Commissar

What a horrible idea.

Happy to. First of all, though, I'm going to need you to explain why radicals have any bearing in this conversation. They don't, as far as I can tell. Once again, I'm discussing the Pledge of Allegiance here. There's no good reason "under God" should remain in the pledge, and plenty of reasons to take it out. Your arguments for it, up to this point, have essentially been, "Shut up, it's not a big deal," and "Well, 95% of the country believes in God, so the 5% can go suck lemons." And please, please say "Chicken Little" again. It'll mean I get to drink.

I don't really know who you're arguing at, so I'm basically going to ignore most of what you just said. I also don't know what you consider to be a radical Christian; are the guys who come up to me and hand me a pamphlet on the virtues of living a Christian life while I'm picking up a six-pack at the supermarket radicals? According to the definition, they're probably not. I still find them highly annoying. Now, with that said, you still haven't given me one good reason why "under God" can't be removed from the Pledge. I'd have no problem with allowing people to voice their own personal beliefs by inserting it, but by the same token, you shouldn't have a problem with Satanists or Dr. Pepper worshippers doing the same. And yes, I consider those points of view to all be equally wacky.

I am adamantly against it, whenever something brings it to mind, which isn't terribly often. I don't care about it enough to make it an issue I'll ever do anything more than discuss or vote on, though. I learned a long time ago it's pointless to argue with Christians. Now, if only they'd learn it works both ways. And for the record, there are indeed atheists in foxholes.

then don't say under god. it is not required, last time i checked. nothing to square and no contrary statements. that's pretty much what i did (er, didn't do) when i was growing up (started my conversion around 12/13 or so). no sweat off my back and nobody seemed to care, not even my teacher. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If it's not required, why does it need to be in there in the first place?

Of course that would cause hardship and grief for Christians. Of course, it would cause hardship and grief for folks of any religion, but you're taking the two phrases as being logically equivalent. I disagree. First of all, "no God" entails a statement to the negative rather than the positive. In other words, saying "under God" does not entail a denial of atheism. It entails an affirmation of divinity. It is sufficiently general that it excludes no major religion. Atheists can take "under God" to be a useless filler or simply ignore the phrase altogether. Fair enough. Still, it is not the same thing. It's tricky, I'll grant you. It's a clever approach. ...But, in the end, it's just a parlor trick. "Under God" was not included in the pledge in order to insult atheists. Changing the pledge to "under no God" would amount to nothing less than an intentional affront. What sophistry! Please, Eldar, explain to me how you'd feel about affirming the divinity of...oh, I don't know, a can of pickles. Useless filler, sure, but it's still not a true statement. You bring up an interesting point. Why aren't Satanists allowed to replace "under God" with "under Satan"? Why are you allowed to express your beliefs during the Pledge, but not them? Well, I'll overlook your mixing of a secular discussion with a temporal one, and...wait, no, I won't. The apples-and-oranges rebuttal, I think, was made specifically for this argument. First and foremost, I couldn't care less if "under God" reflects the views of the majority of the population. I really couldn't. The majority of the population was convinced that the world was flat at one point, and nobody uses numbers these days to make the case for that particular view being an inspired piece of wisdom. You talk about what the phrase doesn't do, but you admitted earlier what it does do; it affirms divinity. For those who don't believe in divinity, that's problematic, no? So just don't say it. That's well and good, but if we're going to use that argument, why not take it out and allow those who do favor the man-with-a-beard-in-the-sky point of view to insert it. In its current, published, government-endorsed form, it can't be considered a secular document.

ROBERTSON BLAMES HURRICANE ON CHOICE OF ELLEN DEGENERES TO HOST EMMYS Lesbian is New Orleans native Hollywood

Or, I know...how 'bout we make it, "under no gods." Would you Christians be cool with that? I doubt it'd cause you any undue hardship or grief, right?

We could create a segregated public school system today that wouldn't cause hardship or grief for anybody, if that's your only litmus test for what happens to be right.

How do you square "under God" with an atheist's beliefs? You can't. How is obliging us to state something contrary to our beliefs constitutional?

And that's a fine attitude to have, and I'm not going to fault anyone for it. The problem comes in when you decide it's your responsibility to save me. Christianity is an evangelizing religion. Eldar, I hate to say it, but history isn't really on your side in terms of discounting the threat of radical, fundamentalist Christianity. The track record of that particular religion is worse than most of the others, and since I'd rather not be racked for suggesting that the guys who compiled the Bible four hundred years after Jesus' death might've gotten it wrong, you can bet your ass I'm going to keep an eye on Christian movements in my country. Here's a little food for thought: why's it so difficult for a great many members of the religious organizations around the country to live their lives according to their beliefs without government endorsement? You, personally, don't have to get an abortion or engage in homosexual intercourse or frequent strip clubs. Why do you care so much if other people do?

US Army? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Pff.

I ride herd over a rather large number of young men who think they're invincible, have access to heavy weaponry, and seem to specifically attempt to get arrested every weekend simply to ensure I have something to do on Mondays. Gaming is a distant memory.

This duel shall be concluded at a later date. Now quit making me late.

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge. The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear." the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit. make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it. ... look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today. Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> jefferson were THE framers? wow. and here we thought that he were just one guy... and kinda a fringe politician at that. were he even at the constitutional convention? no? wall o' separation folks place too much stock in jefferson... and they ignore pretty much everybody else. is bad history and bad scholarship. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Nope, he's not the only framer. On the other hand, he is the most prominent and the chap generally given credit for doing the majority of the heavy lifting. If you're really going to make me, I'll go ahead and pull some stuff on the other lads involved that'll support my general argument. I won't do it now, since I've got to take a shower and get on the road, but sometime over the weekend.

I'll have to dig out my copy of Marcus A. From what I remember of it, it all sounded a little too much like bull**** tough-guy talk to me.

The original pledge (and for most of the pledges "life") the phrase "under god" did not appear. It was added later, despite the objections of the authors estate. No one would likely have a problem with the "old" pledge. The current one is a clear violation of church and state. Give us back that seperation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> violation of "church and state?" what the heck is that? what is a violation of church and state... and if you mean that it violates notions/doctrine o' the seperation of church and state, you still don't know what you is talking 'bout if you suggest that such a thing is "clear." the Wall of Separation pov has never been the clear Law of the Land... evar. not even after Everson.... and 'especially not before... which is kinda odd, no? for the majority o' this nation's history, the notion o' a Wall o' Separation as proposed by jefferson were supported by a vocal but largely insignificant minority. Washington and Lincoln had their famous Thanksgiving proclamations and most state and fed institutions had official prayers to god n' such... and never forget that clergy has held elected office quite frequent in this country. nevertheless, after Everson, Wall o' Separation becames a hot issue that has been fought over quite a bit. make a long and boring story short: the original intent o' the first amendment's separation clause seems to be in favor of a view o' non-preferential as 'posed to a wall o' separation as some folks seem to wanna read it. ... look, Gromnir got no problem with folks who think that a Wall o' Separation is a good thing, but it if you thinks that the voluntary pledge is a "clear" violation o' first amendment separation clause, then you ain't followed the history o' this country close at all... and if you think the language of the first amendment calls for a Wall o' Separation then you is also wrong 'bout that too. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'll grant you that the separation clause doesn't explicitly establish the wall, though I will posit that the framers' writings, specifically Jefferson's, do indeed support the wall. Hell, it was Jefferson who first used the phrase. Then again, Jefferson was obliged to put 'endowed by their Creator' into the Declaration of Independence in order to get certain colonies to sign off on it, so I wouldn't say he was religious in the way we think of religious today. Now, whether or not you consider that a valid argument is wholly up to you.

wow, a rare political post from sammael! on this point, i agree. this just bolsters my position that public schools are forced detention camps with a goal of "socializing" our children. odd that i don't find "under god" unconstitutional, though i do find the whole public school system unconstitutional... my child will be homeschooled. of course, he's ready for kindergarten now... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Socializing? I don't think school does that. I never went to a private school in my life, and got a damned good education to boot. I certainly wouldn't say I was socialized, as I came out rather atheist despite being obliged to recite the Pledge every day. Which I really don't have a problem with, as I said; on the other hand, none of you should have a problem with allowing "under God" to be replaced by whatever the individual's beliefs happen to be.

I just wonder where Pullo thinks he's heading with all of that gold.

no, it is really not. it is never stated nor implied. there is ONE line preventing congress (US law) from respecting an establishment of religion. that one line - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - has been interpreted to mean 'separation of church and state,' but the population has always been divided on the issue as has SCOTUS. the phrase we so often hear has been coined by politicians attempting to woo voters, not constitutional law experts. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, it really is. Aside from the fact that you'd be extremely hard-pressed to argue that the actual folks who wrote the Constitution didn't intend separation of church and state, the Supreme Court has, in fact, established and upheld the viewpoint that the Constitution provides for equal protection and equal rights of all US citizens, meaning that any legislation limiting rights or establishing disparate status for persons of differing religions would be illegal.

Yeah. Baptist ministers weren't nutty back then.

"Beneficial to society" is highly subjective, though. Look at abortion. Plenty of people think it's beneficial to society that a woman be allowed to choose; plenty others think it'd be beneficial to society if abortions were banned. I'm sure you could find a great number of people who'd think it beneficial to society if this country were run on "Christian" principles. This is not a legislative issue (yet), it's a constitutional one. And our government operates on the basis that when the constitutional implications of a given issue are in question, it's the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, that decide.

And knowing is half the battle.

not really. certainly the phrase does not exist, only the establishment clause which was originally intended (primarily) to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. the interpretation is certainly there in precedent over the years... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, it really is, if you look at it from an equal rights and equal protections standpoint.

You scare the hell out of me, man. If enough people decide to start imposing fines for lack of church attendance, can we do that? How about if they decide that we ought to start throwing in jail folks who decide to engage in premarital sex? What if the Catholics get enough people together to vote for a nationwide ban on contraceptives? For the record, I think this is a crap ruling as well. No one ought to be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and if they are, they ought not be required to include the "under God" part, and also should not be prevented from inserting whatever their own personal beliefs happen to be. So, whereas you folks might enjoy "under God," I myself would put in, "where I am free to support strippers and watch two chicks get it on." That's fair, isn't it? Edit: Changed "finds" to "fines" because I'm wicked sweet like that.