"Under God" - Page 2

GardenStateGirlie · #16 03-25-2004, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
She doesn't have to say it, but the point is that in a public school, she shouldn't be put in the position of even having to say it or not. It should be left out, plain and simple. If public schools want to include "under God" in any of it's activities, they should expect these type of things to happen. What would be the difference between saying "under God" and a teacher asking her class to say a religious prayer with her? They aren't being forced, but the teacher is suggesting it. What if she asked them to say a Jewish, Buddhist, or Islamic prayer or asked them to call their God out? There would be quite an uproar. Therefore, leave God home. Don't trot him out at the taxpayers expense.

It's been in place since the 50s. I assume this man was born in probably the late 40s or early 50s. Is he all of the sudden an athiest? I just find **** like this to be annoying. It's been going on for years...why all of the sudden does he take issue with it? Something isn't clear here. I mean, yes, he has a daughter now but still...I think there's something in this story that doesn't add up.

I suppose we could then say that World History in which religion plays a rather large part in, should not be taught in school. It touches on the basis of ALL religions. If you're going to take this non-denominational stance then I suppose we ought to do it for everything and not just the pledge. No matter what you do, certain aspects of religion are going to be touched upon. Is he going to pull his daughter out of a history class because she's learning about God(s) and religion? Just another thought...

dissention · #17 03-25-2004, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
It's been in place since the 50s. I assume this man was born in probably the late 40s or early 50s. Is he all of the sudden an athiest? I just find **** like this to be annoying. It's been going on for years...why all of the sudden does he take issue with it? Something isn't clear here. I mean, yes, he has a daughter now but still...I think there's something in this story that doesn't add up.

I suppose we could then say that World History in which religion plays a rather large part in, should not be taught in school. It touches on the basis of ALL religions. If you're going to take this non-denominational stance then I suppose we ought to do it for everything and not just the pledge. No matter what you do, certain aspects of religion are going to be touched upon. Is he going to pull his daughter out of a history class because she's learning about God(s) and religion? Just another thought...

Maybe he came from an atheist household. They weren't that uncommon in the forties, fifties, sixties, or above. Just look at Madeline Murray O'Hare. Maybe he became disenchanted with organized religion and realized that there is no God. Who really knows?

The point is, it was not in the original POA and it was added in quite recently. Something doesn't add up there. There is no reason to add anything about God in the POA and if they feel they must, then they need to remove it from the public school system. If they want to keep it in, amend it further so that it can encompass all beliefs and views of God, not just a narrowminded one that white males came up with in the fifties to push their religion. I suspect that it was done as a "F*ck you" to the communists and socialists, it was the era of McCarthy after all.

As for the history class, it's totally different. It touches on certain beliefs and doesn't purport the beliefs to be facts. They aren't saying that we, the people, at this time are living "under God." An athesist is not going to take issue with the beliefs of the Puritans who founded this nation to be offensive. They will, however, take offense to the blanket statement that we live in this country "under God."

JMO.

GardenStateGirlie · #18 03-25-2004, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Maybe he came from an atheist household. They weren't that uncommon in the forties, fifties, sixties, or above. Just look at Madeline Murray O'Hare. Maybe he became disenchanted with organized religion and realized that there is no God. Who really knows?

The point is, it was not in the original POA and it was added in quite recently. Something doesn't add up there. There is no reason to add anything about God in the POA and if they feel they must, then they need to remove it from the public school system. If they want to keep it in, amend it further so that it can encompass all beliefs and views of God, not just a narrowminded one that white males came up with in the fifties to push their religion. I suspect that it was done as a "F*ck you" to the communists and socialists, it was the era of McCarthy after all.

As for the history class, it's totally different. It touches on certain beliefs and doesn't purport the beliefs to be facts. They aren't saying that we, the people, at this time are living "under God." An athesist is not going to take issue with the beliefs of the Puritans who founded this nation to be offensive. They will, however, take offense to the blanket statement that we live in this country "under God."

JMO.

"One f'd up nation, under God(s)...or not, indivisable, except during re-election years when we're at war...with liberty and justice for some..."

GypsySorcerer · #19 03-25-2004, 11:24 PM

I knew this topic would wind up here.

Well, I believe in separation of church and state. Being a Christian, however, I am not offended by the words "Under God" in the pledge. I can see how non-Christians would take offense, though.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. They were able to get around the issue of government offices being closed on Sunday.

estranged4life · #20 03-25-2004, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
"One f'd up nation, under God(s)...or not, indivisable, except during re-election years when we're at war...with liberty and justice for some..."

Shouldn't it be "with liberty and justice for some...If the Price Is RightÂ®"

Brian "C'mon on down" j.

GardenStateGirlie · #21 03-25-2004, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by estranged4life
Shouldn't it be "with liberty and justice for some...If the Price Is RightÂ®"

Brian "C'mon on down" j.

Good call, Brian

Could we be any more disenchanted??

estranged4life · #22 03-25-2004, 11:39 PM

I can easily be more disenchanted if need be

darklinensuit · #23 03-26-2004, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
any more disenchanted??

Is this the new Stevie boxed set title?

I agree with dissention, religion should be taught in a public school in the context of history and culture. It has no place in a school's formal practices.

- Jake

GardenStateGirlie · #24 03-26-2004, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Is this the new Stevie boxed set title?

After Stevie goes out on a date with you, yes

darklinensuit · #25 03-26-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
After Stevie goes out on a date with you, yes

We're even. I recall Mick referring to the Paper The Cage Tour after his time with you.

- Jake

GardenStateGirlie · #26 03-26-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by darklinensuit
We're even. I recall Mick referring to the Paper The Cage Tour after his time with you.

- Jake

Actually, word on the street is all your ex-girlfriends will be contributing to the album

Even.

darklinensuit · #27 03-26-2004, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GardenStateGirlie
Actually, word on the street is all your ex-girlfriends will be contributing to the album

Even.

Actually, word on the 'pike is that Mick is the only one who'll admit to a shared history and contribute to your album.

Odd.

- Jake

GardenStateGirlie · #28 03-26-2004, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Actually, word on the 'pike is that Mick is the only one who'll admit to a shared history and contribute to your album.

Odd.

- Jake

"Jake doesn't have anything
not even dvd or cable
I'll never get a ring
cause his money can't buy.
He says he can't believe
Hippie Hollow isn't the place for me
Looked deep into his eyes...no love."

Ass.

laurie816 · #29 03-26-2004, 07:24 AM

What does Dr. Newdow do with all the money he makes as a doctor??

Doesn't every monetary demonation have "In God We Trust" stamped on it somewhere??

Isn't the Treasury Dept. a part of the Government?? (I never did well in Social Studies) Does this not count as the separation of Church and State?? Doesn't every state have a Treasury dept?? Am I making any sense??

I mean, if he is such a strong Atheist, should he not accept money for his job?? Wouldn't that go against his beliefs??

I agree with Garden State Girlie, there is something more to this, the original article stated that his daughter's mother IS religious and wants her daughter raised that way, or at least with some beliefs, the father clearly doesn't, which leads me to believe there is more of a personal issue at stake, rather than his constitutional rights.

In any case, I DO believe Dr. Newdow should worship or not worship any deity he chooses. I believe he should practice or not practice any religion he sees fit. His daughter can be respectful of both his beliefs and the beliefs of her mother (and her fellow classmates as well) and just stand quietly, think about the day ahead and when she's old enough, let her make up her OWN mind.

strandinthewind · #30 03-26-2004, 11:12 AM

Well that is his point. He thinks "In God We Trust" should not be on the currency either. He thinks the govt. should make no reference to God in any way because that is an establishment of religion by the Fed. Govt. Interestingly, you can extrapolate his argument that "under God" unanimously passed because no atheist can ever be elected to the "In God We Trust" on the money. In other words, there is no other way to have currency in the U.S. Thus, he must use it even if he takes offense at the phrase, which I am sure he does

Again, I think the govt. should remove all references to the Judeo Christian God in every aspect period. Or, they should say something like "one nation under God, whatever that is to you," etc.

Far more fascinating is the Christian and other religious groups' reaction to this. They are blinded with fury by the notion that it is okay in America to be an atheist. I think that shows insecurity on their part. Again, why must govt. validate Christianity. Chistianity is a strong institution on its own. Yet, people see the removal of the false representation of "on nation under God" as an event worthy of Old Testament Wrath of God stuff.

Interestingly, I also think people confuse politicians praying on their own free will with govt. est. religion. I think if the Senate wants to pray, they should. But it should not be mandatory, etc.