It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Atheist Joins Others to Sue Over "Under God" In The Pledge Of Allegiance

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:42 AM
link   
The words "under god" remind too much of christianisations sometimes perpetrated by fanatial christians.




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
Or what about, "One nation, indivisible except when you ask us if we're under God or not, with liberty and justice for all..."



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Or what about, "One nation, indivisible except when you ask us if we're under God or not, with liberty and justice for all..."


You could just as well go all the way with this one and just leave it at "one nation, with liberty and justice for all" because as this argument demonstrates we are obviously no longer indivisible. In the last few years I don't see anything that this nation agrees about as a whole, not how far our basic rights go, not about tradition, not about who should lead our nation or how. Might as well admit it and move on.


Issues like this worry me more because if it succeeds it IS another example of a minority opinion circumventing the majority through a court.

By the way, then what do we do about this - the last stanza of our national anthem?


Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


You know what? The mention of a Creator starts in our Declaration of Independence and is found almost everywhere since then. Where will it end if we decide to eradicate it entirely? In the end how can anyone deny that it changes part of what this country was founded on and until the most recent generations was an accepted part of being an American. Go ahead, reprint the money, change every document that mentions God, remove it from all oaths (Does anyone realize the ultimate extent of this argument?) and let's see what is left. Nothing will be left intact, not our tradition, not our history, not anything.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:12 AM
link   
How about "one nation, OVER LAWYERED"?

It's a waste of time, and money. It's for people trying to get attention.

It really doesn't matter anymore, as it is more a "catch phrase" or expression. Maybe a little bit reflective of our past, but so is the expression
"Bless you" after a sneeze. Are you REALLY blessing someone after they sneeze? I think not..

Get OVER it my fellow athiests. Life is short.
(much shorter than Christians, LOL)

[edit on 6-1-2005 by spacedoubt]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
It is a shame that some people still reject Jesus Christ. It is their choice eitherway. It appears that these atheists will stop at nothing. I know good parents should expose their children to Jesus Christ. They then should explain the story behind him and his teachings and leave it up to the children as to wether or not to accept him or reject him. I think it sets a very bad example for parents to purge everything that has something to do with Christ. Speaking for myself, my parents exposed me to Christ when I was 12 and left it up to me as to either reject him or start living by his teachings. Moving down the timeline, I had nothing to do with him for many yrs. and in 1997 I was almost paralized due to an accident at home and wondered why my life was in the pits. I then realized that I had strayed from his teachings for many yrs. and begged him to forgive me. Since then, my life has been very good. It was a shame that it took all of those yrs. and my accident to get me back with him. From the time I was 12 up till I was 39 I always wondered why my life sucked in many areas. I feel sorry for the atheists referred to in this thread because in essence they are leading their children down a very dark path and all they have to do is ask and they will have the light to guide them through life.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
That is a good point. Should the description "in god we trust" be eleiminated as well? In this context I have to say yes. Question. How many other currencies in the world have a reference to god in them?


Nah, they'll just have to round up all the paper currency and put periods in so it can be official.

In G.O.D.* We Trust.

*Guns, Oil, Drugs.




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
That is a good point. Should the description "in god we trust" be eleiminated as well? In this context I have to say yes. Question. How many other currencies in the world have a reference to god in them?


I would say none, but then they were all ruled by the Monarchy or dictators
from day one.

Why should we let a select few take away our beliefs, that is what they are trying to do you know?

The United States was founded or created if you will for one very good reason, which was to allow us freedom of religion, freedom of choice, along with free speech.

I say we should leave them both the way they are and not give into a a very small group of fanatics.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 07:28 AM
link   
what a statement from quango : "I mean, atheists can't PROVE there's no God".

That twisted double negative logic can also be used as follows :

* You can't PROVE there's no 300ft marshmallow men living on an alternate earth therefore they must exist !
* You can't PROVE (yet) there's no Green cheese in the centre of the moon so there must be.

We can go on and on. Proof is used to prove that something exists i.e. its up to the believers to PROVE that God exists, an autographed photo would be a good start. How about a global address to the world to explain why he killed children in preference to adults with a big Tsunami as part of his "plan". Oh sorry I forgot, God does not have to explain himself (herself ? hermaphrodite ?) to us mere mortals, so since he/she/it hasn't re Tsunami, that proves he/she/it exists......

Having now lit the blue touch paper I shall step back...................



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I do have to question the merits of the case. The arguement is that having a state official, a teacher, saying the pledge is an endorsement of religion by the authorities. However, while I think its valid for other religions to make this argument, I am not convinced that an atheist can. Atheism is about applying rational thought to this idea of the after life and rejecting the old baseless authoritarian standards of worship and religion. So if newdow is raising his daughter atheist, the teacher's 'endorsement' in reciting the pledge shouldn't matter. I mean, the teacher isn't prevented from saying that they are a member of any religion, thats much more of an endorsement than the pledge, and any child being brought up atheist is going to have to deal with authority and religion anyway. The fact that the congress itself approved the pledge is more important and more authoratative anyway.

So i just find it odd that an atheist wants to indoctrinate their kid in atheism and isolate and protect them from religion. And i find the arguement illogical or at least partial, because he should be suing to have the congress remove the phrase from the pledge all together. It has nothing to do with his kid or her being in school.


Originally posted by FredT
The question is the use of it in a public school.

However, it is the national pledge of alliegance, its a function of the state itself. Perhaps the pledge of alliegance shouldn't have it in it at all. It didn't at one time and it worked out for everyone.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Well why though should the majority have to submit to the minority?

Because the United States is not a country where the tyranny of the majority rules. Its not a mobocracy, its a democracy.


The use of the word "God" on our money does not endorse, promote, ackknowledge the existance, or force one to believe in a God or religion or any specific one at that.

It obviously promotes the existence of god.


Plus think of the trouble it would be to get the "offensive" currency out of circulation and create an entire new line.

Insignificant compared to protecting civil rights. Its a question of civil rights here.


quango
Why not just change the wording to "One nation, which may or may not be under God... " ??

how about just dropping the pledge alltogether, it was written by a socialist in the first place.

Or what about, "One nation, indivisible except when you ask us if we're under God or not, with liberty and justice for all..."

HA, now that I like.

Relentless
The mention of a Creator starts in our Declaration of Independence and is found almost everywhere since then

The deists that were involved in that document were apparently looking for a source of law that could legally challenge the divine right/godsent rule of kings.

The Founders obviously were moderately religious, not fanatically religious nor fanatically atheist. They didn't make a pledge, anthem, or any of that other junk. Its all rather superfluous, and I suspect that some of them would be wary of pledging allegiance to a flag.


Does anyone realize the ultimate extent of this argument?)

I think no one does. The Congress itself opens with a prayer and none of the atheists in the congress seem to have a problem with it. The pledge, song, congress opening with a prayer, its all pretty irrelevant if you ask me. I think that they might be able to reject nedow's suit on just that, irrelevancy

flying high

It is a shame that some people still reject Jesus Christ.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Christ. The founders were largey deists, anti-biblical in some cases and the pledge, money, and anthem can't be taken to mean christ anymore than zeus or shiva.

It appears that these atheists will stop at nothing.

Yeah, stop at nothing, real insidious, requesting that the state not make something that probably is an endorsement of religion. Infact, most of the people backing the phrase seem to be saying that it is an endorsement of religion.

shots
Why should we let a select few take away our beliefs,[/qutoe]
And how is that happening? Atheists are citizens just as much as jews and fire-worshippers. Its their pledge also. The state, sensibly enouh, should be neutral on such matters, to allow people to practice their religion or lack thereof unhindered. Newdow is claiming that his daughter is hindered. The case basically has to be decided on that. Personally, I think his arguement is very weak, and that the pledge isn't going to hinder an atheist.

Tho think of it this way. What about all the patriotic atheists who have to say 'under god' in the pledge? Its a social/cultural thing, they can't just not say it without not participating in it. Why are they excluded from the pledge then? Also, does this exlcusion mean that atheists don't have to show allegiance to the country? Of course not, so why are they given the same responsibilities as everyone else, but not the same benefits?

Making religion less a part of the practices of the state itself does not mean that religion has been hindered.



joedoaks
Jedi has the crux of the entire issue. The majority rules

Law and Constitution rule, not majority.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Well, "under God" wasn't in there originally, so I can agree with this stance. The idea of simply saying "under God", "under Buddha", etc. for the faithful seems perfectly fine.


Funny one. But not to get sidetracked, with all of these atheists and other folk coming after the use of "God" in many public forums, what shall happen when they attack our currency?


Ahh, but our currency is PRIVATELY minted, now isn't it? So one cannot claim against separation of church and state, when the state isn't involved, hehe... Personally, I'd like to see if off that as well...but that's a whole other ballgame.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

The use of the word "God" on our money does not endorse, promote, ackknowledge the existance, or force one to believe in a God or religion or any specific one at that.

It obviously promotes the existence of god.


Plus think of the trouble it would be to get the "offensive" currency out of circulation and create an entire new line.

Insignificant compared to protecting civil rights. Its a question of civil rights here.



Your wrong on both stances. It does not promote the existance of a god. God is just a word, just because it exists and can be usedin sentances does not mean God is real or non-existant. It justs a saying, just because its trusting in God does not mean God is real. If it was "In Yeti We Trust", does that mean the Yeti is real?

How, Nygdan is the use of the phras "In God We Trust" a question of civil rights? Are you so blinded by your apperant hatred of religion that it offends you? That phrase on our coinage and pledge, means nothing. It is not a restricton at all, no one is forcing you to believe in God or to respect him, or even to say the phrase at all.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
So, because one person does not like it it is changed. Instead of having, lawsuits just have your children not say it. I do not see any harm in them saying it they do not have to believe in it if they say it or they could leave out the Under God part. Instead of going on a crusade to get it changed just leave it the same. Saying under god in the pledge of allegiance is not a big deal you can leave it out or just not say the whole pledge at all. It is not fair to the majority to officially change it.

The judges should just make it optional to say it or the under god part. You do not need to make a big deal by suing people just tell your kid they do not have to say it if they dont want to. Forcing your kids not to say it is not good either maybe they want to be religious. Just think about that and you do not need to force your children to be atheist let them make their own decisions. Just think about that.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   

That phrase on our coinage and pledge, means nothing. It is not a restricton at all, no one is forcing you to believe in God or to respect him, or even to say the phrase at all.


You're wrong.

It is a pledge of allegiance to our nation. It is REQUIRED for new citizens to become citizens. It isn't just some saying. It is a legal oath.

In so much, the phrase is in essence requiring me to state that I submit to God (not a god, it specifically states God, capital G). Also, it does NOT give me the freedom to claim allegiance to NO god.

The bottom line is that it wasn't even part of the original pledge of allegiance, and there was a reason for it. The reason is because you were claiming your allegiance to a nation, not a religion.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by surfup
Looks like the Atheists are winning nowadays. Take that religions! Whoo Whoo


Surf


looks more like the liberals are winning...you guys are just trying to start Civil War II



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
In God we trust

Why is it on money- think about it. In God we TRUST, everyone else pays cash




Nygdan is right (yet again) about rule of law.

Law is designed for the 'common good,' not (supposedly) for the special interest good.

Gaz that allegiance argument is reeeeeeeeeeeeealy good
wish I had a WATs left- I'll catch you next month.


The bottom line is that it wasn't even part of the original pledge of allegiance, and there was a reason for it. The reason is because you were claiming your allegiance to a nation, not a religion

Wow, and I mean it. Essence of essences!

O.K., now that I've calmed down a bit.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I wish the athiests wouldn't do these kind of things. It makes them look as bad as the christians and other religions. Athiests should just sit back and let the other religions destroy themselves with their hate and troublesome actions.

The truth is I don't believe or want to belong to any religion...not even an athiest. They all make me sick.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by I See You]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
What a ridiculous argument. Michael Newdow is a bitter, empty shell of a man who needs attention so badly that he has adopted this "cause" as his reason to live. How sad.

As I have said before, you all can waste all your time in court debating the pluses and minuses of keeping a WORD in a pledge.

When I say the pledge, I am going to say One nation UNDER GOD.

What are you gonna do, sue me? Feh!

:shk:



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
Your wrong on both stances. It does not promote the existance of a god. God is just a word, just because it exists and can be usedin sentances does not mean God is real or non-existant.

I don't find that line of reasoning convincing and I doubt anyone else would, but if thats how you feel then i guess there's nothing to it.


If it was "In Yeti We Trust", does that mean the Yeti is real?

It would mean that you think that the yeti is real, and, moreso, trust it to provide.



How, Nygdan is the use of the phras "In God We Trust" a question of civil rights?

Becuase it, and the other areas where god is used as a function of the state, are a mixing of church and state. THey are endorsements that said god is at least thought, by the collective government, to exist, and that atheists are incorrect. Atheists are citizens too, and their practices relevant to religion should not be officially stated as being wrong. Anymore than it should say 'in jesus we trust', which would, obviously, be rather generic in that there are lots of different christians, in fact the vast majority of citizens are christians of different sorts, and jews are in the small minority. So why no complaints about it only being 'god'? Why not infact make it christ? If its not an endorsement or anything like that, and its not infringing on the legitimacy of other religions, then make it christ. No one would, but in that context it obviously is something of an infringment.


Are you so blinded by your apperant hatred of religion that it offends you?

You shouldn't assume that I have any hatred for religion at all. In fact I do not.


That phrase on our coinage and pledge, means nothing.

Then what would it matter if it were removed? If it means nothign to everyone, except a few people who have a legitimate problem with it, then remove it.


It is not a restricton at all, no one is forcing you to believe in God or to respect him, or even to say the phrase at all.

And by removing it no one is doing the opposite, so whats the gripe then about removing it? This is a secular government and society, not a theocratic one, so why even have this, which I agree is minor?


cpr12r
Instead of having, lawsuits just have your children not say it.

The student, in fact, is not required to say it. That is not what the suit is about. The suit is saying that by having it in teh official congressionally approved pledge of alliegance, recited by an employee and representative of the government and its authority, that the child is having her atheist upbringing impinged upon and undone. Thats the arguement, for what its worth.


gazrok
The bottom line is that it wasn't even part of the original pledge of allegiance

In fact, the pledge isn't even an original part of the country, its something that was added long afterwards. I think that the Founders might've been wary of forced loyalty oathes that are mindlessly mouthed by small children, swearing allegiance to a symbol, the flag. Perhaps the flag should be replaced in class rooms with the constiution itself, and the school day should be opened with a reading from it.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

gazrok
The bottom line is that it wasn't even part of the original pledge of allegiance

In fact, the pledge isn't even an original part of the country, its something that was added long afterwards. I think that the Founders might've been wary of forced loyalty oathes that are mindlessly mouthed by small children, swearing allegiance to a symbol, the flag. Perhaps the flag should be replaced in class rooms with the constiution itself, and the school day should be opened with a reading from it.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Nygdan]



I like this you just got an appuald for JUST this right here. Sometimes we get so wraped up in the symbols of our country that we forget the MEANING behind the symbols.

I think this would be an EXELLENT IDEA


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Amuk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join