or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › "Under God" girl isn't an atheist...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Under God" girl isn't an atheist...

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
Hmm.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/11/pledge.daughter.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/11/pledge.daughter.ap/index.html</a>

Seems as though her old man was more bent out of shape about the Pledge wording than she ever was.

Odd. I was under the impression that SHE had a problem with it, ran home and told her Dad that she feels horrible having to say "under God..." everyday and her Dad steps up and takes action.

Now it seems the girl never had a problem with it, it was the dad. And he wasn't in a setting where HE had to recite the pledge every morning (grade school or whatever).

So, why all the fuss and brouhaha?
post #2 of 34
Because it doesn't change the reality of the situation at all?

Separation of church and state still applies.

I don't care what lame arguments people have about whether "God" can be defined loosely or with artistic license or whatever. We all know what it means.

And as I am not a monotheist or religious at all, I have never accepted slogans like "under God" and "In God we trust." They don't make sense to a person who doesn't explicitly believe in God.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #3 of 34
Okay, I'm not religous and I've never had a problem reciting the Pledge of Allegience. Am I just werid or something? I also don't get angry when I look at coins. Is this also weird?

About the seperation of church and state thing, I don't understand why people use this as an argument. Seperation of church and state clearly means simply that the actual church doesn't have power, like clergy don't hold government positions and have authority. It means we can't have a government like in middle eastern countries which are partially controlled by muslim clerics. Saying 'god' soesn't mean the government is controlled by the church. I think people need to be more aware and make the distinction between the two.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #4 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Because it doesn't change the reality of the situation at all?

Separation of church and state still applies.</strong><hr></blockquote>But someone does have to be harmed to have a case. The father will have to argue that he is the one being harmed by not being allowed to raise his daughter the way he wants, which, I think, is different from his initial argument, and less persuasive.

Too bad, because I do think it was wrong for Congress to specifically include "under God" in a pledge that public schools require their classes to recite. But it'll probably never be challenged again, right or wrong.
post #5 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>Okay, I'm not religous and I've never had a problem reciting the Pledge of Allegience. Am I just werid or something? I also don't get angry when I look at coins. Is this also weird?</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's not that I have a problem with it and I can't bring myself to say it. I've recited it many times in elementary school. The problem very simply is it shouldn't be there and it should never have been there.

Something has to change. Either our country is based upon religion or it isn't. There's no gray area. What's it going to be?
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #6 of 34
<strong>Originally posted by G4Dude:
Okay, I'm not religous and I've never had a problem reciting the Pledge of Allegience. Am I just werid or something? I also don't get angry when I look at coins. Is this also weird?</strong>

No. But that isn't the point, you being offended. It's about the power of the goverment being used to promulgate religion.

<strong>About the seperation of church and state thing, I don't understand why people use this as an argument. Seperation of church and state clearly means simply that the actual church doesn't have power, like clergy don't hold government positions and have authority.</strong>

It is explicitly stated in the Constitution that there will be no religious test for a government position. Any clergyperson can be a politician. What they can't do is use the power of the gov't to expouse their religion. They proclaim their religiousness all they want, but that cannot attach state power to their religious beliefs.

Note that now apparently, the politicians are whoring themselves to the public by saying that there will be a test. They don't even realize they are violating the Constitution.

<strong>It means we can't have a government like in middle eastern countries which are partially controlled by muslim clerics. Saying 'god' soesn't mean the government is controlled by the church. I think people need to be more aware and make the distinction between the two.</strong>

It means that the power of government cannot be used to promulgate a religion. It's as simple as that. That's how State led school prayer was ruled unconstitutional. A child is said to be coerced and given an unlevel playing through peer pressure, ostracism, et al when they are silent in a teacher led school prayer.
post #7 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

It's not that I have a problem with it and I can't bring myself to say it. I've recited it many times in elementary school. The problem very simply is it shouldn't be there and it should never have been there.

Something has to change. Either our country is based upon religion or it isn't. There's no gray area. What's it going to be?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, when our country was founded, it was not unusual to have religous references like this. This is just what remains. I don't mean to say that at one time we were ruled by priests but back in the 18th century, most people went to church and certainly the writing on coins would be considered nonoffensive and even normal. However, as to the pledge of allegence, I can't explain why "under god" was added so late (1950's). That really doesn't make sense. But here's how I view it. If it doesn't bug me, and it makes other people happy, leave it. I don't think it is a big deal at all. I guess it takes a lot to offend me so I should keep myself out of this discussion.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #8 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>Okay, I'm not religous and I've never had a problem reciting the Pledge of Allegience. Am I just werid or something? I also don't get angry when I look at coins. Is this also weird?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's the whole point. You don't care so you just say it. Other people do care so they shouldn't have to join in.

The right to choose.
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
You cannot conquer Ireland. You cannot extinguish
the Irish passion for freedom. If our deed has not
been sufficient to win freedom, then our children
will win it by a better deed.
Pádraig Pearse

...
Reply
post #9 of 34
Do people not remember that under god was not always in the pledge? It was only put in during a terrible shameful time of our nation's great history: the McCarthy era. We had to show those stinking commies that we weren't godless bastards. Screw that. Religious freedom includes the freedom not to have religion. We can never be one nation under god if the whole of the nation does not all believe in god.

KEEP YOUR god TO YOURSELF!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>Next on the docket: Smith Vs. USA

Plaintiff: John Smith contends that using force in the military violates his religious beliefs. He further contends that he is exempt from paying Federal Income Taxes to support something he does not believe in. He also brings forward a second suit alleging "Separation of Church and State" has been violated and the entire Military System must come into compliance.

Next on the docket: Fill in the Blank

Next on the docket: Fill in the Blank

Next on the docket: Fill in the Blank

Peace </strong><hr></blockquote>

fellowship, you are pretty ridiculous sometimes. the military isn't being pulled down. no part of the government is. people just don't want to be forced to believe in a gohd. if i don't believe in a single god, i shouldn't be forced to declare my nation to him.

i pledge allegiance to .. one nation, under one, several or no, god(s) ...
post #11 of 34
Guys it's pointless to argue. God will NOT be driven out of Gov nor will he be Driven into Atheists. You cannot give preference to one without desecrating the other. The ONLY fair solution is to allow the freedom of expression.

You do NOT have a constitional right to not be offended. PERIOD.

Back on Topic. Newdow isn't helping his Custody case any be displaying dishonestly on such a National Scale. He's playing with fire.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #12 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>

Well, when our country was founded, it was not unusual to have religous references like this. This is just what remains. I don't mean to say that at one time we were ruled by priests but back in the 18th century, most people went to church and certainly the writing on coins would be considered nonoffensive and even normal.
[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>Not true, the words "in God We Trust" came late in our countries history as the founding fathers really, truly honestly believed in the seperation of chrch and state!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #13 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>Not true, the words "in God We Trust" came late in our countries history as the founding fathers really, truly honestly believed in the seperation of chrch and state!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I still do! Religion and government have no business in each others affairs.
post #14 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Guys it's pointless to argue. God will NOT be driven out of Gov nor will he be Driven into Atheists. You cannot give preference to one without desecrating the other. The ONLY fair solution is to allow the freedom of expression.

You do NOT have a constitional right to not be offended. PERIOD.

Back on Topic. Newdow isn't helping his Custody case any be displaying dishonestly on such a National Scale. He's playing with fire.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But the foundation of our government commands that we go one way and not the other. Don't be sour because it's headed in a direction you dislike. In fact i'm pretty sure "under God" and "In God we trust" will eventually be more unpopular than popular. What then? The majority of the world population probably does not fall "under God." Hindus? Nope? Almost all Chinese people? No. Africans? Most do not worship a single God.

"Back on Topic?" Please...the topic was "what's the big deal?" Don't try to steer us off topic.

I'm not religious. I don't view religious people as desecrating anything as long as they don't infringe upon my right to lack of faith. There is no desecration in removing religion from government. Don't be absurd. One's right to practice religion is not in any danger at all.

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #15 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Guys it's pointless to argue. God will NOT be driven out of Gov nor will he be Driven into Atheists. You cannot give preference to one without desecrating the other. The ONLY fair solution is to allow the freedom of expression.

You do NOT have a constitional right to not be offended. PERIOD.

Back on Topic. Newdow isn't helping his Custody case any be displaying dishonestly on such a National Scale. He's playing with fire.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You don't have a constitutional right to ram religion down my throat.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #16 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>Not true, the words "in God We Trust" came late in our countries history as the founding fathers really, truly honestly believed in the seperation of chrch and state!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorta. It's been on and off our currencies for some time. The last time the slogan was added to our currencies was in the 1960s. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

<a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html" target="_blank">http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html</a>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #17 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Xidius:
[QB]If my daughter (if i had one) had to say that everyday, I would take offence too! Its a bad influence, brainwashing children when they are young.

All you people here defending the "undergod" were either told of gawd when young, therefor impressioned, or you had some incident where your feable brain made the connection of what really happens when you die, u then got scared, and ran to the nearest church.

/QB]<hr></blockquote>

What about people like me, are there no people like me??? I was in cub scouts through elementary school and had to recite the plege of allegience every day at the meetings. I am not religous and never cared about saying "god." It never mattered to me. I still don't mind it and I don't think it ever will. I also don't look at my money in anger. It's not brainwashing children either.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #18 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>

What about people like me, are there no people like me??? I was in cub scouts through elementary school and had to recite the plege of allegience every day at the meetings. I am not religous and never cared about saying "god." It never mattered to me. I still don't mind it and I don't think it ever will. I also don't look at my money in anger. It's not brainwashing children either.</strong><hr></blockquote>

G4Dude, you're not the only person in this world. Shouldn't Americans be offended because their own government so obviously and willingly treads on its own foundations?
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #19 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

G4Dude, you're not the only person in this world. Shouldn't Americans be offended because their own government so obviously and willingly treads on its own foundations?</strong><hr></blockquote>

And the last thing we need right now is a president who invokes god every other sentence and uses terms such as crusade. Great tactics when fighting a bunch of religious nuts.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #20 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>

And the last thing we need right now is a president who invokes god every other sentence and uses terms such as crusade. Great tactics when fighting a bunch of religious nuts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was just thinking about stuff like this. It made me think that if we take out "under god" from the pledge, and "in god we trust" from our coins, that this gives terrorists more "reasons" to attack us. Not only, in their eyes, will we be evil, but we will be godless too. Not a good combination.
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #21 of 34
More reasons? They're already referring to us as Jewo-Christian crusaders. Why? Give you a hint, because the extreme Islamic fundamentalists know this will stir up more hate than referring to us as godless infidels.

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #22 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>More reasons? They're already referring to us as Jewo-Christian crusaders. Why? Give you a hint, because the extreme Islamic fundamentalists know this will stir up more hate than referring to us as godless infidels.

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok, you're probably right
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #23 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>I was in cub scouts through elementary school and had to recite the plege of allegience every day at the meetings. I am not religous and never cared about saying "god." It never mattered to me. I still don't mind it and I don't think it ever will. I also don't look at my money in anger.</strong><hr></blockquote>Saying "I'm not offended" is just a way of diminishing what really is a deep constitutional and social issue. It's not about being "offended;" it's about the underlying principle. It's simply apathy to say "it doesn't bother me, so therefore it's fine."

Can you imagine if all our social issues were resolved in that way? People don't give a damn about any political/constitutional issues, so politicians could do whatever they wanted - everyone would just say "that's OK, it doesn't bother me." Oh yeah, that's what's happening now anyway.

Although the pledge doesn't exactly have any earth-shattering consequences in itself, it's hard to argue that the underlying issue of church & state is unimportant.
post #24 of 34
This excerpt is quite telling to me:
"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,"' Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."

I'll bet these people are getting harrassed like crazy about this.

Very sad, very very sad.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #25 of 34
Thread Starter 
I doubt it. People that REALLY know the daughter and mother should already know what their beliefs are, right? I mean, if they're in the church and are practicing Christians, their friends, family and fellow congregation members should know that this whole thing was less about the daughter than the father.

If that's so, what's to harrass about?

Their friends, family and congregation are going to know the mom and daughter better than the news or any of us.

Now, the DAD...he's probably dealing with some bullshit...

post #26 of 34
I don't doubt it.

First reason I think that: They came on CNN or whatever to say that they were good Christians.

Second reason: There's precedent, the people who made the big move in getting prayer out of school were harrassed so much they had to move to a different state and (correct me if I'm wrong) change their names.

Factor that in with how absolutely outraged people were at the 9th's decision and I think it makes sense.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #27 of 34
Thread Starter 
So YOUR wild-ass theories, "what ifs" and scenarios make impeccable sense and are grounded in reasoned logic? And mine are fevered paranoid, overwrought rantings of an oppressed, angry white male?

Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?

You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?

Just making sure, so I know how to proceed and play the game!

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Woo-hoo!

'rat, my brother, you'd argue with a headlight if you thought there was any adventure in it.

You're TOTALLY in the wrong field, and are wasting your time with this journalism stuff. Get thee to a law school...you're missing your true calling! Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).



Shit, you could probably get the Devil himself off a shoplifting rap!

"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."



Think about it. You'd get to wear a cool suit and probably drive a pretty snazzy car!
post #28 of 34
[quote]So YOUR wild-ass theories, "what ifs" and scenarios make impeccable sense and are grounded in reasoned logic? And mine are fevered paranoid, overwrought rantings of an oppressed, angry white male?<hr></blockquote>

My theory has precedent and a little evidence.

[quote]Are those the rules? Is that how it's going to go? I'm always wrong, you're always right?<hr></blockquote>

Am I the one who said he was always right... or was that you?

[quote]You've got book learning and meticulous source-citing on your side, and I've got common sense and experience on mine?<hr></blockquote>

Hey hey hey, no need to get personal here.

[quote]Without a doubt, the most contrarian, argumentative mother****er I've EVER know (I mean that in a nice way, of course).<hr></blockquote>

It takes two to tango, sexy.

[quote]"Your honor, my client's red skin and forked tail has made him a victim of society's prejudices! When he was nabbed by security with the 47 Husker Du CDs, he was merely attempting to decide which ones to purchase. It was NOT shoplifting. My client was also beaten by police outside Tower Records, immediately following the arrest. I want to submit this videotape as defense exhibit 733. It says right here in the Texas penal code, Section 43, article 4.11.b that..."<hr></blockquote>

There wasn't nearly enough rhyming and not nearly enough big (read: fabricated) words in that. You aren't a real lawyer if you don't sound like Jackie Childs.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #29 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>
I was just thinking about stuff like this. It made me think that if we take out "under god" from the pledge, and "in god we trust" from our coins, that this gives terrorists more "reasons" to attack us. Not only, in their eyes, will we be evil, but we will be godless too. Not a good combination.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 34
Thread Starter 
Is Jackie Childs that lawyer on "Seinfeld"? The one Kramer went to after he burned himself with the coffee?
post #31 of 34
Yes, yes he is.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #32 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by BR:
<strong>

No. As long as we don't believe in their god, we are screwed either way. Stop using jesus as an excuse to be a narrow-minded, bigoted asshole.</strong><hr></blockquote>

same god. as for the rest of it, LOL
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
I have a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell.
Reply
post #33 of 34
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>

same god.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not according to the whacks that want us dead.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #34 of 34
Sounds like an unfortunate family situation which is sad, but doesn't change the merits of the case.

As an eight year old I'm sure she wouldn't object to eating candy all day or being taught that UFOs or psychics are real. But her father certainly has the right to object to such things.

Also, I think it's pretty firmly established that parents have the right to raise their kids according their religious beliefs (provided the don't entail beatings, mutalation, or psychological torture). I can't remember if "Christian Scientists" are allowed to deny blood transfusions for their dying kids or not, but I believe that crosses the line.

[ 07-13-2002: Message edited by: Nordstrodamus ]</p>

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply

--
"Evolution is not random. Mutation is random, but natural selection is entirely non-random. Evolution doesn't predict that all the complexity of life just came together randomly. "

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › "Under God" girl isn't an atheist...