Doesn't matter as one religion (atheism) is having their rights violated by the mention of God.

Really?

Again, how does hearing one word violate one's rights?

I hear words all the time that I don't like, it doesn't mean my rights are violated.

I didn't like the beginning of President Obama's speech tonight. It doesn't mean my rights are violated....

*EDIT
I think you have the right to ignore, condemn or dimiss what other people say. But you don't have the right to stop them from saying one word such as "God". It's not the same thing as yelling "fire" in a theater.

CenterBHSFan wrote:

Doesn't matter as one religion (atheism) is having their rights violated by the mention of God.

Really?

Again, how does hearing one word violate one's rights?

I hear words all the time that I don't like, it doesn't mean my rights are violated.

I didn't like the beginning of President Obama's speech tonight. It doesn't mean my rights are violated....

*EDIT
I think you have the right to ignore, condemn or dimiss what other people say. But you don't have the right to stop them from saying one word such as "God". It's not the same thing as yelling "fire" in a theater.

It is violating the Establishment Clause because it is a government endorsement of religion. Which is the same reason teachers aren't allowed to lead students in prayer.

The courts have made rulings that atheism is a religion (even though I disagree) which means the rights of atheists are being violated by this government endorsement of a religious phrase.

Would you have a problem if a school decided to lead the students in a pledge that said "In Satan we trust" or "In no God we trust," etc. I would have a problem with those also.

eers wrote:
"The courts have made rulings that atheism is a religion (even though I disagree) which means the rights of atheists are being violated by this government endorsement of a religious phrase."

But the founding fathers didn't have a problem with god in a general sense....shouldn't you be more incensed with the court 'rulings'.


"Would you have a problem if a school decided to lead the students in a pledge that said "In Satan we trust" or "In no God we trust," etc. I would have a problem with those also. "

There is a difference between a belief in something vs a belief in nothing. Can you really be offended if you don't believe something exists anyway? If god is a non entity, how can an inclusion of nothing be offensive? On the other hand, you can be offended by a type of god, a disrespect of god, or of your god's enemy.

eersandbeers wrote:

HitsRus wrote: eeers wrote
"If they wouldn't have added the words "Under God" in 1951 this wouldn't even be a big deal."


But it is not a big deal. As noted several times in this thread , you can say the pledge of allegiance (to a secular entity...the flag of the United States)
without saying the words "under God".

That isn't the point though. The point is that the government allowing the school to lead a pledge with the words "under God" is an endorsement of religion.

Glory Days wrote: which specific religion does God represent?

Doesn't matter as one religion (atheism) is having their rights violated by the mention of God.

So your in favor of the federal government establishing the national religion to be atheism by judicial fiat with its prohibition of the practice of any other religion by a local community.

Check.....mate. So 99% of other religions have their rights violated by the non mention of God.

HitsRus wrote: eers wrote:
"The courts have made rulings that atheism is a religion (even though I disagree) which means the rights of atheists are being violated by this government endorsement of a religious phrase."

But the founding fathers didn't have a problem with god in a general sense....shouldn't you be more incensed with the court 'rulings'.

The Founding Fathers did not create a pledge or put religious references on our currency either.

HitsRus wrote: "Would you have a problem if a school decided to lead the students in a pledge that said "In Satan we trust" or "In no God we trust," etc. I would have a problem with those also. "

There is a difference between a belief in something vs a belief in nothing. Can you really be offended if you don't believe something exists anyway? If god is a non entity, how can an inclusion of nothing be offensive? On the other hand, you can be offended by a type of god, a disrespect of god, or of your god's enemy.

You can be offended by the mention of God if you are not religious.

And in this instance it is the government endorsing a religion which is against the Constitution. That part is pretty cut and dry.

majorspark wrote: So your in favor of the federal government establishing the national religion to be atheism by judicial fiat with its prohibition of the practice of any other religion by a local community.

I would say that is faulty logic. No mention of god whatsoever does not cater to atheists. It is secular in nature and respects the rights of everyone. That includes those who worship nature and whatever else is out there.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -Declaration of Independence

Interpreted as a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- Declaration of Independence

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." - Declaration of Independence

A reference to God's will.

eersandbeers wrote:And in this instance it is the government endorsing a religion which is against the Constitution. That part is pretty cut and dry.

The 1st amedment is pretty cut and dry as well.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What law has congress made that establishes a national religion or prohibits the free practice of ones religion? Answer is none. They divert to the unconstitutional use of the judicial branch to prohibit the free exercise of religion. There by establishing the national religion to be atheism by judical fiat.

I am offended by some of the crap that is in my kids text books. Should I sue to have a federal judge remove this offensive material and force it nationally on all other local school districts or should I take my objections to my local school board. And if they and the voters disagree I have the freedom to send my child to another school district. That my friend is true freedom.

eersandbeers wrote:I would say that is faulty logic. No mention of god whatsoever does not cater to atheists. It is secular in nature and respects the rights of everyone. That includes those who worship nature and whatever else is out there.

No mention of God does not cater to atheists? It respects the rights of everyone? No it does not. It only respects the rights of those who believe a certain way.

Personally I could care less what some local community chooses to do with its self. If they want to recite the pledge to a tree god in some locality in California, what do I care. I give them the freedom to decide what is best for themselves. If someone in that locality is offended and can't change the situation, there are thousands of localities across the nation they can freely choose to be a part of.

If no mention of god was allowed in the public schools, I highly doubt one state would have approved the Constitution. The so-called separation of church and state was about not establishing a national church like England did and oppressing the people. Non-dominational mentions of god or a higher being does not fall into a direct endorsement of a particular religion.

And when did we become so sensitive to people's feelings? How about if I disagree with gay marriage or evolution...should that not be taught? All perspectives should be taught equally with the student taking available information and coming to a conclusion on something like the creation of Earth because all this stuff is just theory anyway.

Since we just celebrated Thanksgiving, I'll post the proclamation issued for the establishment of a national day of thanksgiving by President Washington. This is an act of state that has both non-dominational and dominational mentions of religion.



WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.



And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

The Constitution only applied to the federal government at time of ratification. It was thought independently but not written into the document that these were natural rights that all levels of governments should respect and follow. When this did not happen, that's why the Civil War amendments were passed which enforced the Constitutional restraints on the states as well.

I love how some of the old world english letters didn't fully translate.
S-f

Thought I'd post a cleaned up modern version with s's instead of f's:

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.



Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3rd day of October, A.D. 1789.


G. Washington

nice find ^^^^.

You cannot be offended by 'god' if you don't believe he exists. Any of his manifestations, worship, enemies..etc are irrelevant since those things don't exist. The only way you can be truly 'offended' is if you are forced to articulate his existence, or are punished because of it. Neither is the case with the POA or the Citizenship oath, neither of which require that you say the words 'under god' to take the pledge or gain citizenship.
. The only reason not to stand for the POA is that you don't have allegiance to the USA. All other reason are irrelevant.

I think God people would sing a much different tune if we replaced "God" w/ "Allah", and they had to praise Allah in the pledge every morning.....

One nation under Allah, In Allah We Trust....

I'll bet all you Christians would be totally cool with this since you can't be offended by something you don't believe in. I'm sure not one Christian would bitch. All those southern Baptist would just suck it up and praise Allah, not a word said...

that's what it's like for people who share this country but aren't Christians...If they don't want to participate (and I'm sure all you Christians would participate in recognizing a supreme entity you don't believe in), they are ridiculed.

If you want to be known as tolerant and the great melting pot where people of all colors and creeds can live UNITED, you actually have to be that way. Not just say it.

If you want to be American and bleed Red White and Blue and be the great Patriot, like all of you seem to want to be on the surface you have to respect the rights of your fellow Americans, who come from all different places, have different color skin, have different beliefs, religious and political....

Because that is what America is. Not the ideal you have in your mind where everyone is white, Christian, conservatives, w/ blond hair and blue eyes...If you don't like that you have to tolerate all the differences exhibited by the people who share the UNITED States, perhaps it is YOU who should GET OUT!!!!

God in the sense the government uses it is a non-dominational belief in a higher being or creator, whomever you hold that to be. That is not the direct endorsement of a particular faith or forcing people into a particular faith, as the first amendment prohibits. The money doesn't say In Jesus Christ We Trust.

The fact is that the so-called separation of church and state in the first amendment is being used today in measures a majority of the founders would refuse to accept.

major wrote:

"I think God people would sing a much different tune if we replaced "God" w/ "Allah", and they had to praise Allah in the pledge every morning....."

Thanks for making my point...allah is a specific 'god'...so is Yahweh...buddha.....and a specific kind of worship. Athgeism is a lack of any 'god'.
and further, the POA is about allegiance to the state, not to 'god'. So the reference to 'god' is non-essential in the POA.

Hits, strapping young lad posted that, not Major. Just so you know...

HitsRus wrote: major wrote:

"I think God people would sing a much different tune if we replaced "God" w/ "Allah", and they had to praise Allah in the pledge every morning....."

Thanks for making my point...allah is a specific 'god'...so is Yahweh...buddha.....and a specific kind of worship. Athgeism is a lack of any 'god'.
and further, the POA is about allegiance to the state, not to 'god'. So the reference to 'god' is non-essential in the POA.

That quote is from the young lad not me.

Allah is the Arabic word for the one true God. Just like Dios is the spanish word for the one true God. In english we capitalize the "G" on the word god to indicate the one true God. If one were to take the Bible to an Arabic nation and translate it the word we would refer to as God would be translated Allah. If you translated the pledge into Arabic, Allah would replace God.

For instance: English "God is great" is the same as Arabic "Allahu Akbar" or Spanish "Dios es grande".

Now Christians would argue that Islam is a false teaching of who the "one true God" is while using the arabic word Allah. Just like many christians would argue that those at the Westboro Baptist church are proclaiming a false teaching of who the "one true God" is while using the english word God.

I would suppose the spanish word "Dios" would take on a negative connotation if we had Mexican Catholics running into resteraunts, yelling "Dios es grande" and blowing themselves up.

Sorry, Major...it was early in the AM and I was in a hurry.

BRF shout out to HitsRus!

When I have a student who doesn't stand for the Pledge, I call their parents. That USUALLY takes care of the problem.

BRF says that EVERYBODY should stand for the Pledge.

And if you don't, watch out for the exercise of First Amendment freedom of expression in response!!!

^^^welcome ole bud!

Glory Days wrote: "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." -Declaration of Independence

Interpreted as a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."- Declaration of Independence

God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." - Declaration of Independence

A reference to God's will.

Not a single thing you mentioned really references God. You need to Google the term "Nature's God." It is a reference to Natural Law.

The term "their creator" leave it up to who each individual sees as their own personal creator.

Divine Providence is not necessarily a reference to God either. It is simply any type of higher power. Again, up to each individual.

The Declaration was secular in nature for a reason. If they wanted to make it not secular then they would have just used regular references to God.

Once again, the Founding Fathers did not add the words God to any pledge or currency. There is a reason for that.

majorspark wrote:
What law has congress made that establishes a national religion or prohibits the free practice of ones religion? Answer is none. They divert to the unconstitutional use of the judicial branch to prohibit the free exercise of religion. There by establishing the national religion to be atheism by judical fiat.

I am offended by some of the crap that is in my kids text books. Should I sue to have a federal judge remove this offensive material and force it nationally on all other local school districts or should I take my objections to my local school board. And if they and the voters disagree I have the freedom to send my child to another school district. That my friend is true freedom.

It is not just about establishing a national religion. It is about giving preference of one religion over another.

If you feel your rights are being violated you have every right to sue the schools.

majorspark wrote: No mention of God does not cater to atheists? It respects the rights of everyone? No it does not. It only respects the rights of those who believe a certain way.

No it does not cater to atheists in any way. That is a very bad argument. It's promoting a secular document with no mention of any religion of any type. It would cater to atheists if they said "One nation under no god."

bman618 wrote: If no mention of god was allowed in the public schools, I highly doubt one state would have approved the Constitution. The so-called separation of church and state was about not establishing a national church like England did and oppressing the people. Non-dominational mentions of god or a higher being does not fall into a direct endorsement of a particular religion.

And when did we become so sensitive to people's feelings? How about if I disagree with gay marriage or evolution...should that not be taught? All perspectives should be taught equally with the student taking available information and coming to a conclusion on something like the creation of Earth because all this stuff is just theory anyway.

It was about far more than that. It was about giving preference to one religion over another.

Respecting the Constitutional rights of everyone isn't being sensitive.

HitsRus wrote: ^^^welcome ole bud!

Send me a PM and we will have a little "chit chat"!

And.........my comment for the thread is that if you witness someone not standing for the Pledge or the National Anthem.......give them a good earfull of what you think about that.* Too many people just let it go and not say anything and that allows those people to continue to do what they do. The best way for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING!

*[size=xx-small]of course, that could mean that you express encouragement to those that do not stand! :rolleyes:[/size]