefs it does not matter what the majority of people in my country believe." 

By the way, this is a democracy and  all of the polls (Worldnet daily, AP Network News, AOL) on this subject say that the overwhelming majority of people (even non-Christians) want the pledge to stay the same.

If the overwhelming majority were against me, I would not gripe a bit.  Know why?  Because I still have the right to believe what I want.

Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the right to live our lives without being offended.   People who are offended easily worry me.

Everyday there are many occasions in which I could possibly be very offended by someone else's actions or words.  

I am glad that I am mature enough not to try to change the world because of it.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Gerry


 

Mallory, you got to be kidding. You are not now mor ever have been in AMERICA FORCED to pledge to anything. No one has ever been FORCED to pledge to any "religion".

So your protest is so many words about nothing. It is YOU who infringes on MY right to pledge to what I wish. You cant have it both ways. Eithere you are for freedom or you are against it.

Gerry, your argument is baseless. Your freedom of speech has no way been infringed upon. You can still stay the pledge as often as you like, and using any wording that you like. The only thing that has been curtailed is the government's right to promote this pledge.

    Jeff

 

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


Thank you. It's important to differentiate between atheism and a religion, and using the word "religious" in the same sentence as "atheism" simply muddies the water.

I agree that there are fanatic atheists. There are fanatics in every profession, philosophy, and hobby. Atheism is no different in that respect. There are people who argue the physics of "Star Trek" back and forth, and who debate whether Superman could beat up Batman.

yeah, sad isn't it????  Fanatacism is present in any system of beliefs, Atheist, Agnostic, Theist, or comic book afficianado (which I happen to be one).

If someone clings hopelessly to their own dogma, regardless of the logic presented otherwise they are a fanatic.

However, 'muddying the water' or not, I cannot think of a better word to describe the clinging of atheist dogma that i have personally encountered than "religious". 

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet

Dude,

You are so mistaken. When has anybody ever try to "shove alternative lifestyles down [your] throat"?

In the same institutions that say the Pledge of Allegiance.

What people are fighting for is for these alternative lifestyles to not be discriminated against.

The same people that, through civil liberties lawyers, forced non-gay, non-interested, Boston firefighters to march in a gay pride parade, against their wills.

In other words, recognize that gay people are people with equal rights.

See above.

The only double standards are those practiced by those people, like some of the ones here, who maintain that this country was formed for freedom of religion ... as long as that religion is Christian, that is.

I think it is quite clear where the double standards are. And, you still have not succesfully demonstrated where or how 'under God' denotes Christianity, or the Christian God.

John

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist
 


Sure I would, but you would find me in the minority. 

I personally find no reason to change the status quo because of my personal beliefs.  If I were part of only 1 percent of the country that were Christian, it would not bother me in the slightest that the majority of the country was Buddhist.

But then, here is the difference in myself.  I am mature enough not to care if everyone around me prays to Buddha, puts him on their clothing and uses him as part of a publicity campaign.  It does not make a bit of difference in what I believe. 

If this were an Islamic country, I would not care.  I believe what I believe and who cares what the pledge says?  That is part of being mature enough to admit:  "hey I am in the minority here...So what?  If i am truly committed to my beliefs it does not matter what the majority of people in my country believe." 

By the way, this is a democracy and  all of the polls (Worldnet daily, AP Network News, AOL) on this subject say that the overwhelming majority of people (even non-Christians) want the pledge to stay the same.

If the overwhelming majority were against me, I would not gripe a bit.  Know why?  Because I still have the right to believe what I want.

Nowhere in the constitution does it guarantee the right to live our lives without being offended.   People who are offended easily worry me.

Everyday there are many occasions in which I could possibly be very offended by someone else's actions or words.  

I am glad that I am mature enough not to try to change the world because of it.

I'm very happy that you're so mature, but that doesn't change the inherent clash between the government favoring a religion and the intrinsic division between church and state that is the very cornerstone of our society, nor change the fact that you're advocating disenfranchising all people whose belief systems do not match with your own.

I am serious when I suggested Iran. It's a perfect example of a country where there is no such division between church and state.

By the way, if majority is always right, then the Nazis were right to murder the Jews. After all, the Nazis outnumbered the Jews, right?

Majority rules is a terrific maxim ... if you happen to be part of the majority, that is. And the US does happen to be predominantly Christian, isn't it?

Why, I bet most slave owners were against the freeing of the slaves. Should majority have ruled there, too?

   Jeff

 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by TheBear

The same people that, through civil liberties lawyers, forced non-gay, non-interested, Boston firefighters to march in a gay pride parade, against their wills.

I didn't know about this. Can you cite the specifics for me please?

I think it is quite clear where the double standard are. And, you still have not succesfully demonstrated where or how 'under God' denotes Christianity, or the Christian God.

John

I don't have to. The statement Eisenhower said made it pretty clear when he signed the act in the first place. Or do you think he meant Odin when he signed that act?

I think you're being willfully ignorant if you claim that "under God" wasn't intended to mean the Judeo-Christian God.

   Jeff

 

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


I'm very happy that you're so mature, but that doesn't change the inherent clash between the government favoring a religion and the intrinsic division between church and state that is the very cornerstone of our society, nor change the fact that you're advocating disenfranchising all people whose belief systems do not match with your own. 

 

Actually, The way I  interpret the law is not disenfranchising anyone, Jeff.

Under God can mean any God.  All people are allowed to believe whatever they want.  In no way do I see the clash between church and state, either.  The anti-esstablishment clause, which I have already stated, prevents us from requiring that people be of a certain religion.  That is not present in the pledge or in any monetary or other example.

Noone is forcing anyone to believe anything.  That's what establishment means.   What do you think it means?

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet




Majority rules is a terrific maxim ... if you happen to be part of the majority, that is. And the US does happen to be predominantly Christian, isn't it?

Why, I bet most slave owners were against the freeing of the slaves. Should majority have ruled there, too?

   Jeff

 

 

Hate to burst the bubble and have people think less of me, but yes. 

I do not agree with slavery, but in a true democracy the majority should rule, always.  I try very hard not to have any double standards. 

But if the majority approved of slavery, it would not make one bit of difference to my belief that it was wrong.  I have that amount of personal integrity.

I love to be the moral minority.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


I didn't know about this. Can you cite the specifics for me please?

No problem. I'll have to do some digging, but I will get it for you.

I don't have to. The statement Eisenhower said made it pretty clear when he signed the act in the first place. Or do you think he meant Odin when he signed that act?

Eisenhower was making a statement based on his own personal convictions. He never made any statement that the U.S. should establish Christianity, as the 'official' religion of the country. Huge difference.

I think you're being willfully ignorant if you claim that; "under God" wasn't intended to mean the Judeo-Christian God.

And, I think you should tone down your personal attacks.


John

 

[oncewaslost]

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">well, i find all this ridiculous. don't we have better things to worry about than whether or not the pledge is "unconstitutional"? heck, we've got a national debt that's sky high and all they want to do is argue about the pledge and pass a day honoring pretzels! if you read the declaration of independence then that too is "unconstitutional"! this country was founded on christianity. i don't believe this country would exist if it weren't for the christians. they kick God out of schools and look what happens. i shudder to think what will happen when they kick Him out of government. it'll be a sad day when that happens. ok, that's all i'm going to vent. i'm going to bed.</SPAN>

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist


Actually, The way I&nbsp; interpret the law is not disenfranchising anyone, Jeff.

I am an atheist. I am excluded by the act. Ergo, the act is disenfranchising at least one person. Q.E.D.

Under God can mean any God.

Can it mean "under no God"? Can it mean "under Goddess?" Can it mean "under the spirits of my ancestors"? Can it mean "under the kami of the tree near my home?" Can it mean "under all the manitous that dwell in the world?"

You're being incredibly naive if you think you can say that all religions are represented by "under God", and even more naive if you think that that was what Good ole Ike had in mind.

&nbsp;

&nbsp; All people are allowed to believe whatever they want.

Yup. People could believe whatever they wanted in Nazi Germany, too.

I'll say it again: majority rules is just fine and dandy if you happen to be a member of the majority.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by oncewaslost
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">well, i find all this ridiculous. don't we have better things to worry about than whether or not the pledge is "unconstitutional"? heck, we've got a national debt that's sky high and all they want to do is argue about the pledge and pass a day honoring pretzels! if you read the declaration of independence then that too is "unconstitutional"! this country was founded on christianity. i don't believe this country would exist if it weren't for the christians. they kick God out of schools and look what happens. i shudder to think what will happen when they kick Him out of government. it'll be a sad day when that happens. ok, that's all i'm going to vent. i'm going to bed.</SPAN>

Yup, it was those wonderful Christians who have made the indigenous American Indians all but extinct. When you think about those wonderful Christian values that made this place what it is, think about the really truly disenfrancised, will you?

By the way, Thomas Jefferson: secular humanist.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet



I think you're being willfully ignorant if you claim that&nbsp;"under God" wasn't intended to mean the Judeo-Christian God.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Who cares what Eisenhower meant it to mean?&nbsp; Do you underestimate the human mind's capability to correlate a pre rehearsed statement into it's own system of belief?

If I say 'under god' it would mean, in my mind, the Christian God.&nbsp; In someone else's mind it may mean Vishnu.&nbsp; Both are gods, after all.&nbsp; the literal word 'God' could mean either depending on personal view.

I am capable of this, when exposed to Buddhist prayers (being a martial arts student)&nbsp; Why isn't anyone else?&nbsp;&nbsp;

Why does everyone want to change the establishment to be pleasing to everyone (which it will never be)?????&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Political correctness has run wild.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

By the way, I'm just curious. A quick poll.

How many of you would, if you could:

• Make the USA officially a Christian nation?
• Replace the study of evolution with Creationism in public schools?
• Grant&nbsp;government funding to Christian schools, but not to Jewish schools or Islamic schools etc.?
• Allow corporations to hire candidates who are not Christian based on their religious views?

Just curious.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[oncewaslost]

hey, that's history. wherever you go there's the stronger people invading and wiping out the weaker. i'm not saying i agreed with what they did entirely but that's how it was. look at the roman empire, they weren't exactly peachy keen with all their hostile take over and everything.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


I


Can it mean "under no God"? Can it mean "under Goddess?" Can it mean "under the spirits of my ancestors"? Can it mean "under the kami of the tree near my home?" Can it mean "under all the manitous that dwell in the world?"&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In any person's own mind, yes it can.

 

[oncewaslost]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet

• Replace the study of evolution with Creationism in public schools?

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

evolution is studied way more than creationism. not a word is breathed about creationism. odd, don't you think?

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
By the way, I'm just curious. A quick poll.

How many of you would, if you could:

• Make the USA officially a Christian nation?
  
  &nbsp;
  
  &nbsp;
  
  nope
  
  &nbsp;
  
  
• Replace the study of evolution with Creationism in public schools?
  
  &nbsp;
  
  no, I would have both&nbsp;theories taught with equal creedence to both.
  
  &nbsp;
• Grant&nbsp;government funding to Christian schools, but not to Jewish schools or Islamic schools etc.?
  
  &nbsp;
  
  Nope.&nbsp; Voucher system for me.&nbsp; Grant the tax dollars spent on any one student to the parents, to be distributed as THEY see fit.
  
  &nbsp;
  
  
• Allow corporations to hire candidates who are not Christian based on their religious views?

&nbsp;

Of Course.&nbsp; Anyone who is qualified&nbsp;should be welcome and hired.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist


Who cares what Eisenhower meant it to mean?

Uh, duh, he signed the act. You can't claim that "under God" encompasses all religions if the clear intent was to support the Christian God.

&nbsp;

&nbsp; Do you underestimate the human mind's capability to correlate a pre rehearsed statement into it's own system of belief?

I might if I knew what the heck you were talking about here.


&nbsp;

If I say 'under god' it would mean, in my mind, the Christian God.&nbsp; In someone else's mind it may mean Vishnu.&nbsp; Both are gods, after all.&nbsp; the literal word 'God' could mean either depending on personal view.

Great. Now explain to me how you would interpret "under God" to mean "under no God". (This ought to be good.)

I am capable of this, when exposed to Buddhist prayers (being a martial arts student)&nbsp; Why isn't anyone else?&nbsp;&nbsp;

I don't know, Danielsan. I'm a martial arts student too, and I don't remember the last time the United States government ever referenced Buddha in an official capacity.

Why does everyone want to change the establishment to be pleasing to everyone (which it will never be)?????&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Political correctness has run wild.

"Why do people want to free all those slaves? Political correctness has run wild."

You'll have to forgive my failing to take your comment seriously, seeing what a vested interest you have in keeping the status quo. Of course you're going to be against anything that gives equality to all religions: your religion happens to be the priveleged class right now.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;