Thanks for the reference. I don't agree with defending that group, but I don't agree with your foolish assertion that "too much free speech is detrimental to the well-being of any country". You are completely wrong in thinking that it's all right to restrict free speech. If all that group did was talk there would be no problem. The problem arises because we all know that they do more than talk and in this specific case there was definitely more than talk.
As for thinking my comment is foolish, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you haven't changed mine. If you think it's acceptable to restrict free speech because it's unpopular then the US is not the country for you.
At this point I expect you to make a pathetic attempt to twist my words to claim that I support harming children. Don't disappoint me now.
This is a good idea. Children who want to use the Internet for research can do so with their parents and/or teachers.
It might also encourage kids to be more active and play outside more. There's growing concern, at least in the US, about the health of children who are spending too much time in sedentary activities.
There's a movement these days to child-proof the world and people need to understand that it's simply not possible, nor desirable, to restrict fundamental adult rights for the sake of children. Children can be protected from these things if their parents are willing to make the effort.
Wasn't there a proposal a while back to have a special.kid domain that could be restricted to child-friendly sites? Whatever happened to that proposal? I agree that trying to censor web sites outside the US is useless and wrong (not that our Congress won't try; maybe god will tell Bush to attack the Axis of Evil Foreign Web Sites) but maybe the US could create a.kids.us domain that we could control and which concerned parents could restrict their kids to.
I agree that it's important to protect children, but not at the expense of free speech. Fundamental human rights trump lazy parenting.
If you're opposed to free speech there are plenty of other countries for you to choose from.
Incidentally, do you have a reference to the ACLU supporting that organization? It wouldn't completely surprise me if they were supporting free speech aspects, but I'm not going to just blindly believe it without a reference.
I know. Scary, isn't it? I wonder what else he'll tell us his god told him to do.
Oh well; maybe the country will come to its senses in a year or so. Almost makes me want to root against an economic recovery in the next year. We Americans tend to have such short memories that if things turn around economically we're likely to forget that Bush is such an idiot and forgive his insane, borderline-treasonous military adventurism.
I was going to disagree with you about monotheism then I suddenly got what you mean. They would all worship the same god; they may just disagree about its attributes, demands and behaviors. Good point. And I of course agree that the government can't promote any religion and that the words therefore must be removed.
I agree it's quite a balancing act that the government has to do, and I think in this case the best solution is to not mention religion at all. In the case of vouchers there's no choice but to deal with religion in some way because there are plenty of religious schools out there that give the same level of education as secular schools so there is a valid issue regarding vouchers. With the pledge, there's really no need to bring up religion either way.
I think you've missed a category: The poster is a member of a religion that refers to their god as "god" and thus sees the pledge as proper and fitting. This is a large category.
You'd probably see me as fitting under category 2, although I consider myself a patriot as well. Assuming you are correct in that the two words will not affect the children (not that this is the only or even the primary issue), then there is no problem with taking them out. No children will be harmed by the removal.
Of course, the larger issue is not really about the children. It's about US law actually obeying the Constitution.
The problem is that there is no god. Or so I (and many others) believe. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we're not. But why should your beliefs supercede mine? The United States cannot promote religion. It's against the Constitution.
God is not a word that means "All that's Good". God is a word that refers to an entity that is believed by some to have created the universe. It's a word that means many things to many people. A loaded word, for certain.
Your point about not wanting to sound threatening is a good one (especially lately), but I don't think anyone is trying to change the pledge to:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation, under no one so if we want to mess with your affairs just try and stop us bwa-ha-ha-ha
indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all
The intent is simply to remove the untrue and unconstitional statement that the US is subject to some god. People can still say it if that's what they believe. After all, the Constitution forbids the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It simply cannot be the government's official position.
In general, we Atheists wouldn't have any problems with what religious people believe if they didn't try to keep forcing their beliefs down our throats. You ask why people can't omit the words if we choose. We can and we do. Why can't you religious types just add them? Why do you think that the mention of a god should be the default, especially when it's the result of an unconstitutional law passed in the paranoid days of McCarthyism?
As to your second point, that one has to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to the ten commandments. Why would someone have to be stupid to object to not being allowed to worship whatever gods they want? To not being allowed to dislike their parents? To not being allowed to envy their neighbor's possessions? That kind of thought control is contrary to the values that the United States was founded upon. One doesn't need to be stupid to object to them. One simply needs to be American. But of course you didn't mention those commandments. You only mentioned the ones that are Statements of the Obvious and not even unique to christianity. What a surprise.
If you see a narrow, tiny mind you must be looking in the mirror.
The issue is not what people are allowed to say. People are allowed to say the pledge as is, or not. To remove "under god" or leave it in. Replace it with "Allah", "Zeus" or anything else. The oath is not legally compulsary. This case will not change any of that. Despite what some people would have you believe, no one will be prohibited from saying "under god". All that will be changed is that the official version of the pledge will not endorse religion.
The official pledge, as it stands, is unconstitutional and dishonest. The United States is not a nation under any god. No god's laws have any force. There are a lot of people in the United States who believe in a god, but that belief has no bearing on reality. At least until some god shows up and demands otherwise. (And even then it will require a Constitutional amendment).
First of all, there's nothing wrong with refusing to say the pledge. Compulsary oaths of allegiance are unconstitutional and unamerican. If a person is going to recite the pledge it should come from the heart. When I recite the pledge (without the "under god" part), it's because I mean it. Otherwise, what's the point?
The bottom line is that the pledge was just fine without "under god" and the addition of those words was unconstitutional. There don't need to be any hypothetical children harmed by the existence of those words in the official pledge. The utter illegality of the change is all that matters. People can say whatever they want when they recite the pledge, but the government cannot endorse any god or gods.
Indeed. Are you denying that the change that inserted "under god" into the pledge respected an establishment of religion, especially in light of what the people responsible for the change said at the time?
Don't get me wrong; the government has absolutely no right to prevent people from worshipping any god or gods that they choose. But it cannot promote religion in any way. I don't see how any one can honestly claim that that an official government pledge that claims that a god exists and that this country is subject to said god does not promote religion.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why it's important to fix the pledge. It's not Bobby's problem if he doesn't want to pray; that's his inalienable right.
As Eisenhower said when he signed the bill, the change was designed to proclaim the "dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty". There is absolutely no question that this promotes monotheistic religions (mainly Christianity) over polytheistic religions and Atheism. Only an idiot would claim, in the face of what the actual people behind the change said, that it wasn't designed to promote a specific religion.
You'll forgive me if I don't blindly accept your assurance that the government isn't promoting the god of the bible, since it obviously is.
It's also interesting that you describe the bible as the source of information about god, when a majority of the people in this world would disagree with you. You are obviously christian; have you given equal consideration to islam or hinduism? Asatru? Paganism? Satanism? I doubt it. If you haven't given consideration to all those religions (and maybe you have), why should anyone give consideration to yours?
Except that Atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of belief in any god or gods. Many religious groups try to define Atheism as the positive statement that there is no god (indeed, many Atheists believe this) but that is not the entire definition.
By removing the "under god" portion of the pledge the government takes a properly neutral stance.
The important constituational phrase is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The law they passed to change the pledge was just that. This is not rocket science; it is self-evident. Read what the President said when he signed the law if you have any doubts.
Your desperate attempt to link Atheism with the Soviet Union was particularly pathetic and would probably work better in a Christian discussion board than it does here.
Atheism is not a religion; it's a lack of religion. Some Atheists profess a positive belief that there are no gods, while others (like me) simply lack a belief in any god.
If you possess a belief in one or more gods you are a theist.
Otherwise, you are an atheist.
The artwork depicting Moses with the ten commandments is part of a montage of artwork depicting various ancient laws. The tablets themselves (as depicted) have no words. This is why that situation is different from that of Judge Roy Moore and his monument, which was rightfully removed from the courthouse in Alabama. HTH
This argument is flawed. We are not a nation under any god. No god's laws have any force in this nation.
As for removing all mention of god everywhere, there's a huge difference between having inaccurate phrases written in teeny tiny print on money and having innocent schoolchildren recite a pledge designed to imprint a specific belief on them. And before you bother claiming that was not the intent check out Eisenhower's quote on why he signed the bill that put the "under god" phrase in.
The change was specifically designed to indoctrinate children and it's about time it was removed.
You only like the pledge the way it is because it promotes your religion. If it referenced "Allah" or "Satan" or "Zeus" or any of the other imaginary gods people have invented you'd be marching on Washington to get it changed.
Incidentally, what's your reference for your "90+%" claim? Not that it really matters whether or not a majority want the phrase in; this is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be.
Let's hope the USSC has the courage to recognize that.
Actually, the idea that most of the founders were hardcore Christians is a myth. There were some Christians, but many of the founders were Deists, which is why you get things like mentioning a creator in the Declaration of Independence. People such as Thomas Jefferson they had some pretty harsh things to say about Christianity.
As for the government in general, article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which states "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...", proves that the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. And since the Constitution gives treaties equivalent status to Constitutional law itself, there's no question that the US isn't a Christian nation, despite what people like Pat Robertson would like the public to believe.
But you're right about slavery and the attitudes towards women and minorities; it shows that although the founders had a lot of great ideas, they still had a long way to go.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the reference. I don't agree with defending that group, but I don't agree with your foolish assertion that "too much free speech is detrimental to the well-being of any country". You are completely wrong in thinking that it's all right to restrict free speech. If all that group did was talk there would be no problem. The problem arises because we all know that they do more than talk and in this specific case there was definitely more than talk.
As for thinking my comment is foolish, you're certainly entitled to your opinion but you haven't changed mine. If you think it's acceptable to restrict free speech because it's unpopular then the US is not the country for you.
At this point I expect you to make a pathetic attempt to twist my words to claim that I support harming children. Don't disappoint me now.
This is a good idea. Children who want to use the Internet for research can do so with their parents and/or teachers.
It might also encourage kids to be more active and play outside more. There's growing concern, at least in the US, about the health of children who are spending too much time in sedentary activities.
There's a movement these days to child-proof the world and people need to understand that it's simply not possible, nor desirable, to restrict fundamental adult rights for the sake of children. Children can be protected from these things if their parents are willing to make the effort.
Wasn't there a proposal a while back to have a special .kid domain that could be restricted to child-friendly sites? Whatever happened to that proposal? I agree that trying to censor web sites outside the US is useless and wrong (not that our Congress won't try; maybe god will tell Bush to attack the Axis of Evil Foreign Web Sites) but maybe the US could create a .kids.us domain that we could control and which concerned parents could restrict their kids to.
I agree that it's important to protect children, but not at the expense of free speech. Fundamental human rights trump lazy parenting.
If you're opposed to free speech there are plenty of other countries for you to choose from.
Incidentally, do you have a reference to the ACLU supporting that organization? It wouldn't completely surprise me if they were supporting free speech aspects, but I'm not going to just blindly believe it without a reference.
I know. Scary, isn't it? I wonder what else he'll tell us his god told him to do.
Oh well; maybe the country will come to its senses in a year or so. Almost makes me want to root against an economic recovery in the next year. We Americans tend to have such short memories that if things turn around economically we're likely to forget that Bush is such an idiot and forgive his insane, borderline-treasonous military adventurism.
I was going to disagree with you about monotheism then I suddenly got what you mean. They would all worship the same god; they may just disagree about its attributes, demands and behaviors. Good point. And I of course agree that the government can't promote any religion and that the words therefore must be removed.
I agree it's quite a balancing act that the government has to do, and I think in this case the best solution is to not mention religion at all. In the case of vouchers there's no choice but to deal with religion in some way because there are plenty of religious schools out there that give the same level of education as secular schools so there is a valid issue regarding vouchers. With the pledge, there's really no need to bring up religion either way.
I think you've missed a category: The poster is a member of a religion that refers to their god as "god" and thus sees the pledge as proper and fitting. This is a large category.
You'd probably see me as fitting under category 2, although I consider myself a patriot as well. Assuming you are correct in that the two words will not affect the children (not that this is the only or even the primary issue), then there is no problem with taking them out. No children will be harmed by the removal.
Of course, the larger issue is not really about the children. It's about US law actually obeying the Constitution.
The problem is that there is no god. Or so I (and many others) believe. Maybe we're wrong. Maybe we're not. But why should your beliefs supercede mine? The United States cannot promote religion. It's against the Constitution.
God is not a word that means "All that's Good". God is a word that refers to an entity that is believed by some to have created the universe. It's a word that means many things to many people. A loaded word, for certain.
Your point about not wanting to sound threatening is a good one (especially lately), but I don't think anyone is trying to change the pledge to:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
one nation, under no one so if we want to mess with your affairs just try and stop us bwa-ha-ha-ha
indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all
The intent is simply to remove the untrue and unconstitional statement that the US is subject to some god. People can still say it if that's what they believe. After all, the Constitution forbids the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It simply cannot be the government's official position.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
In general, we Atheists wouldn't have any problems with what religious people believe if they didn't try to keep forcing their beliefs down our throats. You ask why people can't omit the words if we choose. We can and we do. Why can't you religious types just add them? Why do you think that the mention of a god should be the default, especially when it's the result of an unconstitutional law passed in the paranoid days of McCarthyism?
As to your second point, that one has to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to the ten commandments. Why would someone have to be stupid to object to not being allowed to worship whatever gods they want? To not being allowed to dislike their parents? To not being allowed to envy their neighbor's possessions? That kind of thought control is contrary to the values that the United States was founded upon. One doesn't need to be stupid to object to them. One simply needs to be American. But of course you didn't mention those commandments. You only mentioned the ones that are Statements of the Obvious and not even unique to christianity. What a surprise.
If you see a narrow, tiny mind you must be looking in the mirror.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
The issue is not what people are allowed to say. People are allowed to say the pledge as is, or not. To remove "under god" or leave it in. Replace it with "Allah", "Zeus" or anything else. The oath is not legally compulsary. This case will not change any of that. Despite what some people would have you believe, no one will be prohibited from saying "under god". All that will be changed is that the official version of the pledge will not endorse religion.
The official pledge, as it stands, is unconstitutional and dishonest. The United States is not a nation under any god. No god's laws have any force. There are a lot of people in the United States who believe in a god, but that belief has no bearing on reality. At least until some god shows up and demands otherwise. (And even then it will require a Constitutional amendment).
First of all, there's nothing wrong with refusing to say the pledge. Compulsary oaths of allegiance are unconstitutional and unamerican. If a person is going to recite the pledge it should come from the heart. When I recite the pledge (without the "under god" part), it's because I mean it. Otherwise, what's the point?
The bottom line is that the pledge was just fine without "under god" and the addition of those words was unconstitutional. There don't need to be any hypothetical children harmed by the existence of those words in the official pledge. The utter illegality of the change is all that matters. People can say whatever they want when they recite the pledge, but the government cannot endorse any god or gods.
Indeed. Are you denying that the change that inserted "under god" into the pledge respected an establishment of religion, especially in light of what the people responsible for the change said at the time?
Don't get me wrong; the government has absolutely no right to prevent people from worshipping any god or gods that they choose. But it cannot promote religion in any way. I don't see how any one can honestly claim that that an official government pledge that claims that a god exists and that this country is subject to said god does not promote religion.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why it's important to fix the pledge. It's not Bobby's problem if he doesn't want to pray; that's his inalienable right.
Excellent post. It's amazing how many people refuse to see the truth of the error that Congress made when they made the change.
As Eisenhower said when he signed the bill, the change was designed to proclaim the "dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty". There is absolutely no question that this promotes monotheistic religions (mainly Christianity) over polytheistic religions and Atheism. Only an idiot would claim, in the face of what the actual people behind the change said, that it wasn't designed to promote a specific religion.
You'll forgive me if I don't blindly accept your assurance that the government isn't promoting the god of the bible, since it obviously is.
It's also interesting that you describe the bible as the source of information about god, when a majority of the people in this world would disagree with you. You are obviously christian; have you given equal consideration to islam or hinduism? Asatru? Paganism? Satanism? I doubt it. If you haven't given consideration to all those religions (and maybe you have), why should anyone give consideration to yours?
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
Except that Atheism is not a religion. It's a lack of belief in any god or gods. Many religious groups try to define Atheism as the positive statement that there is no god (indeed, many Atheists believe this) but that is not the entire definition.
By removing the "under god" portion of the pledge the government takes a properly neutral stance.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
The important constituational phrase is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The law they passed to change the pledge was just that. This is not rocket science; it is self-evident. Read what the President said when he signed the law if you have any doubts.
Your desperate attempt to link Atheism with the Soviet Union was particularly pathetic and would probably work better in a Christian discussion board than it does here.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
Atheism is not a religion; it's a lack of religion. Some Atheists profess a positive belief that there are no gods, while others (like me) simply lack a belief in any god.
If you possess a belief in one or more gods you are a theist.
Otherwise, you are an atheist.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
The artwork depicting Moses with the ten commandments is part of a montage of artwork depicting various ancient laws. The tablets themselves (as depicted) have no words. This is why that situation is different from that of Judge Roy Moore and his monument, which was rightfully removed from the courthouse in Alabama. HTH
This argument is flawed. We are not a nation under any god. No god's laws have any force in this nation.
As for removing all mention of god everywhere, there's a huge difference between having inaccurate phrases written in teeny tiny print on money and having innocent schoolchildren recite a pledge designed to imprint a specific belief on them. And before you bother claiming that was not the intent check out Eisenhower's quote on why he signed the bill that put the "under god" phrase in.
The change was specifically designed to indoctrinate children and it's about time it was removed.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
You only like the pledge the way it is because it promotes your religion. If it referenced "Allah" or "Satan" or "Zeus" or any of the other imaginary gods people have invented you'd be marching on Washington to get it changed.
Incidentally, what's your reference for your "90+%" claim? Not that it really matters whether or not a majority want the phrase in; this is not a Christian nation, never was and never will be.
Let's hope the USSC has the courage to recognize that.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
Actually, the idea that most of the founders were hardcore Christians is a myth. There were some Christians, but many of the founders were Deists, which is why you get things like mentioning a creator in the Declaration of Independence. People such as Thomas Jefferson they had some pretty harsh things to say about Christianity.
:)
As for the government in general, article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which states "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...", proves that the founders did not intend to create a Christian nation. And since the Constitution gives treaties equivalent status to Constitutional law itself, there's no question that the US isn't a Christian nation, despite what people like Pat Robertson would like the public to believe.
But you're right about slavery and the attitudes towards women and minorities; it shows that although the founders had a lot of great ideas, they still had a long way to go.
Eric Bamberg
Fellow Atheist