On the flip side of the arguement, many Theists might take offense that they have to pledge alliegance to a nation. What if that oath contradicts their religion one day? Now they are forsworn if they choose either choice, God or Country, right?
well, no, because the since it specifies “under God” it shows that the nation is subordinate to God, and not preempting his position.
Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.
i dont care if its there or not. i dont see the necessity of wasting tax payer money to have trials about two friggin words in the pledge of allegiance, of all the ridiculous things
He is standing up for MY rights as an INDIVIDUAL to worship whatever way I want, with no f***ing government telling me what to believe in or not.
yes, because including “under God” in the pledge of allegiance FORCES YOU to give up your religion and worship the christian god.
“well son, we cant be atheists anymore”
“why not daddy?”
“well, because someone decided to include a refererence to God in the pledge of allegiance.”
Schools which require students to recite a pledge of allegiance containing the words “under God” have made a rule which contravenes the first phrase of the First Amendment - plain and simple.
yes, thats correct. tell me, what school REQUIRES it? its VOLUNTARY! being disrespectful and disruptive while its being recited might be punished, which has nothing to with religion at all, but refusing to say it holds no consequences. if there is a school where this happens, stop it. punish the school. thats fine. when it is VOLUNTARY like its intended, than there is no conflict
If you don’t like the US Constitution, why don’t you go live somewhere where religion is enforced by the government?
why dont you stop asking ridiculous questions like this. you sound likethe flagwavers. “if you dont like america, then you can GET OUT!”
:roll:
What you evidently don’t get Janus is that liberties are for individual people, more specifically they are for EVERYONE, not just for a “majority”.
what you evidently dont get is that i am reacting to the ACLU, which imo, has a habit of being the champion for the civil rights of the minority, never the majority. not as a group, you twit, but as individuals. feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but all the cases i have heard of the ACLU getting involved in, involving religion, have been either AGAINST a christian or christian group, or FOR another religious group. those involving race, have been AGAINST a white or white group, or FOR a minority or minority group. etc. (note: i havent researched the ACLUs court history, so if you care enough to look for an example, feel free, but i dont pretend to be 100% correct in my claims)
You say to “lighten up??, what’s the big deal?, etc.” Well - the big deal is that if this is not stopped, then there will be prayers instituted at schools BY THE GOVERNMENT, then there will be “correct” and “legal” forms of worship, and so on. I can’t wait for the witch burnings to start again…
oh this is the slippery slope argument at its worst. forgive me, but ARE YOU STUPID!? (apologies)
do you honestly believe that the phrase “under god” in a voluntary pledge will lead to prayer in schools? this is paranoia, my friend. plain and simple.
Go live in a dictatorship if that’s what you want - live where everyone is compelled to think alike or “face the consequences”.
see, now you are being straight ignorant. first of all, im an atheist, so off the bat, i dont “think alike” with the theists who put the phrase into the pledge in the first place. second, you are contradicting yourself, since you are only angry at me, because i think differently from you, and you think im bad and wrong. boo hoo. you cant take opposing opinions? cry me a
edit
river.
in short, i dont care one way or the other if the phrase remains in or not. i simply feel it to be a nitpicky argument, frivolous, and a waste of court time, and taxpayer money. honestly, to the father who is responsible for this case: lighten up, get a life, and stop being a victim. you are a disgrace to atheists everywhere.
Why not just eliminate the stupid addendum to the pledge? It wasn’t neccessary when it when first written. Ike just felt like slapping the word “God” on everything he could.
Why have it at all? Why do I have to pledge my allegiance to a piece of cloth with some dye on it?? “I pledge allegiance to the FLAG of the United States of America” then, after I pledge to a piece of cloth, only then “…and to the Nation for which it stands…”
So, basically, this is the order in the pledge as I see it:
Flag
Country
Oh, and we put in that the country is under God, but that’s more of an after-thought then anything really meaningful in the pledge.
So let’s just get rid of the whole thing. All or nothing! And for that matter, maybe we should get rid of the oath of office for officers and many politicians. We could strip the word “God” from every official document in the library of congress too!
(See how this quickly becomes ridiculous over a single word? A word you arn’t forced to say, a word you can choose not to say in a pledge you don’t have to recite.)
PEOPLE!! The biggest point that should be pointed out is that even if this is a case that needs to be addressed, it doesn’t need to be RIGHT NOW!! We have a war going on. We have the worst natural disaster in American history going on. We have an unbalanced economy right now with increased prices and less jobs going on. We have a need for a larger or even new energy source.
All of these are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than a couple of words which only a very minor part of the nation gives a damn about not wanting to say. This carries no physical or psychological impact in our day to day lives. Do you think when I was in third grade, I gave a sh!t about the “under god” part of the allegiance? I was just waiting for recess!!! I was thinking about that fun game “boys chase girls!!”
Our nation is in a time where only the most important problems should be taken care of. AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!! Our governments bank account is very real. This account you feed with your taxes. Everytime there is a large case, a disaster, a war, a crisis, a disease…. that account gets drained a little more. And who takes up the slack? WE DO. I don’t want to take up the slack for a couple of words. If you have a problem with “under god”, JUST SUCK IT UP FOR NOW.
You are 100% correct Stuka. (wow, ive never said that before!) There are more important issues at hand, that should be dealt with, the last thing we need to be worrying about is if two words offend someone. I dont get how you can be offended by the words “under God” if you dont believe in God.
@stuka:
PEOPLE!! The biggest point that should be pointed out is that even if this is a case that needs to be addressed, it doesn’t need to be RIGHT NOW!! We have a war going on. We have the worst natural disaster in American history going on. We have an unbalanced economy right now with increased prices and less jobs going on. We have a need for a larger or even new energy source.
All of these are WAY MORE IMPORTANT than a couple of words which only a very minor part of the nation gives a damn about not wanting to say. This carries no physical or psychological impact in our day to day lives. Do you think when I was in third grade, I gave a sh!t about the “under god” part of the allegiance? I was just waiting for recess!!! I was thinking about that fun game “boys chase girls!!”
Our nation is in a time where only the most important problems should be taken care of. AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!! Our governments bank account is very real. This account you feed with your taxes. Everytime there is a large case, a disaster, a war, a crisis, a disease…. that account gets drained a little more. And who takes up the slack? WE DO. I don’t want to take up the slack for a couple of words. If you have a problem with “under god”, JUST SUCK IT UP FOR NOW.
Who are you and what did you do to Stuka??? wink & a grin
You’re right, by the way. But, if this is who I think it is bringing this to the courts again, it’s probably just him trying to get his name in the history books. I really doubt, by this time, he really cares about whether it’s in the words or not. I know his daughter - whom he is allegedly protecting - is a devout Christian, so I fail to see how this is protecting her….
Of course, it could be someone different…I don’t know. Let’s just hope with two new Supreme Court Justices on the bench it can get quashed again for more important issues like who’s got the smelliest feet or what country makes the best tasting cheese!
Well, Jen, look at it this way. This has very little to do with a person’s political or religious views and everything to do with wasting time.
If this guy wanted to try and do this in a time of peace, when the economy is good, and we didn’t have ‘much’ on our nation’s plate, I may take a closer look at what he is talking about and MAY even support his actions. But now?? Hell no. He is bitching about something unnecessary during a time of multiple crisis(s) where we could use our courts for more urgent issues. For that, the entire issue loses my support and more than likely, loses the support of other liberals like me.
Janus - fricken’ hilarious man. You are approaching the front-runners for the award for “most objective”. Also - nice work at pointing out the “slippery slope” fallacy.
Just a quick question - Black Watch - when you suggested that Americans might have a problem with “under Allah” - did you consider that many Americans are English speaking?
Also after some thought, i considered that Canada does not have the pledge of allegience, and we are not having that many problems. I have to wonder - why is this a necessary thing to do/say? If one does not say the pledge, is this proof that one has no allegience to their country?
…I know his daughter - whom he is allegedly protecting - is a devout Christian, so I fail to see how this is protecting her…
Thanks for admitting this Jennifer. I don’t think Janus gets it either. I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.
If the current majority of Christians does not enforce strict secularity on the government today, why would you expect a future majority of non-Christians NOT to force their religion down my grandchildrens’ throats?
@cystic:
"Just a quick question - Black Watch - when you suggested that Americans might have a problem with “under Allah” - did you consider that many Americans are English speaking?
I live in the Toledo area of Northwest Ohio. There is a significant (50,000+) Muslim population in this corner of America most of whom speak English. The demographics of the United States are changing, and English speaking Christians may well be in a minority in the not-to-distant future.
Allah has been adopted into the English language, with the meaning “God” in the Islam religion. I would pose to you that the use of “under God” to a Muslim is not equivalent to “under Allah”. It is far too easy when you are in the majority to see the words and symbols you use as “global” and not as “culture specific”.
You say “look aside today at the two little words in the Pledge - what difference does it make anyway?” And I will continue to maintain that it is the top of the slippery slope.
Just look where the Christian Right is driving this country today (see my earlier reference to the 11 states passing gay bashing Constitutional Amendments last fall). Look at the states that now have compulsory “intelligent design” woven into their curricula for elementary school science. The Christian Right is having a field day, converting this country into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy.
As for “there’s a war on, why is this even being discussed?”. The “war” was over a year and a half ago. All that is going on now is an occupation of a foreign country, with attendant civil unrest. Bush’s insufferable arrogance dragged this country into that war, and now we all need to bear through it.
However, since the official rationale for being in that war has switched from fictitious WMD’s to saving the Middle East for democracy, then why wouldn’t we encourage our own citizens to exercise their own democratic rights to seek redress against government wrongdoing? Isn’t that a hallmark of the democratic process? You should be cheering this guy on as he is providing an example of what the Iraqis might one day hope to attain - the right to take their government to task over what an individual citizen sees as a government overstepping its legal authority to infringe on a private citizen’s life.
As for Hurricane Katrina - I would think this trial was well into the process BEFORE Katrina did what she did - it’s only the result and ruling that has occurred since then.
BW: i like how you ignore my response entirely…
I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.
and i am an atheist, and i see this as irrelevent to my lack of faith.
Just look where the Christian Right is driving this country today (see my earlier reference to the 11 states passing gay bashing Constitutional Amendments last fall). Look at the states that now have compulsory “intelligent design” woven into their curricula for elementary school science. The Christian Right is having a field day, converting this country into a Christian Fundamentalist theocracy.
these are seperate issues. the fact that they are related in their connection to God is irrelevent. there are real threats posed by the forcing of intelligent design, the prohibition of gay marriage, etc. these are real moral questions, and ones which do potentially pose a threat to the seperation of church and state. “under god” in the pledge of allegiance is one mans personal crusade against some miniscule nothing. to continue to assert that this will lead to the complete violation of the first amendment is ludicrous, and your position reminds me of the radically conservative christians who argue that unmarried sex leads to violence, rape, sin, and general lawlessness, and other nonsensical arguments like that.
BW: i like how you ignore my response entirely…
and…
I am also a practising Christian, and I see removing the words as a protection of of my faith, not an infringement of it.
and i am an atheist, and i see this as irrelevent to my lack of faith.
Gee, I guess that means we disagree. However since you so desperately want a personal response I will reaffirm - yes - we disagree on this.
However, if the inclusion or exclusion of “under God” makes no difference to you then why are you even participating in this discussion?
On a side note - do you think blacks have a right to be upset when the Stars and Bars are flown over a courthouse they are entering to plead a case? Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth? Or do you think perhaps it might indicate a possible bias against someone of color seeking fair and equal treatment before the law?
Finally, you may think that the issue is petty and blown way out of scale. I would offer this bit of history as counterpoint:
In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
I don’t give a rat’s patoot how small an issue is - if a government thinks it can break its own laws, only the citizenry can tell them no, because the government has lost the ability to police itself. If no citizen will tell it no, then the government will take further steps to infringe on the rights of individuals. It is the nature of the beast, which can NEVER be trusted completely - it ALWAYS must be open to scrutiny and criticism.
God Bless America for still having a system that allows this suit to happen and for an individual to win it. When that is gone, we all will be much worse off.
BW
In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
comparing the pledge of allegiance to kristallnacht is a bit of a stretch, even for you
Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth?
no…
On a side note - do you think blacks have a right to be upset when the Stars and Bars are flown over a courthouse they are entering to plead a case? Isn’t the flag just a meaningless little piece of cloth? Or do you think perhaps it might indicate a possible bias against someone of color seeking fair and equal treatment before the law?
while personally, i think people offended by a confederate flag are too sensitive, i respect this much more than an atheist complaining about god. but lets get something straight: i am not disputing this mans right to bring suit, or their right to be offended. you absolutely have the right. im disputing the worth of doing so.
but back on your point, the confederate flag represents hatred and persecution to blacks. for some it merely represents southern pride. i think these people have the right to fly their flag, but hey, if its going to make many people upset, and cause such an air of tension and hostility, why push the envelope?
now, you might turn around and apply this to “under god” but i would counter that nowhere is someone required to say that phrase, or indeed the pledge at all. if we remove the phrase, some will continue to say it. so what if someone gets offended by that? are we to prohibit students from saying “under god”? we dont set aside prayer time because thats bringing in the church, but what if someone wants to pray? what about moments of silence? isnt that basically a moment for silent prayer? what do i do as an atheist? what if i dont want this period? hows it any different from a set aside period of time for prayer?
i notice ive gone off on a tangent here, oh well. my point is, the confederate flag is more than a piece of cloth. and its presence is more significant than the word god. the word God is so common in everyday language, you cant avoid it. the confederate flag is not. and while God may represent something unfavorable to some people, or something they dont believe in, it does not represent hatred and persecution, as does the confederate flag. religiously intolerant theists do not make the concept intolerant. most major religions are tolerant of others religions, and even those without religions, most preach love and understanding. maybe im going to hell according to your god for being a heretic, but i can live with that.
However, if the inclusion or exclusion of “under God” makes no difference to you then why are you even participating in this discussion?
im discussing the worth of having court time dedicated to this insignificant subject, not whether or not it should be in the pledge.
Just curious . . .
should we be banning the taking of God’s name in vain? I think this would be a good idea:
@cystic:
Just curious . . .
should we be banning the taking of God’s name in vain? I think this would be a good idea:
- this practice tends to offend Christians (and God)
- this practice is obviously offensive to atheists (or at least Christians bothered by the use of the term “under God” in the pledge of allegiance).
:P
Yes. Let’s ban blasphemy. lol
i say God more than many theists, im not bothered by the term at all. i dont care what you believe in, i just dont. and i use the term, cuz thats how i roll. im also quite drunk right now.
…In 1933 Hitler and company ran around breaking glass and burning books in Munich - just a bit of tomfoolery by those in charge, right??. But there was nobody there to tell them no, so by 11 short years later they believed they could get away with the murder of over 6 million people as part of legitimate state policy.
I hope the 1933 is just a typo, Hitler’s Munich times were 1923. There were people there to tell them “no”, but they lost because there were more who thought these no-sayers were only “panicking leftist” or even worse, “communists”. The genocide on the Jews has more than one date to link it to: In “Mein Kampf” from 1924 you find Hitler’s hatred on Jews, the persecution begins straight from 1933 with boycotts, the Nürnberg laws of 1935 are an “important” step, so is the progrome night of 1938, and from 1941 on the systematic genocide on an industrialised level.
For Janus: the term “Kristallnacht” was used by the Nazis and is a very bad euphemism as it was not only glass that was breaking that night. Progrome is the better word to describe that night (which was not in 1933, but 1938).
Although I wouldn’t have brought up all those instances to support the quashing of this gentleman’s arguement in court, I have not yet seen a proper response showing how they are unrelated, myself. But I’m going to try and keep an open mind about this, mainly because I find it difficult to compare Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant) to “Under God” in our pledge of alleigance.
CC: Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. I, personally, do not know of another 1st world nation that has a pledge of alliegance. What’s even more ridiculous is that this pledge isn’t manadatory thus making it completely extranious in the daily course of events.
What’s even worse is you are pledging your alliegance to a piece of cloth that represents a nation that resides under a supreme being. You are not pledging alliegance to God nor to your country but to a piece of stinking colored fabric that has to be torn down every now and again and replaced because it rips, tears or gets soiled!
Stuka: I agree in part. If we were in the Reagan years or Bush Sr. then I’d be more willing to hear this man’s case. However, and this is unconfirmed as of yet, if this is the same moron trying to protect his daughter from the pledge because he’s an athiest but she’s a christian, I’d think he deserves some hefty fines for wasting the people’s money - especially since he has no custodial power over the child. Not to mention, this case was already tried and refused to be heard by the Supreme Court.
… Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant)
I am irritated. The correct german spelling appears twice before your post.
Why not use it … yet stick to the meaning, even though it was mentioned once before that the term is a Nazi term.
They didn’t dare to call it “More than 100 Jews beaten to death by hordes of cowardous SA men”-night , so please don’t call it Kristallnacht or any translation of it. It was a progrome, it should be called as such.
@F_alk:
… Crystal-Night (sorry, I don’t want to screw up the spelling, so I translated to English - no offense intended or meant)
I am irritated. The correct german spelling appears twice before your post.
Why not use it … yet stick to the meaning, even though it was mentioned once before that the term is a Nazi term.
They didn’t dare to call it “More than 100 Jews beaten to death by hordes of cowardous SA men”-night , so please don’t call it Kristallnacht or any translation of it. It was a progrome, it should be called as such.
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record. While we all realize it was just more evidence of the National Socialists (NAZIs) establishing power and hurting/murdering others, doesn’t negate the name associated with the night in question. After all, if we said “That night when the nazi’s killed hundreds of jews” then we could have the night in question confused with thousands of other nights when the nazi’s killed hundreds of jews. But when we use “Kristallnacht” everyone knows, without question, what night we speak of.
Besides, I can’t find a definition for progrome. Is that spelled right? Is that a native word (ie German?) Better yet, could you post a definition for us so we don’t have misunderstandings over syntax?
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record.
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
Besides, I can’t find a definition for progrome. Is that spelled right? Is that a native word (ie German?) Better yet, could you post a definition for us so we don’t have misunderstandings over syntax?
Pogrom. My bad, a spelling mistake.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pogrom&searchmode=none
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pogrom
@F_alk:
Because “Kristallnacht” is the official term listed in the history books in public record.
So, if i find an official german book that says something about anything in US history, then that gives me the right to use that term… even if the whole of the US agrees that it is an “evil” and relativistic term?
No, because it is not only US History books that use this term to refer to that specific night.
And thanks for the links.
