The Pledge stays as it is...

[ps139]

Your opinion. Mine differs.

Its not opinion it is fact. Its not "one nation under Jesus," it is "one nation under God" a figure recognized by all sects of all organized religions that are often bitterly opposed to each other when the discussion goes any farther than existence of God.

Few and far between. Besides which, that's not an argument for why you think that it's not an establishment of religion.

I never said it was. I mentioned it so you and other readers would know that this isnt some right wing conpiracy.

It's slso a fallacy. Who believes what is not an argument as to what is true or false.

What?? Inglese per piacere.

Why is it not a violation of the constitution for the government to teach school children that a monotheist god exists?

Saying one nation under God isnt teaching a kid that God exists.

Having religion class is, and public schools dont do that.

That would be stupid. It would be adding a negative. Why not then add everything that we are not?

I see that you failed to answer the question.

Would you or would you not object if every day at the beginning of school the public school teachers had your children say a pledge that would have them afirm that no god

I would object. Because I believe in God. and I think that your relationship with God has eternal consequences.

If I didnt believe in God, and I didnt think it mattered either way whether someone was theist or not, then whats the difference????

You are trying to get me to say "Yes I would object because atheism is not true" so that you can in turn say "I object because theism is not true (you havent proven that theism is an organuized state religion, btw) and what makes your belief any more worthy of the law than mine." Please, dont think I've never seen leading questions before.

But you cannot compare those because the consequences of belief are entirely different. An atheist should not care if they are the only atheist in the world. Because when you die whats it matter??

 

[crazyfingers]

Its not opinion it is fact. Its not "one nation under Jesus," it is "one nation under God" a figure recognized by all sects of all organized religions that are often bitterly opposed to each other when the discussion goes any farther than existence of God.

So only monotheists matter? There are plenty of polytheists for whom it does not represent. And it doesn't represent nontheists.

The establishment clause as defined through case law requires that the government not take side on issues of one religion vs another or religion vs nonreligion. To recognize a monotheist god favors monotheists over polytheists and nontheists.

Saying one nation under God isnt teaching a kid that God exists.

Take off the blinders. The pledge states that a monotheist god exists. Teachers make the kids say it every day in school. The school is teaching the kids that a monotheist god exist. I don't believe that anyione can honestly deny that.

Once again I'll post what Eisenhower said when he digned the bill that placed "under God" in the pledge in 1954. He said "“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.”

To claim that is not teaching that a monotheist god exists is just plain crazy.

Having religion class is, and public schools dont do that.

Teaching what various religions believe is not at all the same as telling the kids to say the pledge every day. Don't be silly.

I would object. Because I believe in God. and I think that your relationship with God has eternal consequences.

If I didnt believe in God, and I didnt think it mattered either way whether someone was theist or not, then whats the difference????

You are trying to get me to say "Yes I would object because atheism is not true" so that you can in turn say "I object because theism is not true (you havent proven that theism is an organuized state religion, btw) and what makes your belief any more worthy of the law than mine." Please, dont think I've never seen leading questions before.

Wrong. I want you to realize that just as it would be wrong for the government to teach your children that a god does not exist, it's wrong for the government to teach my children that one does exist.

It's called the golden rule.

But you cannot compare those because the consequences of belief are entirely different. An atheist should not care if they are the only atheist in the world. Because when you die whats it matter??

Your statment above takes no account for the actual situation.

You don't want the government to teach your children that a god does not exist. I don't want the government teaching my children that one does exist.

The Establisment Clause requires that the government not take sides on issues of religion.

Can't you see that the ONLY right answer to the issue is for the government to not address the question and leave issues of religion to the partents? That means returning the pledge to it's pre-1954 version before the patriotic pledge was turned into a monotheist religious patriotic pledge that recognizes only monotheists and marginalizes polytheists and nontheists.

[/QUOTE]

 

[ps139]

So only monotheists matter? There are plenty of polytheists for whom it does not represent. And it doesn't represent nontheists.

The establishment clause as defined through case law requires that the government not take side on issues of one religion vs another or religion vs nonreligion. To recognize a monotheist god favors monotheists over polytheists and nontheists.

Is that what the clause is? What if two religions sue each other, the government has to take sides. My point was that you cant argue that the government is establishing a religion with the "under God" because multiple religions believe in God. So which one would you be establishing? This is not to mention Deists and others who believe in God but are not part of an organized religion.
The establishment clause is there to make it legal to believe or not believe whatever you want, to be able to go to whatever church you want or not go to church at all. It was to escape things like the Church of England, the Puritan run society of New England etc. When the country's early documents were written nobody said "hey you cant have God in there, thats against the establishment clause."

Take off the blinders. The pledge states that a monotheist god exists. Teachers make the kids say it every day in school. The school is teaching the kids that a monotheist god exist. I don't believe that anyione can honestly deny that.

Once again I'll post what Eisenhower said when he digned the bill that placed "under God" in the pledge in 1954. He said "“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.”

To claim that is not teaching that a monotheist god exists is just plain crazy.

Fine. I wouldnt call it religious education though. When people swear an oath, "so help me God," or read the "In God we Trust" on coins, is that teaching kids a monotheistic God exists too?? And I'm curious why you care. You believe that there is no God, so what does it matter for anyone if they do believe it and say it??

Teaching what various religions believe is not at all the same as telling the kids to say the pledge every day. Don't be silly.

That isnt what I meant by religious education, I should have been clearer. I meant like a Catechism lesson.

Wrong. I want you to realize that just as it would be wrong for the government to teach your children that a god does not exist, it's wrong for the government to teach my children that one does exist.

It's called the golden rule.

Frankly my interpretation of the golden rule would be to tell everyone that God exists.

 

[crazyfingers]

Is that what the clause is? What if two religions sue each other, the government has to take sides.

Red herring. The civil law may come to play if one church committed a civil crime against another. The government would not get involved in matters of belief.

My point was that you cant argue that the government is establishing a religion with the "under God" because multiple religions believe in God.

The government is taking the doctrinal side of the monotheists against polytheists and nontheists. THAT is establishing monotheism.

So which one would you be establishing?

I would not address the issue.

The establishment clause is there to make it legal to believe or not believe whatever you want, to be able to go to whatever church you want or not go to church at all.

Only partly. It goes much futher than that. Government has to remain neutral on issues of religion.

It was to escape things like the Church of England, the Puritan run society of New England etc. When the country's early documents were written nobody said "hey you cant have God in there, thats against the establishment clause."

Sorry but you're plain wrong. The establishment clause prohibits the government from taking sides on issues of religious belief.

Fine. I wouldnt call it religious education though.

Not religious education in the full blown meaning of the words. But still teaching that a monotheist god exists - taking a side for monotheism against polytheism and nontheism.

When people swear an oath, "so help me God,"

You might note that in the US Constitution, none of the oaths of office include "so help me god". People add them on their own.

or read the "In God we Trust" on coins, is that teaching kids a monotheistic God exists too??

They endorse a monotheist god of course. I would not say that they are "teaching" because the teacher doesn't make the kids say it every day as they do with the religious pledge.

And I'm curious why you care. You believe that there is no God, so what does it matter for anyone if they do believe it and say it??

As I have said multiple times, it is wrong for the state to be teaching my kids that a monotheist god exists. It's unconstitutional for them to take sides on matters of religious belief and as a parent, it places me in the position of either accepting that the state will teach my child that a god exists against my beliefs or trying to explain to a 1st grader that she doesn't have to believe what the teacher tells her. Don't you see how it's wrong for the state to be teaching a religious belief to children whose parents don't agree?

Frankly my interpretation of the golden rule would be to tell everyone that God exists.

I won't teach your kids that a god does not exist if you won't teach mine that one does. THAT is the golden rule. The golden rule teaches one to respect the beliefs others and not to impose your beliefs on those who do not agree so long as they are not imposing them on you.

Your interpretation appears to come from the irksome propensity of some christians to preach to those who do not wish to be preached to. Quite frankly, I believe that I and my kids are better off without the belief in creatures for which there is no evidence and it's not up to you to decide that for me.

 

[Christi]

I'm not entirely sure about this matter, but I know that I've always had trepidations about mixing patriotism and alliegience to my country, with my spiritual beliefs and Christianity. I've never felt right about equating them as one and the same. I may be wrong, but I've often felt idolatrous saying that I pledge my allegience to a flag representing one country, out of the whole world that God created. Even as a child I've felt my allegience should only be pledged to Him.

 

[Rae]

Take off the blinders. The pledge states that a monotheist god exists. Teachers make the kids say it every day in school. The school is teaching the kids that a monotheist god exist. I don't believe that anyione can honestly deny that.

I know. I find it hard to believe anyone can say that teaching kids that this is one nation under one God isn't a religious thing. God is a religious concept. God is a religious word. The only people objecting to removing the word are objecting because then they can't force their religion on my kids using my taxpayer-funded schools, I guess.

Well, I'm going to keep fighting to keep them from usurping my parental role. I get to raise my kids with whatever religion or lack thereof I want, and no monotheist is going to make a ritual out of indoctrinating them into believing there's only one God.

When people swear an oath, "so help me God," or read the "In God we Trust" on coins, is that teaching kids a monotheistic God exists too?

Yes. These, too, should be eliminated.