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

[Jack the Bodiless]

Deism is probably the closest to an "official" religion in the US, even for those Founding Fathers who were nominally Christian in their own beliefs. After all, they signed the Treaty of Tripoli without hesitation: "As the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The official deity of the United States may be the foundation of human rights, but is not to be relied upon to uphold those rights. As the God of Deism doesn't intervene in human affairs, "in God we trust" is incompatible with Deism.

[Jack the Bodiless]

From this article:

Some of the most famous founders - Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams - are often labeled deists, followers of a religion of sufficient ambiguity that writers differ even about whether or not to capitalize the "d."

Deism's basic tenet is that a deity created the universe, governs through natural laws and can be understood by reason alone. In 18th-century America, this deity was called God, Creator, Nature's God, the Supreme Judge (these terms can be found in the Declaration of Independence, written by Jefferson).

This Creator, according to strict deists, does not intervene in human affairs and thus does not favor certain people or nations, does not perform miracles and cannot be appealed to in prayer (God should be thanked in prayers, however). God does not operate through revelation, they reasoned. The Bible, they argued, was instructive but not inspired.

[Sava]

Settle down Lincoln... it doesn't mean he was wrong...

[Lincoln]

I suggest that people read the many letters between Jefferson and John Adams before they conclude that they did not believe that God intervenes in the affairs of nations. Washington also believed that God has something quite relevant to do with the affairs of nations. Adams believed in a direct revelation of God as evangelical Christians do today. Jefferson leaned more to human reason as the means to understanding God. If people want to call this 'diesm' then so be it, but diesm= theism so I don't see how that changes anything. Almost all of the founders called themselves Christian by the way.

If two words in the pledge was the only issue then I would say take them out (but that will never happen due to popular support, including almost unanimous support of both houses of congress and the Supreme
Court's own decisions and precedents).

The man of course, as he stated, will never be content to remove those two horrible words. He wants to transform this culture which is historically and legally based upon the belief in God to a purely atheist culture which I suppose might let people believe in God if they promise not to bother him and his fellow fanatical atheist friends. He has even gone so far that he uses his daughter (who believes in God along with her mother) to further his own agenda. The courts may as well stop him here. If he wants an atheist culture then he needs to start his own revolution.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie.

Atheists and Jehova's Witnesses are not compelled or expected to say the pledge. I forget the SCOTUS case that settled this issue but I could find out for you if you wish.

Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God".

Oh please! Not Atheist Today again. Are you able to find an article from a major publication that confirms that the remark was ever actually made?

2) It's the same pledge.

Adults are a seperate Constitutional question and are irrelevent to this case.

[Jack the Bodiless]

1) It's a point of principle. Atheists should not be compelled or expected to lie.

Atheists and Jehova's Witnesses are not compelled or expected to say the pledge. I forget the SCOTUS case that settled this issue but I could find out for you if you wish.

The phrase I used was "compelled or expected". Regardless of SCOTUS, there is certainly an expectation that people will say the pledge, including the words "under God". It isn't right that atheists should be required either to lie or to identify themselves as atheists on this issue. It should not be relevant what a person's religious beliefs are in this situation.

Also, there is widespread (illegal) compulsion.

The principle stands. The pledge was altered with the deliberate intent of intimidating atheists, by Eisenhower's own admission. This is NOT right, and should be ended.

Furthermore, this ties in with Bush Senior's alleged remark that atheists don't deserve to be U.S. citizens, precisely because of "under God".

Oh please! Not Atheist Today again. Are you able to find an article from a major publication that confirms that the remark was ever actually made?

I said "alleged" remark. But the allegation is widely known. Has Bush ever denied saying it?

And the rhetoric coming now from many Christians certainly "ties in" with this sentiment. Many are now saying similar things: that America is "a Christian nation" and that to imply otherwise is unpatriotic. Witness Bush Junior's contempt for those who wish to restore the pledge to its original form. Many atheists have been subjected to diatribes from rabid Christians screeching that the evil atheists are trying to destroy American civilization.

2) It's the same pledge.

Adults are a seperate Constitutional question and are irrelevent to this case.

But the objective of this case is not to ensure that schoolkids don't have to say "under God". The objective is to remove "under God" from the pledge entirely. It does not belong there, and nobody should be required to say it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The phrase I used was "compelled or expected". Regardless of SCOTUS, there is certainly an expectation that people will say the pledge, including the words "under God".

Not in this case and not in my own personal experience.

Also, there is widespread (illegal) compulsion.

As you admit, that's already illegal.

The principle stands. The pledge was altered with the deliberate intent of intimidating atheists,

"Legal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most" - Judge Ferdinand Fernandez

I said "alleged" remark. But the allegation is widely known. Has Bush ever denied saying it?

1) The allegation appears on various websites and is usually in one format. That tells me that it is a widely popular allegation and says nothing about its veracity. 2) It never appeared in a serious publication. Why would he bother issuing a public of a rumor no one seems to be paying serious attention to? 3) Why are you using rumors to bolster an arguement anyway?

But the objective of this case is not to ensure that schoolkids don't have to say "under God".

That may or may not be the ultimate objective but that wasn't the result of this case. Assuming that the opinion withstands appeal, you'll have to bring another case to settle the question of adults and the pledge.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
What you Europeans fail to grasp is that the phrase "Under God" is not ideological but merely descriptive:

We burned women to death in Salem, Mass. -- in the name of God (they were witches, after all; if we let them live, they'd eventually encourage our children to read Harry Potter).

We exterminated whole peoples living in North America -- because God gave this land to us, not them (and how do we know? God told us so).

We justified the existence of slavery in the South -- in the name of God (blacks being the children of Ham and therefore condemned to servitude; as Kent Brockman once said, "It's in the Bible, people!").

We passed laws against the employment of the Irish -- in the name of God (Who, everyone knows, is a Protestant).

We looked the other way as the Ku Klux Klan ran amok, committing violence against blacks, Jews, and Catholics -- while marching under the symbol of the Cross.

We curtailed federal investigations of abortion clinic bombing -- because those bombing were the work of God-loving Christians.

We are a nation Under God -- in much the same way that Italy was once a nation Under Mussolini. God help us all.

Do we have to drag out all the horrors committed in the last century by atheists?

[Boris Godunov]

Which atheists have committed horrors in the name of Atheism?

[Jack the Bodiless]

From this article:

Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.

"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

It gets worse! New Presidents do NOT have to pledge "so help me God"!

This is revisionism gone mad! In the interests of "preserving history", they'll be trying to overthrow the First Amendment if this continues!

It's rather like lifting up a stone and seeing what's crawling around under there.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Which atheists have committed horrors in the name of Atheism?

Uuuh! I wanna know too!
Will it be a list with names like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-


Uuuh! I wanna know too!
Will it be a list with names like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

If it is, it would be full of Red Herrings (no pun intended).

[Caligastia]

God forbid that anyone be offended.

Oops I just offended someone.

This just goes to show that atheists can be just as dogmatic as any fire-and-brimstone TV evangelist.

[Jack the Bodiless]

And just why do theists continue to play with this strawman? How many have objected to hearing other people mention God?

The principle is that WE should not be expected to recite a pledge to God to be considered "true Americans".

So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The principle is that WE should not be expected to recite a pledge to God to be considered "true Americans".

Nobody expects you to.

So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"?

This is irrelevant. Nobody is being expected to swear to anything.