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

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    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>
  • Reply 2 of 33
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [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.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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?
  • Reply 5 of 33
    thttht Posts: 3,209member
    <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.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [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>
  • Reply 7 of 33
    macfenianmacfenian Posts: 276member
    [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.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    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!
  • Reply 9 of 33
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    [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) ...
  • Reply 10 of 33
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,268member
    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.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [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!
  • Reply 12 of 33
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    [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.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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>
  • Reply 14 of 33
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [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.
  • Reply 15 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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>;
  • Reply 16 of 33
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [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.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [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?
  • Reply 18 of 33
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [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.
  • Reply 19 of 33
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [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.
  • Reply 20 of 33
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    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>
Sign In or Register to comment.