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.
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..."
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!
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?
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?
Originally posted by FredT
The question is the use of it in a public school.
Originally posted by JediMaster
Well why though should the majority have to submit to the minority?
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.
Plus think of the trouble it would be to get the "offensive" currency out of circulation and create an entire new line.
quango
Why not just change the wording to "One nation, which may or may not be under God... " ??
Or what about, "One nation, indivisible except when you ask us if we're under God or not, with liberty and justice for all..."
Relentless
The mention of a Creator starts in our Declaration of Independence and is found almost everywhere since then
Does anyone realize the ultimate extent of this argument?)
flying high
It is a shame that some people still reject Jesus Christ.
It appears that these atheists will stop at nothing.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by surfup
Looks like the Atheists are winning nowadays. Take that religions! Whoo Whoo
Surf
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
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.
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.
cpr12r
Instead of having, lawsuits just have your children not say it.
gazrok
The bottom line is that it wasn't even part of the original pledge of allegiance
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]