Just out of curiosity, if it's OK to you for the Pledge to include the word God becuase children aren't forced to say it (other than for peer acceptance, of course), is it OK for public schools to include statues of Jesus? After all, nobody would be forced to look at it?
Depends on the context, dylan...what kind of class is it?? is it a history classroom?? my favorite history teacher had some old nazi flags in his room...i'm somewhat offended at the very sight of the swastika...but it has historical relevance I can't ignore. I don't think one can ignore the influence of Christianity on western civilization. I wouldn't encourage a teacher to have a statute of Christ in his classroom....but he might be able to make a compelling argument in an art class of having renaissance paintings of the Virgin Mary and the Christ child....that's not that far off of from what you're talking about. "Under God' is FAR less an establishment of religion (preferring one over another) than putting up statues of Jesus Christ. As a side note...Christians don't worship statues...the very presence of images like that encouraged a guy named Martin Luther to break off from the Catholic church. Christ made some pretty strong comments about not worshipping images...and about God not being able to be confined in big temples and ornate sculptures.
That is not even anywhere close to what I am saying. The presence of "God" does not recognize a religion. Jesus on the other hand clearly does.
People on here keep talking about "what if we changed the word 'God' to 'Allah.' I'm no expert, but don't Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same God? I thought 'Allah' was just the Arabic word for 'God.' Jeff-Good point (a long time ago when this thread was rational) about how it is against some religions to proclaim your faith in another deity. I still have to say, though, that if you don't believe in that deity, you're not proclaiming your faith. My high school government teacher asked us on the first day of class to write down the five rights of the first amendment (freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion petition). Then she asked us all to decide which one we could live without. Most of the class said something like petition just because we were all 17 and didn't know anything. She brought up the point that she would want it to be religion. Her reasoning was that the government *can* actually take away all other rights but they cannot change your thoughts. If they make you sit down and pray, they have know way of knowing who you are praying to (unless you say a different god's name outloud). IMO, I think my god would understand the situation at hand and that if I truly believed, it didn't matter what I do to appease the government. It's a technicallity, really, but it does give you something to think about. dylan-good point also. At U of H, the president got many emails, phone calls and letters about a Right to Life dispay on campus. His response to my email was that it was their right to free speech and that if I didn't want to look at it, I didn't have to. However, when it's in the center of campus and I *have* to walk by it everyday, it's a little hard to 'not look.' They would take out Jesus statues though. It seems that when people are offended about religion, that takes precedent over everything else. I learned to deal with the horrid display of unborn fetuses. Why can't others deal with 'under God' or other things that offend them?
You really think saying something that's against your beliefs is as easy as not looking at something distasteful?
Were they <b>just</b> unborn or was their something more sinister about the photos? I've seen pictures of <b>smiling</b> unborn fetuses.
I do recognize that you don't want statues of Christ in public schools and I wasn't trying to imply that you did. But the presence of "God" does indeed, by definition, recognize a religion. Not any specific recognition, granted, but it certainly does exclude all those who worship either no god or multiple Gods.
Yes it does. Is there a real solution though? If you take out "God" then all of the atheist/multiple god/etc believers will be happy but everyone else won't. I just think at the present time this issue is not worth all of this fuss. I would rather the justice dept be hunting down terrorist/murderers/rapist/drug dealers than dealing with this.
Justice Dept. Seeks Pledge Hearing here's a quote from this article: "Bush, in Canada for an economic summit, said the United States needs "commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God," and that he would appoint such judges." our rights were derived from god? Did Bush come down from the mountain with this information? I thought our rights were derived from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution!?!? Since when did the Constitution become a religous text inspired by god? Suddenly the Constitution is on the same level as the bible? Please discuss....
according to the Declaration of Independence, your rights precede the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...your rights come from a Creator or nature (natural law)...this is said to be self-evident. Government comes later....your rights don't derive from any government...and that's why government, according to the Constitution,can't take them away. the bill of rights is merely an acknowledgement of SOME of those inalienable rights.
There has been a concerted effort by some in our society to "sanitize" from our culture anything that may be offensive to anyone. Let's face it, I see/hear things every day that offend me, and I'm sure everyone else does as well, but that's ok, diversity of thought & ideas is a wonderful thing. I think the saddest thing about this whole episode is how this gentleman, instead of explaining to his daughter that people are different but we all respect each other's views - "we" don't believe in god but many/most others do, it's ok to not say that part of the pledge, etc... - decided to take this to court. Great example, guy, whenever something's bothering you or you see something you don't like, don't talk about it, don't be rational & open-minded, just file a few lawsuits & that'll make it all better.
Oh hell...soon we'll have to give back our money to get the words "In God We Trust" scraped off. But I am going to be extra careful and make sure I get all mine back after they are done with it. Every last penny. How are they going to edit our constitution and all the other historical, sacred documents? White out? This is crazy.
Actually, that is bit wrong. You probably can already predict one reason why I say that. But the other "wrong" is that Luther, while he did have serious problems with idolotry and spearheaded iconoclasm during which many great works were destroyed, did not "break off" from the Catholic church...at least, that was not his intent. His intent was to reform the Church. It is well documented that he later lamented the Protestant Reformation because he felt people had taken it too far.
A couple of points . . . First, the pledge doesn't say "under god" which would be indicative of any and all deities. The pledge says "under God" which, as every Christian should know, implies the Judeo-Christian god (Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, etc.). In fact, "God" is pretty much used exclusively by Christians. So to argue that this phrase doesn't promote a religion is pretty much wrong. Second, to argue that religion would be oppressed by removing this phrase is ludicrous. If Christians feel this country is "under God," nothing is stopping them from believing this or stating it aloud. But kids should't be placed in situations where they're forced to say something that they may not believe or face ridicule and punishment for not saying it. As an atheist, I would be embarrassed if the pledge included a phrase that said something like "one nation, under no god or religion" because I know that this phrase had no real relevance to the purpose of the pledge (pride and loyalty to one's country). Why include a phrase that isolates a significant (if not a majority) part of our population and was added during a period of reactionary intolerance?
straight from the Dec. of Ind. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed so our rights, according to the document, are endowed by a man's creator... it doesn't specify the creator, so different religions can replace the word Creator with whatever higher power they believe in... however for atheists, what exactly does this mean? since they believe in no "Creator" do they not have these unalienable rights?
rimmy -- i'm guessing you'll say some but not all worship images...or at least that it could be interpreted that way. let's just say that it is certainly not the predominant view that the worship of images/idols is an acceptable part of Christianity to the many. I'm aware of Luther's efforts at reform...i mean, it was called the reformation! I think John Calvin wrote some much stronger pieces on not worshipping idols/images though....those ideas I think are still pretty mainstream throughout Christianity...particularly among Protestants...but I think most Catholics would acknowlege the dangers of worshipping idols today too.
i think there were more than a few founding fathers who would say creator = nature in this statement. that man's natural state is one that comes embodied with these rights...the way you and i would talk about human rights today. we have these rights not because someone gave them to us..but simply because we're human.
If the man had explained to his daughter (and I don't know if he has or not, b/c he hasn't stated on the record either way) had merely explained that his family doesn't believe in a god, but must respect the others that do... and taken no other action, he would be a hypocrite. he would be allowing for his daughter to daily recite something which they believe to be false, and that is the existence of a God. While I feel many lawsuits in this nation are frivolous and a waste of taxpayer's money... after hearing his case on CNN last night, I understand his plight much better. and we're not just talking about any old thing that is bothering him, like say a cup of hot coffee from Mickey D's spiling in his lap, but we're talking about the man's belief in religion and spirituality (or nonbelief in this case, perhaps)... over history we have seen wars, death, and unspeakable actions taking place over the defense of religion, so to call his lawsuit silly isn't right, IMO
The Constitution is not derived from God or on the same level as the Bible. If you read American historical documents , you'll find referneces to God and religion several places, some of which have already been posted on this thread. And the constitution reads that... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." so, saying 'under God' in the pledge does not prohibit the free exercise of any or no religion. And I wouldn't call the pledge "a law that respects establishing a religion." And the Declaration of Independence says... "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." So the idea of religion was included in the founding of our country. The Declaration stated that there were Law's of God and that we should follow those laws. Bush didn't come up with this stuff. In addition, the Constitution is an extension of our "natural rights." Sorry this is brief and somewhat lacking full explanation, but I'm busy at work and piecing this together.
You should tell that to most of my in-laws, their in-laws, friends, etc. Or, go to Latin America. Or Italy... In regards to Luther, all I was trying to point out was that he did not want separation and that he, ultimately, disagreed with the Reformation.
