New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
Technically I said belief systems. And you assuming that not believing in God is not a religion is false.

The term God, rather than Gods, denotes monotheism. All polytheistic religions are thus 'cut out' from official wording. Buddhists do not believe in a God, yet it qualifies as a religion.

Your proceding from a false assumption.
I said that athiesm is not a religion, I said nothing about Budists, those who follow the Tao, Pagens, or any other religious system.

Depends on the words and what is being killed.

That would be people.

But yes, killing is different. I offered a non-murder circumstance of ritual for you to compare (the crayon sacrifice to an idol). Do you think classroom time should be devoted to this practice if the majority of people believe in that tradition?

We are not talking about religious rituals, we are talking about the right to say two words.

Then why do you worry about keeping official wording as it is? Why did congress worry enough about it to insert that phrase into the Pledge?

This is just something to pass the time, debating is interesting to bring forth different views, but nothing said here will change anything.
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the way of the US knows that the Supreme court would over-turn the 9th district court, the same way they ruled that "In god we trust" shall stay on US currency.

Atheism is a belief system, I am sorry.

Sorry, the belief in nothing isn't.

It is a personal one in most cases, but a belief that there is no God is a belief. In my case I am agnostic, which is about as far as you can get from a belief system (no clear belief when dealing with God), but there are many things I still believe in.

You confuse what belief system means.
A belief in nothing cannot be a belief system, that is illogical.

There is middle ground.

Extremes: 'under God', and at the other end of the spectrum 'under Satan' (satanist viewpoint). With of course everyone inbetween having their own view about what should be said.

Middle Ground: treating everyone equally by either not officially recognizing any particular belief system, or recognizing them all. The second being just about impossible to implement (and would result in a rather volumous Pledge). The first being extremely easy to implement.

By the very wording of the first amendment, saying "under god" is acceptable, attempting to prohibit is unconstitutional.
The middle ground is for people to start realizing they can't control all of US society to the point where nobody is ever offended, that simply isn't possible.
Someone ALWAYS will be, no matter what.
If you wanted to say under satan, go ahead, I have no problem with it.

You can still say 'under God'. Your view would just no longer be favored in the official wording. Just as nobody elses view would be favored in offcial wording.

The other side of the coin argumant again, as I pointed out to jack, both sides have the exact same issues.

And that is not what I am proposing here am I? I agree that a court disallowing the phrase 'under God' is wrong. My quarrel is with the official wording of the Pledge, and shouldn't be confused with the Court's quarrel.

Since the pledge is not an offical part of the US government, nor a part of US law, it is NOT for a court to decide, as you said, it is for the PEOPLE to decide, and that brings us to that dreaded majority rule matter.

I take text on a forum literally, barring the presence of a smiley of some sort or other qualifier to the statement. I'm sorry, but there just is no way for me to accurately divine what your statements were 'really' staying without you properly qualifying them.

Make an attempt not to, very little said here should be taken litterally.

Could I start up a religion and receive government funding for it?

You could recive tax exemptions and other benifits, this happens all the time.
It's what freedom of religion means.

I don't think I ever said federal government specifically did I? Please point it out if I did. Sorry if my lack of qualifiers is causing confusion in this matter. My usage of the term 'government' is encompassing local, state, and federal in this case.

There we see me taking you litterally.

Would it be alright to have a state or local government religion? Just not federal?

We have none of the three, which is as it should be.

How is allowing everyone equal opportunity to state their beliefs not evenhanded?

Nobody stops you from changing under god, but we see people attempting to have people stop saying it.

Well, if you continue to think that I am trying to prohibit the phrase 'under God', then just know I agree with you in most of your argument, even though you are refuting a non-existant argument of mine. My argument is not to disallow the phrase.

We are simply discussing the leagality of the phrase was my understanding from the start.

There continues to be a growing movement in the US for greater control on the federal level, a sickening giant government breathing down every American's back, we see it in this very thread, some want rulings on everything in sight, others call the congress "corrupt" because they wish to change a law (while ignoring the fact that one of the perviews of Congress IS to do just that).
Another common theme is anyone who believes in Religion in any form suddenly is a "Christian Fundementalist", a "right wing nut", or other such nonsense.
Common sense is almost dead, it is on poly, if it ever exsisted to begin with, labeling is far more common.
Look at the static I recieved because I phrased democracy as the will of the Majority (The PC attack on that was astounding), which only a fool would deny is the way the US works.
Echinda said I shouldn't even speak because I stated the obvious in a way he's not used to seeing!

Unbeleavable.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The United States of America is not a democracy.

It is a republic.

No kidding.

How does a republic work Jack?

[Jack the Bodiless]

And, to be fair, the children of atheists should not be expected to remain silent, either for the entire pledge or for "under God".

They have (even under existing law) every right to declaim "...one nation, free from gods, indivisible..."

But will the teacher let them? Ironically, the unity of the chant will fall apart just as they hit "indivisible".

[Tolls]

"The United States of America is not a democracy.

It is a republic. "

I really wish people wouldn't say this...it is quite stupid.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
And, to be fair, the children of atheists should not be expected to remain silent, either for the entire pledge or for "under God".

They have (even under existing law) every right to declaim "...one nation, free from gods, indivisible..."

But will the teacher let them? Ironically, the unity of the chant will fall apart just as they hit "indivisible".

They can say that if they like.

You really don't like the pledge period, isn't that the case Jack?

The wording is irrelevent, why not put your cards on the table?

You truly wish there was no pledge at all, am I wrong in thinkg that?

[Roland]

"I really wish people wouldn't say this...it is quite stupid."

Depends. If it is supposed to say that it is not pure majority rule, it is correct. Given that democracy is usually used meaning constitutional, mostly representative democracy, it is useless.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I really wish people wouldn't say this...it is quite stupid.

I was trolling, yes. But it seems appropriate after another "tyranny of the majority" rant. The US IS a Constitutional Republic, albeit a largely democratic one.

The biggest problem with "under God" in the pledge is that it makes the entire pledge either a violation of Constitutional rights if coerced or completely useless if not. Doesn't anyone else see the irony of chanting "indivisible" with a bunch of people standing around on the sidelines?

At least the original pledge could be recited in full by just about all Americans, as Bellamy intended!

You really don't like the pledge period, isn't that the case Jack?

The wording is irrelevent, why not put your cards on the table?

You truly wish there was no pledge at all, am I wrong in thinkg that?

No, that is not the case.

I have.

You are wrong in thinking that.

I am curious to know why you keep assuming that.

[Jack the Bodiless]

If everyone who is confused about our motives would simply read the article I linked to earlier:

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash

...then maybe it will clarify things.

There is an ongoing Christian fundamentalist effort (the only reason I don't call it a "conspiracy" is that it lacks organization and planning) to subvert the First Amendment. We have halted it (I hope) and are trying to recover lost ground.

We are not the aggressors: we are the defenders.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I was trolling, yes. But it seems appropriate after another "tyranny of the majority" rant. The US IS a Constitutional Republic, albeit a largely democratic one.

I never "ranted', it's fact, and we both know it.

The biggest problem with "under God" in the pledge is that it makes the entire pledge either a violation of Constitutional rights if coerced or completely useless if not. Doesn't anyone else see the irony of chanting "indivisible" with a bunch of people standing around on the sidelines?

I see the irony of trying to use the first amendment incorrectly.
The time for your debate was the 1950s, you might as well try and turn back the clock on everything.

At least the original pledge could be recited in full by just about all Americans, as Bellamy intended!

Still can.

No, that is not the case.

I have.

You are wrong in thinking that.

I am curious to know why you keep assuming that.

Curios at your motivations, seeing that you said the government is corrupt for attempting to place a law (which is their function), and wondering why you keep this argument going after it was pretty much settled.

The guy that started this is a nut, he tried the "in god we trust" argument first, found out that the supreme court had aready ruled on it, so went looking for a new way to "make his mark".
He doesn't give a damn about his daughter, no parent worthy of the name would put their child into a media circus to further a "cause".

As a Constitutional argument this is a wash, it just doesn't fit the criteria, despite some of the more "imaginative" interpretations posted so far.

It basically comes down to atheists not wanting to haer "god" mentioned.
That all it really is.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
If everyone who is confused about our motives would simply read the article I linked to earlier:

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash

...then maybe it will clarify things.

Fiarly interesting article, but biased against the relgious side, which is quite common.

There is an ongoing Christian fundamentalist effort (the only reason I don't call it a "conspiracy" is that it lacks organization and planning) to subvert the First Amendment. We have halted it (I hope) and are trying to recover lost ground.

Gotta watch those fundementalists. (how did I know he would mention that? )

We are not the aggressors: we are the defenders.

I knew you were a crusader, just didn't know for what, now I know.

You apointed yourself "watchdog" of america, ever vigilant that those damn Fundementalist Christians can never make an in roadfs in the deity neutral society you say is best for all.

You were never interested in a debate from anyone, you were just pushing an agenda.
How boring.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Curios at your motivations, seeing that you said the government is corrupt for attempting to place a law (which is their function), and wondering why you keep this argument going after it was pretty much settled.

The pledge is not a law. However, the 1954 alteration of the pledge WAS a law, passed by Congress. It was a law created with the specific purpose of establishing religion as "American" and intimidating the non-religious. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

That was 1954. In 2002, Congress has attempted to pre-empt the judgement of the Supreme Court on this issue by bullying and intimidation. And, as previously noted, some are preparing to block the authority of the courts to rule on this issue at all.

The guy that started this is a nut, he tried the "in god we trust" argument first, found out that the supreme court had aready ruled on it, so went looking for a new way to "make his mark".

The guy who started this WAS a nut, but his name isn't Michael Newdow.

He doesn't give a damn about his daughter, no parent worthy of the name would put their child into a media circus to further a "cause".

His daughter is being taught that her father is not a "true American". Unfortunately for Neadow and everyone else, this issue cannot be brought before the courts by a disinterested party. But his daughter didn't bring the case, and the reporters concentrating on HER are inhuman scum.

It basically comes down to atheists not wanting to haer "god" mentioned.
That all it really is.

Except that it isn't.

[Chris 62]

Never debate a crusader, it's a waste of time.

Whatever you say Jack.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I knew you were a crusader, just didn't know for what, now I know.

You apointed yourself "watchdog" of america, ever vigilant that those damn Fundementalist Christians can never make an in roadfs in the deity neutral society you say is best for all.

Guilty as charged.

You were never interested in a debate from anyone, you were just pushing an agenda.
How boring

Without people with agendas, there would be no debates.

[Dr Strangelove]

In the paper today there is an article reporting that a group has offered legal representation to defend the girl's name. I presume that they are going to bring action against the father. The father has gone on record as saying that he deliberately kept the girl's name off the case record because the action was more about him than her.

How can a non-custodial parent bring a suit superficially on a child's behalf to suit his own, not the child's interest? The child is an acknowledged Christian. Surely for this man to bring the suit on her behalf demonstrates an utter disinterest in her mental well being. I predict that there will be personal repercussions for him because of this action. He obviously has no regards for the child's feelings and should be cut off from custody.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In the paper today there is an article reporting that a group has offered legal representation to defend the girl's name.

In what paper? Do they have a website? I'd like to see the article myself if possible.

I predict that there will be personal repercussions for him because of this action. He obviously has no regards for the child's feelings and should be cut off from custody.

I predict that doing that is going to be quite hard. He's set himself up grounds to demand the removal of judges that are Christian and possibly other montheistic religions. Whether such a tactic could be sucessful, I have no idea.