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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I wonder what would happen of a "citizen hopefull" requested they not have to use the words "under god" when they pledged their allegiance to the United States. My guess is that they would be allowed to say it without having to use those words. I'm still curious as to why the words "under god" were added to the pledge. Without knowing the facts I think it will be found there was no intention of specifying a Christian god when this came up. It is easy to assume the arrogant side of Christianity is why "under god" is in the pledge of allegiance, and the reason why someone doesn't want their child to say those words in the pledge. It all boils down to someones beliefs. And until someone shows me "under god" was put in the pledge to show allegiance to a Christian god the answer is as simple as not using those words if you don't believe in them. What's the real problem here; looks like a creative form of angst to me.




posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by greeneusmc1

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


That was a joke, as his adoptee, I highly doubt "surfup" is going to start a civil war, I'm not even sure if he's a christian.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NygdanSo if newdow is raising his daughter atheist....

I would just like to take this moment to point out that the reason the Supreme court dismissed his case was that he wasn't raising his daughter alone, he shard custudy with his wife who's a 'born again' Christian and her daughter has no problem saying "Under God."



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I think it was Richard Dawkins in fact who first wondered, as far as I am familiar with it, why american have the flag in the classroom rather than the constitution (tho i am not sure about that). It would be a great idea no, and certainly no one can find anything wrong with it. Not that I dislike the flag or anything, of course, it is in large part based on the flag of the 'John' Company, and it is a military banner, so people can reasonably find some stuff that is not so 'pure' with it too, whereas the constitution, well, thats what its all about right there!


Originally posted by existence
I'm still curious as to why the words "under god" were added to the pledge. Without knowing the facts I think it will be found there was no intention of specifying a Christian god when this came up.

Hmm, interesting question about the new citizen above this.

The under god bit was supposedly added during the early parts of the cold war, by religious conservative republicans to distinguish the god fearing united states from the godless commies. I suspect that they weren't thinking about allah when they put it in.

It is easy to assume the arrogant side of Christianity is why "under god" is in the pledge of allegiance, and the reason why someone doesn't want their child to say those words in the pledge. It all boils down to someones beliefs. And until someone shows me "under god" was put in the pledge to show allegiance to a Christian god the answer is as simple as not using those words if you don't believe in them.
Why would it matter? Why is it alright to accomodate non-christians who are religious but not outright atheists?


What's the real problem here

I think newdow is making a little too much out of not very much, but if the court orderd it and other religious sorts of stuff removed, like the prayer opening congress and the like, I wouldn't be particularly concerned.

would just like to take this moment to point out that the reason the Supreme court dismissed his case was that he wasn't raising his daughter alone

Yes, I agree, it makes the claim all the more specious. And its the part of the case that I think 'stinks' the most, he wants to indoctrinate his kid into atheism? I thought the whole thing about atheism is to think for yourself? And how valid is the claim that the teacher is such an authority figure that their mouthing the pledge is going to corrupt her youthful mind from the truth of atheism? I think its very much a non issue from that route. He should be claiming that he, as an adult american citizen, shouldn't have to have his pledge of allegiance with the phrase under god.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
It doesn't matter if "Under God" is a reference to any specific religion or not! I'll tell anyone of you right now, that you're not going to convert any atheists until you understand why they believe what they believe. It is understanding, and respect that brings "sheep into the flock". Though I doubt one would admit to being this, but would you fundamentalists STOP ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF PRICKS?? You're making Christians like me look bad! If an atheist doesn't want their child to be made uncomfortable and confused because EVERYONE in a classroom is doing the same thing...heck, no kid deserves to be put in that situation. And noone better DARE try to say that a situation like that wouldn't make a kid uncomfortable.
If you want people to respect your beliefs, why don't you simply live as an example in silence rather than "standing on the corner" making a public scene about how holy you are, because if anything, THAT is what it means to use Christ's name in vein.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.


When did they privatize the Mint? That is new one to me. Last time I looked it states they are run by the US Treasury Depatment. Any money over their operating costs goes directly back into the US Treasury.

If they were private that would not be the case, would it?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by Gazrok
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.


When did they privatize the Mint? That is new one to me. Last time I looked it states they are run by the US Treasury Depatment. Any money over their operating costs goes directly back into the US Treasury.

If they were private that would not be the case, would it?


I don't see why that would be the case.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
I don't see why that would be the case.


I think you missed the point he made. He stated that the US mint was privately run, that is not the case the mint is run by the US Treasury. All profits go back into the US treasury, if it were run by a private company the profits would go into their own bank.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by shots]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Further...
Atheist loses Bush prayer fight

A US atheist has lost a legal fight to stop prayers being said at President George W Bush's upcoming inauguration.

Naming Mr Bush as a defendant, Michael Newdow said the inclusion of prayer made him feel like a "second class citizen" because of his beliefs.

A judge ruled that Mr Newdow failed to show that he suffered serious injury because of the prayer's inclusion.

BBC



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sanctum
Further...
Atheist loses Bush prayer fight

A US atheist has lost a legal fight to stop prayers being said at President George W Bush's upcoming inauguration.

A judge ruled that Mr Newdow failed to show that he suffered serious injury because of the prayer's inclusion.

BBC


I love it everytime he fails.

I am willing to bet the supreme court will rule in the very same way regarding the pledge of allegence.





top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join