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

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians. It is therefore equally valid to describe the United States as a "Deist country".

Again, this has nothing to do with "our foolish forebears". The phrase "in God we trust" does not belong on US currency, just as "under God" does not belong in the pledge. The correct motto is "E Pluribus Unum".

Claiming that such things are "historical" and intended by the Founding Fathers is an attempt to rewrite history. It is pure propaganda.

Will there be a Christian "Ministry of Truth" next?

In addition to being a founding father of the United States George Washington was also a founding father of the Protestan Episcopal Church of the United States. His signature is on the original charter.

Thomas Jefferson donated land to the Episcopal Church to build a church adjacent to his Poplar Forest estate and drew up a design. I attend this church. It features one of Jefferson's signature scalloped walls.

John Adams and John Hancock had their own reserved pews at a church in Boston.

Do these sound like the actions of deists?

Ben Franklin and Thomas Payne were definitely deists.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


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

You wish. Does the short history of atheist political philosophy bother you Boris? Well then, you can always close your eyes and deny it. When you open them it will still be there though, so just go to sleep. There you can live in your alternate rea;ity all you want.

[Dr Strangelove]

Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I'm willing to bet that Dad has some plan to use this brouhaha to further his custody case. He can always contest any result not to his liking as having been influenced by publicity. He also might get away with demanding that the judge reveal his/her religious persuasion and manipulate the situation to a condition in which he gets to pick a judge of his liking.

Mon may have held her tounge precisely because they're in the midst of a court proceeding.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


You wish. Does the short history of atheist political philosophy bother you Boris? Well then, you can always close your eyes and deny it. When you open them it will still be there though, so just go to sleep. There you can live in your alternate rea;ity all you want.

Oh baloney. Stalin and Mao were about advancing their own power and that of their party. Communist ideals, while certainly encompassing state atheism, weren't focused on it. There is a difference between acts commited by a political regime wherein athiesm is one of many tenets and those committed expressly in the name of a deity by organizations whose sole focus is the worship of said deity. Stalin and Mao didn't act as representatives for Atheism, they acted as Communists. The two do not necessarily go together.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Oh baloney. Stalin and Mao were about advancing their own power and that of their party. Communist ideals, while certainly encompassing state atheism, weren't focused on it. There is a difference between acts commited by a political regime wherein athiesm is one of many tenets and those committed expressly in the name of a deity by organizations whose sole focus is the worship of said deity. Stalin and Mao didn't act as representatives for Atheism, they acted as Communists. The two do not necessarily go together.

They acted to cleanse their nations of Christianity and other religions. This included murdering millions of Christians. They did this because they adhered to a political philosophy which was avowedly atheist and which considered religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity, as the mortal enemy. It is a prime article of Marxist faith that religion is an enemy of Marxism's atheistic philosophy and must be destroyed. It is ridiculous to argue that they were merely furthering their power when they undertook their purges because neither of these men faced serious opposition from religious organizations in their country ( up to the point where they began murdering clergy and believers ).

[- Groucho -]

It is astonishing how many straw men are getting trotted out by the theists in this thread. It is equally astonishing that after being asked numerous times, none of them has ever answered the common question: Would you care if the pledge said "without god" or "under Satan" or some other non-Christian variation on the theme?

As for the bull**** being spewn about no-one being expected to state "under God", it just isn't true. "Under God" is in the pledge my five year old has been taught in kindergarten, and we've told her that she is expected to do what her kindergarten teacher tells her. If that ain't an expectation I have no idea what is.

Also, I'm trying to raise my kids in a way that will enable them to make their own decisions about theism. After a year of kindergarten, my daughter now has the idea that God's existence is an unshakeable truth. She certainly didn't learn that at home. It pisses me off that she learned it in public school. My wife is a deist, I'm an atheist and both of us have been careful to tell our kids that it is an issue of belief that they have plenty of time to make their own mind up about. I would thank the school system to stop undermining all our hard work.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
So you'd have no objection to personally being expected to swear to "Satan, Prince of Darkness"?

You see no difference between God and Satan?

YOU having to say God is like US having to say Satan?

Wouldn't it be us having to say "under nothing", rather than Satan?

After a year of kindergarten, my daughter now has the idea that God's existence is an unshakeable truth.She certainly didn't learn that at home. It pisses me off that she learned it in public school. My wife is a deist, I'm an atheist and both of us have been careful to tell our kids that it is an issue of belief that they have plenty of time to make their own mind up about. I would thank the school system to stop undermining all our hard work.

You are assuming that administrators in the public school taught her that God is real. Did you consider the possibility that maybe it was the influence of class mates?

How upset would you be if your daughter came home after a year of kindergarten with the idea that God's NON-existence is an unshakeable truth?

On a side note, it's funny how many of you say we should make up for the mistakes of the '50s, because of the no-tolerance, heavy Christian atmosphere that caused "under God" to be added. Now, why didn't we have Columbines in the 50s? My dad remembered one student actually bringing a rifle to school, as part of a history project, and it was ok. They didn't worry about the student shooting up the school.

I wonder why not...

[Aeson]

How upset would you be if your daughter came home after a year of kindergarten with the idea that God's NON-existence is an unshakeable truth?

Quite upset (if I had a daughter). School shouldn't teach about a god or lack thereof, it isn't it's purpose.

[Chris 62]

What a silly thread.

You can't have a Satan without a God, they are the Ying/Yang of the west.
Believe in one, you believe in the other.

As for all the "watchdogs" of US civil liberties, the world won't come to an end with saying two words, stop acting as if the fate of humanity rests on this.

You don't want to say it don't, but your NOT going to force ME to STOP saying it, no matter how many dopey judges you find.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You see no difference between God and Satan?

YOU having to say God is like US having to say Satan?

Wouldn't it be us having to say "under nothing", rather than Satan?

Obviously, the analogy isn't perfect, because I don't believe in Satan, and many Christians do.

However, many evils and atrocities have been attributed to God, both in real life (the Crusades, Inquisition etc) and within the Bible (genocides, slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn etc). Swearing allegiance to this deity is not equivalent to swearing allegiance to "nothing".

Would you be happy swearing allegiance to Stalin, maybe?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Chris 62
What a silly thread.

You can't have a Satan without a God, they are the Ying/Yang of the west.
Believe in one, you believe in the other.

As for all the "watchdogs" of US civil liberties, the world won't come to an end with saying two words, stop acting as if the fate of humanity rests on this.

You don't want to say it don't, but your NOT going to force ME to STOP saying it, no matter how many dopey judges you find.

Who is trying to stop YOU saying it?

Consider the Presidential oath. It does NOT include any references to God. But nobody has stopped successive Presidents tacking "so help me God" on the end.

[Chris 62]

The 9th circuit court, if the news is correct, or haven't you noticed?

This thread is like any anti-religion thread, "Look at all the evil done in the name of religion" while totally ignoring that the concept of religionless society is less then a century and a half old, in other words, such a comparison is absurd.

So far, the attempts at "religionless" societies have been far worse then any religion at it's worst, we can dismiss the appolgists who say "it was Stalin/Mao/whomever's greed that did it!"
Are the people who say that smart enough to realize the things done in the name of religion that were evil were also done of the greed of whomever was in charge in each instance?

Apparently not, from the silly things said by quite a few here.
The seperation is simple and well defined, no "church of the USA", no bishop, cardinal, or such, making direct political decissions.

When somebody tries to violate that, then come see me, but stop wasting my time complainging about a pledge if you don't believe, just don't say it.

And bare this in mind, if the athiests want a showdown with the theists, the atheists will lose, there are far more thiests then the inverse.
This nation still functions on the rule of the majority, the minority cannot be permitted to control the majority in the fashion that court is attempting.

That's life in the real world.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
As for all the "watchdogs" of US civil liberties, the world won't come to an end with saying two words, stop acting as if the fate of humanity rests on this.

So why does it matter if those two words are in there or not? They are offensive to some, if there is no particular purpose in them, then why not drop them and allow everyone to add or refrain from saying whatever they would like in that slot.

If the words 'under God' do serve a purpose in the Pledge, then please explain what that purpose is.

You don't want to say it don't, but your NOT going to force ME to STOP saying it, no matter how many dopey judges you find.

This isn't about stopping people from saying 'under God' in the Pledge. You are free to say just about anything you'd like on your own time. This is about the class time in publicly funded schools, and how it should be used.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Aeson
So why does it matter if those two words are in there or not?

Because the MAJORITY of Americans want them there, and THAT is the basis of American society, not small pressure groups.

They are offensive to some, if there is no particular purpose in them, then why not drop them and allow everyone to add or refrain from saying whatever they would like in that slot.

It is offensive to MOST to remove them, who is being unreasonable, think about it.
Where does it end?
I don't like "he", so let's strike that.
The term "In other words" offends me, let's ban that.
Stupid nonsense, just like this.
This country is built on the will of the PEOPLE, not the special interest minority groups.

If the words 'under God' do serve a purpose in the Pledge, then please explain what that purpose is.

That this nation was forged and mainted under god.
You don't want to believe that, that's your problem.
Get your self a majority and then you can do whatever you like, untill then, it stays in.

This isn't about stopping people from saying 'under God' in the Pledge. You are free to say just about anything you'd like on your own time. This is about the class time in publicly funded schools, and how it should be used.

It will be used by the will of the majority of Americans, just as all our laws and customs always have.

God help us if we let the pressure groups ditate to us.

[Jack the Bodiless]

And bare this in mind, if the athiests want a showdown with the theists, the atheists will lose, there are far more thiests then the inverse.
This nation still functions on the rule of the majority, the minority cannot be permitted to control the majority in the fashion that court is attempting.

That's life in the real world.

And this is precisely the sort of "tyranny of the majority" that the Constitution was designed to prevent. Thank you for proving my point.

This isn't a minority wishing to control a majority, this is a majority seeking to oppress a minority, and an attempt to invoke the Constitution that supposedly defends against that.

But, apparently, the majority wishes to override the Constitution to carry on oppressing the minority. And Congress is packed with traitors concerned only with hanging on to Christian votes.