Supreme Court rules to keep "under god" in the pledge

this sounds so much more reasonable coming from you, the christian, than me, the non-christian. i always end up sounding like a jerk. maybe people will listen to you. they dont seem to buy it when i say the same thing.

 

History and the founding fathers support the Supreme Court's decision

Just a little history for those who seem to have forgotten....

As you walk up the steps to the building of the US Supreme Court, at the top of the building is a row of the world's law givers, all facing one man in the middle who is facing forward in the 'seat of prominance'; the person in the middle is Moses hodling the Ten Commandments....

furthermore, the giant oak doors at the entrance to the US Supreme Court chambers have the Ten Commandments engraved in all four corner....

Inside the Supreme Court chambers, engraved on the wall above the justices is Moses holding the Ten Commandments....

James Madison, the fourth president and 'father of the constitution', was quoted saying the following, "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves all in accordance to the Ten Commandments of God."

Thomas Jefferson wrote pages and pages of letters worrying that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making the law...

The only time religion is mentioned in the Constitution is in Article I by simply stating, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....

Therefore, for those who seem to believe that the founding father's intention was a complete separation of church and state, at least realize that the only place that religion is mentioned is in the Article I... if you could tell me how the words "Under God" respects an established religion (monotheism is not an ESTABLISHED religion; an established religion is Catholicism, Methodism, Judaism, etc.)?

Ultimately, this country was founded by a group believing in a greater being, and they designed this country to not reject religion, but embrace it. The point of the 'separation of church and state' was to keep the government from saying, 'this country is catholic (or whatever) and everyone else has to get out', as it was in England at the time. So for all of you who believe that the law is very clear in the complete purging of religion out of the govt. system, read up on your history, actually read the constitution, and realize that the concept of keeping established religion out of government is FAR different than ridding all cases of religion out of the US government. Its all about how one interprets the context of the words, and it baffles me that those opposed to the simple words "under God" have managed to disregard history, the words of those who wrote the constitution, and the plethora of Supreme Court rulings on the subject, still finding themselves clinging to no evidence but that of an unsubstantiated, blown-up interpretation of a relatively cut and dry understanding.

 

Responce to the Thomas Jefferson quote

If you would take the time to read the rest of the letter, he is mocking the critics of his time, and proceeds after this quote to repremand the atheists of his day, attempting to inspire John Adams with the following quote,

"Never give in, never yield to the heartless abandonment of those who reject the love of our God."

and also he wrote in the same letter....

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by radical religionists, but by Christians, not on established religion but by Christians who loved nothing but appealing to the good will of God."

Just a few quotations to give context to the warped quote you decided to present.

 

it didnt say "an established religion", it said establishment of religion. if i started a church of monotheism, and it became noteworthy to the point where you described it as "established" would it then make that invalid? it matters not the specifics of the religion promoted.

promoting monotheism clearly is promoting an establishment of religion. to argue otherwise is lunacy. you are monotheist. more specifically you might be whatever else, but nevertheless monotheism is your religion and not mine. you cant argue otherwise. again, i dunno why you think it is the business of your government to promote belief in god, and force your views upon children.

 

Specifics and clarification

There is no promotion of 'God' going on, simply a statement of fact... lets look at the phrase used if we may.... "Under God".... that means that this is one nation, Under God.... my point above was two-fold and now I shall reiterate the validity of the lack of promotion going on....

a) this nation was founded under the premise of the divine intervention of a supreme being (aka, UNDER GOD)....

b) the vast majority of this country believes in a divine being of somesort, all beliefs encompased by the use of the word GOD, therefore, since we are a democracy founded on the will of the majority, let alone the VAST majority, this nation can be said to be one of a vast majority UNDER GOD...

so if you really want the phrase 'vast majority' inserted, push for that, but otherwise we must stick with the democratic foundation of this country, being one based on the will of the people not the tyrannical supression of the extreme minority (aka, those who want to supress other's in their free and open belief in a God of some sort). By the way, the word "God" is what is termed as a generality, so in the strictest definition, the word "God" could fully encompass the many supreme beings associated with the polytheistic religions... therefore by saying "Under God", the vast vast majority of American citizens are covered in a non-insulting, non-specific sense (that which the founding father's intended).


One more thing, Atheism is not a religion... by definition Atheism is the absence of religion, making it not a practice, not anything concrete; simply an absence. So, to say that the phrase 'under God' hinders your ability to practice your Atheism (which is the summation of your argument) would be flawed and altogether senseless. So please, if you don't like this free, democratic state of which this country has been founded and existed for over 200 years, move to France or somewhere where the greater will of society, when presented in a non-threatening, non-abrasive way, is shot down and replaced with the whining, money/publicity yearning selfishness of the extreme, extreme minority (those Atheists who care that their "Atheism" is being threatened).


BTW, the ESTABLISHMENT of a religion is the same thing as having a nationally ESTABLISHED religion; exact same thing.... both mean that one religion is made to be the official religion of the country....

 

if you dont consider teaching kids to pledge to a nation "under god" to be a promotion of the idea that god exists, i cant help you, you are totally irrational, wildly insane and incapable of reason.

we are also a democracy founded on individual rights and freedom from religious oppression of any kind.

so if the vast majority wanted a theocracy, would you claim that was right? is the will of the majority the same as what is right? are you saying the government is justified merely because it can? if the majority were atheists, would you be ok with teachers telling children that your belief in god is irrational?

why teach children the religious beliefs of the majority, and restrict their freedom to believe in what they choose?

leave the summations of my argument to me, and we won't play any more straw man games.


look, i know you love your precious god. and he is magic and he provides and he is great and you love religion. but not everyone does, and i dont see why you cant keep your personal beliefs personal. you want to believe your laws are based on the ten commandments, as if those rules arent the same ones that have applied to every civilized society in history and obvious even to a child, then be my guest.

but i dont see why you believe preaching should be a part of schools. i dont see why you believe children should be indoctrinated by the state with religious views, regardless if they are held by the overwhelming majority. i suppose you do not want to not leave your religious belief to its own merits as a choice in the marketplace of ideas, but to indoctriinate children before they can think critically.

religion in all its forms is a personal thing. what people believe is up to them and only them. we can prove nobody wrong, we do not know if there is a god, or if christianity is right or wrong or if god exists in any form. what people believe should be personal choice, not government propaganda. preach to your children, not mine.


monotheism, polytheism, or even theism, is not our official religion, we have no official religion, so keep it out of schools.

 

Simply put, your argument is flawed in its origin... by saying that this is one nation under God does not preach to your child the gospel or even force them to believe that there is a God... by saying one nation under God simply states that this nation is one founded and reared under the influence and moral guidelines of those believing in a God, not that there is or isn't one, not a preaching or a forced dictatorial belief, it is just simple statement of fact whether you like it or not; that this is a country founded, run and structured around the guidelines of a moral and strong belief in good. Therefore, a vast difference exists between telling your child "there is a God, so believe it" and simply stating the fact that this nation is one "under God"... and all you said about vast majority theocracy/Atheism etc. still doesn't discredit the fact that this country, as I said above, is one rooted and forever guided by the factual nature of history, ours being one 'under God'. This has nothing to do with religious (or lack thereof) opression; it simply rests in the question of whether we decide to rewrite history and ignore that which roots our constitution in good and morality. Well, I guess history has been rewritten before by people who don't like to admit reality.

 

you cannot seriously be claiming that pledging to a nation under god does not make a claim as to god's existence.

 

ok, i'll give you that, it does endorse the existence of some greater being, but that's it, it does not establish a national religion (which is the exact translation of the constitution). Honestly, at the most broken down state, Under God appeals to over 90% of the population (statistics credited to Reuters News Agency), and fully complies with the constitution by not establishing a religion. Therefore, according to the rules of the game of democracy, we win, and until the vaaaaast (less than .00005% of the 10% of Atheists in America) become even a closely recognizable majority, the history and foundation of this country as one Under Some Divine Being be it Alah, God, Jehova, etc. will continue to reign true. Personally, if you want your child to make the decision on her own, don't seclude her from the possibility that perhaps over 90% of the population all had the same epiphany... the simple phrase Under God simply tells him/her that this country exists in a state whereby it has been built under peace and goodwill; allow your child to be sceptical and come up with his/her own decisions.... your adamant anti-God enforcement is just as bad as someone breathing religion down his/her neck (both of which are a disgrace, stealing from your child the ability to choose for himself/herself). Under God does none of this; simply states fact.... and if you can't accept that, raise your kid in a place where freedom of religion isn't an excuse for you to rewrite history to your own liking. You can practice Atheism just fine, freely and on your own.... Under God in no way impeeds that, which is all that would be illegal. Thank you.

 

and of course that is theism, or religion. and why is the government teaching religion to children?

i dont care who it appeals to. a long time ago everyone thought there was zeus and posiedon. it makes no difference, you shouldnt preach to people's children.

wow, the hypocrisy. you are advocating letting a child make up his/her on mind, all the while advocating theism being taught to them in schools, the exact opposite of allowing them to think for themselves.

listen closely, i do not advocate teaching that there is no god. i advocate that it is a matter for familes and individuals. i am not breathing anything down anyone's neck, i am advocating that everyone is left alone and not preached to. you talk to me as if i want schools to tell kids to be athiests, when i want them to not preach at all.

(you mean impede)

maybe i dont want my kid's school undermine my teaching that god may or may not exist. do you understand that? lets say i want to pass my particular beliefs about whether god exists to my children, shouldnt i be free from the government preaching to them that god exists? do i get screwed purely because most other people are believers? what about individual freedom of religion?