Politicians use anything that happens to be available as a political tool.
Correction: American politicians use whatever they can get their hands on as a political tool. I've never heard it used by Norwegian, Canadian, Swedish, English, or German politicians.

Even Stalin used patriotism as a political tool
Funny you'd bring him up. It doesn't exactly further your cause to remind us that organized patriotism is a dictators' tool.

(...) and he was (supposedly) a communist.
Patriotism as a propaganda tool was very common in the Soviet Union. To say that "even a communist leader used it" is like saying "even vegetarians eat fruit and vegetables".

And it's not a democracy.
You know what I meant, budd. Cut the nitpicking.

Correction: American politicians use whatever they can get their hands on as a political tool. I've never heard it used by Norwegian, Canadian, Swedish, English, or German politicians.

Yeah, ONLY America would do something like that. Other countries would never use anything for political means. I think you said it right when you said you've never heard of it. Maybe they're just sneaky? Nah, can't be. Only dirty Americans do it. :roleyess: I can't believe anyone could be so naive.

Correction: American politicians use whatever they can get their hands on as a political tool. I've never heard it used by Norwegian, Canadian, Swedish, English, or German politicians.
You'd be wrong then. EVERY politician uses anything to further their careers and agenda. To say otherwise is utterly naive and highly retarded.

Indeed. Politicians from every country everywhere uses anything they can.
Even here in Canada.

However, I'd like to mention that America has the highest amount of personnal attacks against a candidate that I've ever seen. Like back in November 2004. There was plenty of ads to discredit Kerry or Bush by attacking their personnal pasts.
It also happens here (Canada), but never to such a degree.

To people who say the Pledge is voluntary, I remember having a teacher that made us. And if it's voluntary, why does the school stop everything it is doing, and play it over the intercom?

As for the poll, you need a "Don't care" option.

As for the poll, you need a "Don't care" option.

I'll remember that next time. ;)

It's been there for 50 years. No one's yet succeeded in exploiting it.

Forget succeeding, no one has tried! Or at least, not used that as an excuse, and that was my whole point (thanks man!)

To people who say the Pledge is voluntary, I remember having a teacher that made us. And if it's voluntary, why does the school stop everything it is doing, and play it over the intercom?

School is a dictatorship reguardless, they make there own rulez. And your trapped... until level 12.

I'm writing this from the county jail.

Yeah well... your not coming out till you pledge your allegance!

Actually, I've really never thought about "pledging my allegience" or anything...

At some point she'll come home from her indoctrination process in school, after standing up and reciting the "pledge" and ask "who's god?" Mind you, I'm ready for that question, but it doesn't change the fact that elementary school children don't have the first clue what their legal rights are with regard to the establishment of religion. The only thing they know is that the single highest authority in the room said stand up and repeat after me.

No one told me anything... as far as I can remember.. yet ... I knew? Crap, IDK.

But anyways- Its bad for athiest kids to come home and say "Dad, whats god?" but its ok for everyone else to come home say "what the heck is a neanderthal?"

To people who say the Pledge is voluntary, I remember having a teacher that made us.
O rly? Did this teacher have a gun pointed at you? Did he or she have your genitals in the paper cutter? Did she threaten to fail you? No? Then you weren't made to do anything. You were told to do it and you did. I was told to do it, and didn't.

And if it's voluntary, why does the school stop everything it is doing, and play it over the intercom?.

Why do they stop school for pep rallys? Last time I checked you aren't required to cheer, or play football. It's voluntary. Why do they stop school for lunch? Eating's voluntary. Maybe they assume some of the students want to do these things? Just a guess.

Did he or she have your genitals in the paper cutter?

That... that is... that's just... oh boy.

Pep rallies, football and lunch don't establish religions.

That... that is... that's just... oh boy.

Who else wants to join the boy's choir? *steps back out of this thread*

...

CapN, may I ask why you you are holding those garden shears?






oh...

Forget succeeding, no one has tried! Or at least, not used that as an excuse, and that was my whole point (thanks man!)

Actually people have tried, especially in Texas. Thing was it never made it past suggestion level.

O rly? Did this teacher have a gun pointed at you? Did he or she have your genitals in the paper cutter? Did she threaten to fail you? No? Then you weren't made to do anything. You were told to do it and you did. I was told to do it, and didn't.

Well technically I was failed for not saying it, but being a martyr sounded kinda cool to me when I was 15.

PS: Added a "Don't Care" option.

Pep rallies, football and lunch don't establish religions.

I beg to differ, football IS a religion for many many people. This is indoctrination, plain and simple!

I beg to differ, football IS a religion for many many people. This is indoctrination, plain and simple!
... Heh, cheese-head denomination.

Pep rallies, football and lunch don't establish religions.

And aren't you a keen observer of detail? I never said they did. I said they halt school, and are voluntary. Just like the pledge. But I'm sure you probably could've picked that up in my post having read it the first time.

Well technically I was failed for not saying it, but being a martyr sounded kinda cool to me when I was 15.

You know, I actually figured when I made a broad, sweeping statement like I did, that someone would come back and say "it happened to me". But you do realize that there was no reason you had to accept that, right? Without ever bringing a lawyer into it, or taking it before a court, I know of no board of education that would sit for something like that, for the simple matter that they wouldn't want their asses sued off.

PS, wouldn't "NO" be the same as "I don't care"? If you didn't care, that would be the same as saying you don't mind if it's there or not. It's there. You don't care. If you cared wouldn't you most likely vote yes? I don't care. Guess which way I voted. Kinda dumb.

You know, I actually figured when I made a broad, sweeping statement like I did, that someone would come back and say "it happened to me". But you do realize that there was no reason you had to accept that, right?


Well he was fired after multiple complaints. So... yeah.

PS, wouldn't "NO" be the same as "I don't care"? If you didn't care, that would be the same as saying you don't mind if it's there or not. It's there. You don't care. If you cared wouldn't you most likely vote yes? I don't care. Guess which way I voted. Kinda dumb.
I have no opinion either way, so it's just easier for me to play the apathy card.

And aren't you a keen observer of detail? I never said they did. I said they halt school, and are voluntary. Just like the pledge. But I'm sure you probably could've picked that up in my post having read it the first time.

"Halting school" isn't unconstitutional. We're not talking about removing "under god" from the Pledge because it interrupts the morning announcements, we're talking about it as an example of government "establishment of religion," which is contrary to the Constitution.

But anyways- Its bad for athiest kids to come home and say "Dad, whats god?" but its ok for everyone else to come home say "what the heck is a neanderthal?"

Yes? Non sequitour? BTW, most atheist kids would probably come home asking about neanthertals anyway, if your public schools aren't alot less crappy than European ones.

Oh, and Colo, please cut down on the pejoratives.

This is stupid. When I wasn't a Christian, I didn't care, and when I was a christian, before all this mess started, I didn't think about, and when it did start I was just like... well.. whatever...

And everyone I know who has a problem with the pledge, is just trying to be difficult. They just don't like it. And everyone who wants "Under God" removed, is athiest anyways. Most high school students don't care, and to be honest, I'll be glad when this age of people who complain about everything, from statues, to the pledge, to video game violence are all out of office.

So yeah, this is just as absurde as Video Games training me to be a killer with 100% accuracy... In fact, thats a more serious situation than this.

But anyways- Its bad for athiest kids to come home and say "Dad, whats god?" but its ok for everyone else to come home say "what the heck is a neanderthal?"
Well, sure... except that's exactly the kind of thing a good school should be teaching them.

It shouldn't be up to the public school system of this country to inform kids on spiritual matters... THAT'S what home and church and Sunday school and catechism class are for.
But they should be taught about Neanderthals. What parent is gonna sit their kids down someday and talk to them about the Neanderthals? Well... my dad, perhaps... but I can't really think of all that many others. And forget about hearing about them in church. So where else are kids going to get informed of that important factual information? (To the worlds of science and biology, anyway...)

I don't think anyone's under the impression that neanderthals never existed... the only problem some people would have with them is that they are pointed to as a "in-between" species, directly related to humans (though we supposedly didn't descend from them, I think people said we more like branched off). That's besides the point about neanderthals however; luke was using them simply as an illustration.

My point was, why is it bad for athiest kids to come home with questions about God, because there parents don't believe in it, but its perfectly fine for kids of any other faith to return home and have to ask their parents why the teacher's "teaching" doesn't match up what they have been taught at home.

Well, sure... except that's exactly the kind of thing a good school should be teaching them.

Lets be honest, the only time I have needed to know anything about evolution is when I have been engaged in debates in the Senate. I think in the early years of school they should be taught the bare minimum of this stuff, then it should be electives in high school.

Even my Advanced Biology teacher said it was a waste of time unless your planning to pursue some sort of scientific career... in my case, computer science, which, obviously, I don't even need to know what the word "evolution" means to get a job doing that.

Of course, this is all opinion... my opinion.

It's bad for non-religious children to come home and ask their parents about religious matters they heard about in school because schools aren't supposed to teach religion (except in comparative religion). But it's no problem to teach creationist children that their beliefs are bovine manure, because they are. From every concievable (legitimate) government point of view.

And if the parents don't tell their children about neanthertals, then it is doubly important that the school does.

@Skywalker: Your lack of education in matters biological does not come as a surprise to some of us... To put it diplomatically.

Lets be honest, the only time I have needed to know anything about evolution is when I have been engaged in debates in the Senate. I think in the early years of school they should be taught the bare minimum of this stuff, then it should be electives in high school.
So because you won't need to know about it, it shouldn't be taught?

I don't need to know about World War II. I don't need to know the history of Norway, even though it's my homeland. The Vikings? Bah, maybe if I'm a tourist guide when I grow up I may find a use for it, but it's hardly useful knowledge.

And so I can continue for an eternity. Don't teach children about how electricity was invented, about how a larva turns into a butterfly, how trees consume Co2 and turn it into O2, and so on and so forth. Unless I want to become a biologist or a mechanic, I don't need to know how it comes that there's "always" air to breathe, or how the electricity that powers my lamps and computer works.

Education is about learning as much as possible. Plain and simple. Unless he has hundreds of professions, a student will only use a fraction of what he learns in school when "real life" comes around.

My point was, why is it bad for athiest kids to come home with questions about God
Admittedly, it isn't.

It shouldn't be up to the public school system of this country to inform kids on spiritual matters.
I beg to differ. As long as the teaching is objective, not a matter of "this week we're learning about how God created us" or the like. I say put religious teaching (of all religions, not just Catholic Christianity) in World History and teach it in an informative way rather than a persuasive one.

Most high school students don't care, and to be honest, I'll be glad when this age of people who complain about everything, from statues, to the pledge, to video game violence are all out of office.
I thought a cornerstone of democracy was variety of opinion?

And I bet that if it was not the ten commandments in front of the courthouses, but the way of the Buddha or quotes from the Glorious Qu'ran, most Christians would care.

And don't get me started on my famous three thousand studies on video game violence:p.

As long as the teaching is objective, not a matter of "this week we're learning about how God created us" or the like. I say put religious teaching (of all religions, not just Catholic Christianity) in World History and teach it in an informative way rather than a persuasive one.
Well, that's kind of what I meant. I have no problem with kids learning about religion at school, as long as they're not getting taught religion at school.

Obviously, religion plays a huge part in all human history to this point, and it would be impossible to teach it without references to the various religious belief systems behind many of the world-defining events of the ages.

But if some teacher is going to try to impose his or her personal beliefs of a bunch of impressionable kids who don't really understand what's going on, then we have a problem.

Facts (such as the role religion has played in history, and the types of things those people have believed over the years...) should be taught in the public school system.

Beliefs (such as "This is the only true way for you to get to Heaven" or perhaps that there even is a Heaven...) should not, since it cannot ever be proved, and everyone involved has a different take.

Well, that's kind of what I meant. I have no problem with kids learning about religion at school, as long as they're not getting taught religion at school.

Obviously, religion plays a huge part in all human history to this point, and it would be impossible to teach it without references to the various religious belief systems behind many of the world-defining events of the ages.

But if some teacher is going to try to impose his or her personal beliefs of a bunch of impressionable kids who don't really understand what's going on, then we have a problem.

Facts (such as the role religion has played in history, and the types of things those people have believed over the years...) should be taught in the public school system.

Beliefs (such as "This is the only true way for you to get to Heaven" or perhaps that there even is a Heaven...) should not, since it cannot ever be proved, and everyone involved has a different take.

That may be the single most important distinction. Just like if you were teaching the class about a certain philosophy or political ideology. Don't pass judgement, just explain. That's a far cry from not mentioning "God" or "the Bible" or some other religious topic ever in class.

Now the pledge is saying that the Nation is somehow under the power/control/influence? of some unnamed Deity, which would raise a lot of questions to many people (but maybe not to every child). Leading the class in a school prayer assumes that you're wanting them to pray (and believe in prayer at all), as opposed to learning that this is the prayer that Muslims say or this is the prayer that Christians say. It's like the difference between Sunday School Bible Camp and "the Bible as literature."

So it would be perfectly reasonable to teach the class "and this is Intelligent Design which some Christians believe is a viable alternative to the theory of evolution," which is a far cry from teaching it AS a viable alternative in science class.

To people who say the Pledge is voluntary, I remember having a teacher that made us. And if it's voluntary, why does the school stop everything it is doing, and play it over the intercom?

Thats how my school was, except that when a friend and I refused to do it, we got suspended for 3 days and then told if we did it again(by the teacher who wrote us up in the first place)that he'd fail us - basically holding a gun at our graduation.

Man, I shoulda sued that a**hole.

Reminds me of people getting sent to the principle's office for correcting the teacher about something in history/science class (based on real information, like "I was watching the Discovery channel and they said we now have evidence that this isn't supported anymore."). Sometimes there can be BS in schools, based on some "authority" issue. Ie: if you disagree with the teacher it's seen as impudence and rebellion. ;P

We're not talking about removing "under god" from the Pledge because it interrupts the morning announcements,

You're right. We aren't. But StarWarsPhreak and I were. He brought it up. See page two of this thread for more on how that even came up.

I think if you people are so hell bent on doing away with something, just ****-can the whole pledge. Yeah, to enjoy the fruits of living somewhere you should have to play by their rules to an extent. But it shouldn't mean swearing fealty to anything, or signing your life away on the dotted line. Especially for five year olds and up. Require learning it? Sure. Same with The Gettysburg Address, and other similar horse **** historical propaganda documents. But don't require it being recited by monotonous robot brain dead children. They don't know what any of that **** means anyway. Take God out. Leave God in. Whatever.

@Skywalker: Your lack of education in matters biological does not come as a surprise to some of us... To put it diplomatically.

I am actually in college level biology, for a some reason I am still asking myself. Its not that I "lack" in my education, its that I don't care unless it benefits me. I know a lot of people are like "oh well, you don't care so your screwed" but I already know what I am doing with my life, and have already taken the steps to start right. I mean, its no joke, I am computer geek, its only natural that I will work with computers. No matter what I try, I pick it up... well... cept C++, but I just jumped to far ahead. Crap, in about 6 months I'll be a certified technician, and Adv Bio didn't do anything to get me there.


So because you won't need to know about it, it shouldn't be taught?

I don't need to know about World War II. I don't need to know the history of Norway, even though it's my homeland. The Vikings? Bah, maybe if I'm a tourist guide when I grow up I may find a use for it, but it's hardly useful knowledge.

And so I can continue for an eternity. Don't teach children about how electricity was invented, about how a larva turns into a butterfly, how trees consume Co2 and turn it into O2, and so on and so forth. Unless I want to become a biologist or a mechanic, I don't need to know how it comes that there's "always" air to breathe, or how the electricity that powers my lamps and computer works.

Education is about learning as much as possible. Plain and simple. Unless he has hundreds of professions, a student will only use a fraction of what he learns in school when "real life" comes around.

I was mainly talking of scientific stuff, and I never said not to teach it, merley make it elective. Math, Reading, and Social Studies are important... Then again I guess knowing the significance of 1776 really doesn't matter, but... whatever.

Same with Religious classes, make them elective. Teach the info. Give people the option to decide for themselves, not be forced by "atheists" to only be taught evolution. Face, that's what it is, atheists don't want religion in schools, only evolution. It doesn't matter what you believe, but what the individual students who are made to take these classes believe. As a matter of fact, a lot of people in my Bio class share my beliefs.

As, one of my friends stated "We all gonna die!" and then I said "So, why am I here? I could die, and all I've done all day it listen about Light and Dark reactions..." His reply: "Exactly."

Really, any one here- Please tell me, what has understanding "photophosphorylation" benefited your life? Crap, how many of you even know what that is? Really, this is some of the most ridiculous stuff I have ever heard in my entire life.

For the most part, 5 year old kids don't care about the pledge, crap, I would bet most of them don't know what it means, or what they are doing. Its not like they really mean it, its just something they do.

I am actually in college level biology, [...] in about 6 months I'll be a certified technician, and Adv Bio didn't do anything to get me there.

And in about 16 years, when computers are using biotech circuits on a routine basis, you'll be glad you took it.

[On the importance of common knowledge and broad education:] I was mainly talking of scientific stuff, and I never said not to teach it, merley make it elective. Math, Reading, and Social Studies are important...

This happens to be a pet peewee of mine. Science is not only an important part of modern civilisation, in many if not most respects it is modern civilisation.

To understand the Industrial Revolution, the course of European imperialism and its impact on the world at large (including the revolutions of France and the USA), to understand modern Smith-ian economies (and by extention Marxist and Keynesian economies), it is not only practical but essential to understand the natur, power and - not least - limitations of the technology powering these events.

And in order to make informed political decisions about technological applications (and make no mistake: Decisions about technology and its uses are political, not scientific, ethical or technical, whatever the politicians might tell you), at least the most basic scientific schooling is required. And, considering the appaling standard of reporters, the importance to democracy of an electorate able to carry out at least rudimentary analysis of data ensembles cannot be understated. I would even go so far as to claim that if you do not possess at least rudimentary knowledge of statistics (the importance of standard deviation and sample size, the most common distributions, etc), you are unable to comprehend - and take a qualified stand on - the vast majority of important political issues in a modern democracy.

"In democracies the idiots get to choose. In dictatorships they get to rule." - Winston Churchill

Corollary: "When idiots are in the majority, any democracy will degenerate to a dictatorship." - Me

Really, any one here- Please tell me, what has understanding "photophosphorylation" benefited your life? Crap, how many of you even know what that is?

If I had to take a long shot - based solely on etymology - then I'd guess it has something to do with the generation of ATP by Chlorophyll.

EDIT: Yep, that's it, according to this site (http://www.cat.cc.md.us/courses/bio141/lecguide/unit4/metabolism/energy/photoph.html) (thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) for Google).

For the most part, 5 year old kids don't care about the pledge, crap, I would bet most of them don't know what it means, or what they are doing. Its not like they really mean it, its just something they do.

"In the years after, I told myself: 'How could I have known? I was so young...'" - Traudl Junge [OK, I know that's below the belt, but you get the point]

I didn't read everyone's reply, but I'll state my opinion, from a different perspective:

The whole reason America was ever created was for religious freedom, because England wouldn't allow it. It was pretty much all christian, and when they broke away from England, the founding fathers made the US 'one nation under God'

It's always been that way, and I don't see why people want to change it now instead of hundreds of years ago. Keep in mind that the majority of people in America are christian. If we take it beyond the Pledge, like the "in God we trust" imprinted on all US money, all the christians just wouldn't allow it. Decisions like this should be made by the people, how democracy is suppossed to work.

The whole reason America was ever created was for religious freedom, because England wouldn't allow it. It was pretty much all christian, and when they broke away from England, the founding fathers made the US 'one nation under God'Actually..they didn't. That bit was added in 1954 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance#.22Under_God.22_ruling).

It's always been that way, and I don't see why people want to change it now instead of hundreds of years ago.Like I said, it wasn't quite as long as you think.

Keep in mind that the majority of people in America are christian. If we take it beyond the Pledge, like the "in God we trust" imprinted on all US money, all the christians just wouldn't allow it. Decisions like this should be made by the people, how democracy is suppossed to work.I agree. However, you might see the other argument in the establishment clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment) of the First Amendment. It says quite clearly what is and what is not allowed, and Eisenhower exceeded his authority in putting it in the pledge in the first place. I think if people want it changed, they should try changing the constitution first instead of ignoring what it says on the subject and then relying on popular opinion to keep it from being eliminated.

Except that "under god" wasn't added to the Pledge until fairly recently, 1954, in an effort to distance the U.S. from communism. The addition of "under god" was not meant to symbolize the faith of the American people. It was because people like Joseph McCarthy were so paranoid about the evil, godless commies that every effort was made to fight them, including the butchering of the Pledge.

And what's sad is that the words are stuck there now, because the religious right hasn't checked their history as to how "under god" got there in the first place. They just assume that it's always been there and should always be there. Then they claim that any effort to remove "under god" is some kind of attack on religion.

The existance of "under god" in the Pledge and "In God We Trust" on my money is a blatant violation of the separation of church and state. Communism isn't a threat and was never a threat, so why don't we correct the error we made when we butchered the Pledge?

Both "under God" and "in God we trust" were started in the 1950s.

Moreover, the Founding Fathers were mostly deists: Jefferson, Washington, John Adams, Madison, Franklin, Ethan Allen, perhaps even Paine, though I think he was an atheist.

The myth that the Founding Fathers were christians is unfounded. Some were, but the most influential and most famous were deists. They were decidedly opposed to any religion having dominance over government.

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service [forming the U.S. government] had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. …Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery… are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind” -- A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (Preface, 1787-1788) (http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_00.htm)

The whole reason America was ever created was for religious freedom, because England wouldn't allow it.
There might have been a handful of early settlers that came over to escape religious persecution, but if you look more carefully at the history of the time I think you'll find that most came over primarily for the cash. Capitalism and greed, pure and simple.

Most of them were in it only for the money.

I must echo my cigar-smoking avaitor friend above. The earliest trips to the "New World" were to establish trade goods: tobacco caught on like wild fire, fishing was good in the North East, etc.

But let me be the first to say "welcome to the Senate Chambers!" I hope you stick around, even if some of us disagree :cool:

I grew up in Plymouth Massachusetts, and one year as a school project I did some (mostly behind-the-scenes) work at "Plimouth Plantation," the historic recreation of the original settler village. As a result, I had to do a fair amount of research on the motives of the folks that came over. While a few of them were what we could call true Puritan Pilgrims, a lot of them were merely interested in starting commercial ventures. This was even more true for the subsequent boatloads of immigrants.

I remember that surprising me at the time. It's not something that gets covered too much in any of the history classes I had in school.

Okay, I knew I was going to find a thread like this again eventually. Not going to read the whole thread, but I am going to address points liberals made (made up?) on the subject.

First of all, the great majority of the world practices a religion of some type. But this is just the US. So, what percentage of US citizens are atheist? Well, Google reveals...

Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%), other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%

Okay. Are we going to walk on cracked eggs for the tiny minority, and offend the other 90% of the nation? I trust Wiki's numbers here. And it hardly surprises me. Ans of the 90%, don't all of those people worship God? Those people may name Him different things (1% call him Allah, for example) but He is God to 90% of America.

It's far from forcing any one religion on anybody. It is hardly even forcing religion at all, because it is simply a reflection of the majority's views. Also, some religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses do not say the pledge. I learned that waaaay back in 5th grade when a classmate was a Witness. So, who's forcing atheists to say the pledge? Or maybe they can say it without Under God while we say it with Under God.

The phrase 'Under God' was added in reaction to the Communist scare in 1954 as a way to counter the extreme lack of religion. It has stayed since because there was no reason to remove it. Now, could I tolerate saying the Pledge without Under God? Yes! No problem there, if there is a valid reason to remove it. There isn't, because 'Under God' is protected under Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and if the pledge is typed out, then Freedom of Press.

Furthermore, not all atheists are activists who demand action in having the pledge removed. Some simply don't believe in a God and don't worry about the pledge. Some play the "seperation of church and state" harp, but that argument is easily shot down by a simple fact: NOWHERE in the Constitution can you find Seperation of Church and State. In fact, according to Wiki:

The separation of church and state is a concept and philosophy in modern thought and practice, whereby the structures of the state or national government are proposed as needing to be separate from those of religious institutions.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state)

A philosophy, not a law. In fact, the government is technically free to be as religious as it wants. That was what it was like when the founding fathers made the government.

Well, that's all for now. If I think of anything else you'll be the first to know.

Okay, I knew I was going to find a thread like this again eventually. Not going to read the whole thread, but I am going to address points liberals made (made up?) on the subject.

First of all, the great majority of the world practices a religion of some type. But this is just the US. So, what percentage of US citizens are atheist? Well, Google reveals...

Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%), other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%

Okay. Are we going to walk on cracked eggs for the tiny minority, and offend the other 90% of the nation? I trust Wiki's numbers here. And it hardly surprises me. Ans of the 90%, don't all of those people worship God? Those people may name Him different things (1% call him Allah, for example) but He is God to 90% of America.

It's far from forcing any one religion on anybody. It is hardly even forcing religion at all, because it is simply a reflection of the majority's views. Also, some religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses do not say the pledge. I learned that waaaay back in 5th grade when a classmate was a Witness. So, who's forcing atheists to say the pledge? Or maybe they can say it without Under God while we say it with Under God.But is it allowed under the constitution as it stands now? Yes or no?

The phrase 'Under God' was added in reaction to the Communist scare in 1954 as a way to counter the extreme lack of religion. It has stayed since because there was no reason to remove it. Now, could I tolerate saying the Pledge without Under God? Yes! No problem there, if there is a valid reason to remove it. There isn't, because 'Under God' is protected under Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and if the pledge is typed out, then Freedom of Press.

Furthermore, not all atheists are activists who demand action in having the pledge removed. Some simply don't believe in a God and don't worry about the pledge. Some play the "seperation of church and state" harp, but that argument is easily shot down by a simple fact: NOWHERE in the Constitution can you find Seperation of Church and State. In fact, according to Wiki:



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state)

A philosophy, not a law. In fact, the government is technically free to be as religious as it wants. That was what it was like when the founding fathers made the government.

Well, that's all for now. If I think of anything else you'll be the first to know.The argument you're trying to attack is not the one you just did. I agree, the government is quite free to be as religious as it likes - as long as no religion is promoted over another (i.e. given more funding, representation, etc).

The argument against the 'under God' statement in the pledge is that it is inherently monotheistic. It excludes polytheistic (and atheism, if you call it a religion) religions by implication - an absolute no-no under the constitution.

The solution to this would be to change the constitution. But where, exactly, are you going to find people that want to change the first amendment, even among your 90% of population? That is the question you should answer if you want this debate to go away.

My position is I like having religious freedom, even if it means I can't get the government to support my ideas all the time. If the ideas are good enough, they'll survive on their own merit. I don't mind the 'under God' in the pledge myself (I like it in fact), but I can see it for what it is objectively - an endorsement of one subset of religions in violation of the constitution.

Okay, I knew I was going to find a thread like this again eventually. Not going to read the whole thread, but I am going to address points liberals made (made up?) on the subject.

Except I didn't see where you demonstrated that any points were made up by liberals or others in this thread. I'm assuming "made up?", being in parentheses, is a device of hyperbole then?

First of all, the great majority of the world practices a religion of some type. But this is just the US. So, what percentage of US citizens are atheist? Well, Google reveals...

Christian 78% (Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%), other 10%, none 10%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%

Okay. Are we going to walk on cracked eggs for the tiny minority, and offend the other 90% of the nation?

According to the U.S. Census for 1900, the black population was 11.6% (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1901). At what percentage was it finally appropriate for the United States to recognize that blacks were actually human? What percentage was appropriate to allow blacks to own property? Vote? Sit at the fronts of buses?

The point is that minorities have rights regardless of how large and imposing the majority is. Very often (as I would assert is generally the case with the christian majority), the majority is flat out wrong.

The First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I'm sure you are quick to notice that "the free exercise thereof" includes your precious "under god" and the motto on the coinage. However, this clearly demonstrates State support for a given cult of religion and excludes other cults, the minorities you mentioned above.

To fine-tune your statistics on the distribution of religious thought in the U.S., I'd like to point out that according to the American Religious Identification Survey (Kosmin, Mayer & Keysar 2001), the non-christian religions (with excpeption of judeism) grew considerably: the numbers of muslims and buddhists each doubled from 1990 to 2001. Christian religions grew from 151 million to 159 million. Interestingly enough, the number of agnostics in the U.S. grew 120%. That's not counting atheists, of which data did not appear available for 1990, but whose numbers were nearly 1 million.

Non-religious and non-christians are in no way overtaking christianity, but the diversity is growing in our nation. At what percentage do these people have rights? When do they need not worry that the accepted state religion is christianity? When do they need not worry that they didn't flee one theocracy only to end up in another? From the perspective of someone who is not-christian, seeing christian nonsense plastered on money, walls of government buildings, and chanted in public schools sends a very clear message. One that leaders of christian cults very much want to send: the United States is for people who accept the alleged christ and not for others.

Which, of course, is poppycock and contrary to what the founding fathers of this nation envisioned, as evidenced by their writings, both official and non-official.

It's far from forcing any one religion on anybody. It is hardly even forcing religion at all, because it is simply a reflection of the majority's views.

The majority has plenty of ways to reflect its views. There are reams and reams of literature on the shelves of bookstores and libraries. There are churches of various denominations on every street corner. Fundraisers crop up all over the place for church functions. Your religion does not need nor require the few words in contention here to succeed. It does, however, need them to continue with plans to dominate the nation's government and install a theocracy.

Also, some religions such as Jehovah's Witnesses do not say the pledge. I learned that waaaay back in 5th grade when a classmate was a Witness. So, who's forcing atheists to say the pledge? Or maybe they can say it without Under God while we say it with Under God.

It isn't necessarily the problem that people are being 'forced' to say it. It's a problem that the state is saying 'this is our religion.' The state should not align with any religion.

There isn't, because 'Under God' is protected under Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and if the pledge is typed out, then Freedom of Press.

As I've demonstrated above, this is completely false. Believing otherwise, would appear to me to show a lack of critical thinking ability. The first ammendment precludes government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Inclusion of "under god" does just that by implying that other religious thoughts are unwelcome in state institutions. It must go. Keeping it is unpatriotic.

Furthermore, not all atheists are activists who demand action in having the pledge removed.

This is one of the few things you said that are correct. Most just ignore religion altogether. Luckily, there are enough that speak out, but it isn't just atheists who disagree with the inclusion of 'under god.' Thinking that is a fallacy.

NOWHERE in the Constitution can you find Seperation of Church and State.

It is clearly implied in the First Ammendment. Merging State with any one church excludes all others. Thus, it is unconstitutional. Lets apply critical thinking here rather than having a conclusion to which you recognize only that data which are supportive.



References:

Kosmin, Barry; Mayer, Egon; Keysar, Ariela (2001)."American Religious Identification Survey," by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/)

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1901). Census of Population: 1900, Vol. I, Population, Part 1 (Dubester #252). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

NOWHERE in the Constitution can you find Seperation of Church and State.

Incorrect.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Thomas Jefferson is the one who made up the "separation of church and state" thing, when referring to this part of the First Ammendment.

Incorrect.That's not quite right. It does not restrict religion from government. It restricts any particular religion from being endorsed by the government more than others. However, since there's far too many religions (I'm including "strong" atheism in this group), and many hold contradicting views, it basically forces the government to adopt a "weak" atheistic position.

Are you saying Thomas Jefferson didn't know what he was talking about?

Are you saying Thomas Jefferson didn't know what he was talking about?I'm saying that the constitution does not force separation in theory, just in practice. Frankly, what Jefferson said outside of the Constitution is irrelevant to this debate, since it's about what the constitution does and does not allow.

You know, I think theoretical communism would be great. However, that's theory. It has not and probably will not ever succeed in practice, so I don't support it (and am indeed against it). Sure, I can think about a absolutely flat plane in geometry, but that doesn't mean I'll ever find one in reality. Same situation here - if there were only monotheists in the US this wouldn't be an issue, but there is not and that situation is highly unlikely to change in the future.

Thank you, Samuel Dravis. I appreciate it.

Frankly, what Jefferson said outside of the Constitution is irrelevant to this debate, since it's about what the constitution does and does not allow.

The views of the Founding Fathers seem to me like they'd play a significant role in the Constitution.

The views of the Founding Fathers seem to me like they'd play a significant role in the Constitution.You believe that their personal views are to be given the same status as law? No, I don't think so. Yes, their views influenced the Constitution, but they are certaintly not the Constitution.