Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Fox...

...I really want to know what answer I owe you.

And of course, I hope you give me some answers to the questions I asked.

As Rosborne just noted...I see some inconsistency in your position...and I'd like to discuss it.

We can do it reasonably...and respectfully.

0 Replies

Perhaps the futility of attempted communication with a cultist becomes self-evident.

0 Replies

Frank, you asked if I would object to "In Jesus Christ we trust" on coins or "Under Jesus Christ" in the pledge, and I said yes I would as that would favor a specific religion and therefore would be inappropriate. I think the simple term God can be anything we choose to make of it however and favors no particular religion. All religions have some form of "god" or diety and there are generic secular 'gods' as well as mythical 'gods', so I do not see the term itself as in any way being coercive or an establishment of religion.

You asked if I would object to "In no God we trust" or "Under no God". I said I wouldn't like it, but if that's what the majority wanted, I would have to accept it. I don't have any legal grounds to object as my rights would in no way be compromised or infringed. And if I favor majority rule in matters of my preferences, it would be intellectually dishonest to not favor majority rule when the majority favors a different preference.

Now how have I been inconsistent in any way?

My question to you was to explain how your rights, Frank's rights, are compromised or infringed in any way by the words on a coin or in a Pledge when you are not required to profess or believe them and there are no repercussions of any kind if you don't?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Frank, you asked if I would object to "In Jesus Christ we trust" on coins or "Under Jesus Christ" in the pledge, and I said yes I would as that would favor a specific religion and therefore would be inappropriate.

Fox, I feel that your statement above is in conflict with the argument you made earlier in which you defended the wording in the pledge on the grounds that nobody was forced to say it. How can you have it both ways?

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the simple term God can be anything we choose to make of it however and favors no particular religion. All religions have some form of "god" or diety and there are generic secular 'gods' as well as mythical 'gods', so I do not see the term itself as in any way being coercive or an establishment of religion.

And what of us who don't believe in God at all? if it's objectionable for you to consider putting Jesus in the pledge because it implies something to religious people, then why do you not feel the same objection when implying "under God" to people who don't have religion?

I'm perfectly willing to respect your opinion, even if I don't share it, but at the moment, I don't understand the basis of your opinion due to the inconsistencies above.

0 Replies

Ros, I'm not trying to have it both ways. I think I have been consistent that it is improper for government to favor any one religion over any other. Expressions of religion within or by government are fine but not when they can be clearly identified with any particular religion to the exclusion of any other religion. In other words the creche on the courthouse lawn is fine if a minorah or any other religious symbols that others would like to have there can also be there. It would not be right if the creche was allowed and all other religious symbols denied. And if the athiests want a Santa Claus or Frosty the Snowman as their symbol of Christmas, by all means put it there.

And I did include 'secular gods' in my list up there so everybody is going to fit in there somewhere. Smile

0 Replies

secular gods, now there is a mouthful (not a mindful but what the hell) do you find those at the generic one size fits all section behind the fruit at your local discount house of worship? Theology, the only thing missing in protestant churches.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ros, I'm not trying to have it both ways. I think I have been consistent that it is improper for government to favor any one religion over any other.

Fox, you can't defend the pledge on the following basis...

Foxfyre wrote:

To me it is patently obvious that no rights of mine (or anybody else) are violated. The words on a coin do not cost me anything while to remove them at this time would. The words in a Pledge do not require me to do anything, believe anything, pay anything, nor are there any tangible repercussions of any kind if I do or do not profess or repeat the words in it. My rights are perfectly intact whether or not a particular phrase is inscribed on a coin or included in a Pledge.

... and then turn around and say it's improper for government to favor one religion over another in the pledge. In one statement you're saying that the pledge is meaningless (and therefor unobjectionable), and in the next you won't let the government favor one religion over another in the same pledge because *that* would be ojectionable. It's an inconsistent argument.

But here's where we differ...

Foxfyre wrote:

Expressions of religion within or by government are fine but not when they can be clearly identified with any particular religion to the exclusion of any other religion.

Expressions of religion within or by government are not fine, even when they are generic because there are lots of people out there who feel as strongly about *any* God as other people do about the mention of a *specific* God.

The Government simply has no reason to express religion in any form. The government is there to pave our roads, build our courthouses and defend our shores. It's not there to impart any theological preference at all. And if it *does* express religion in any form, then we need to be very suspicious of its motives, because everything in Government is there for a reason, and the change in the pledge was made for a very specific reason, one which is unconstitutional. How can any citizen of this country defend it in good faith, knowing why it was put there.

0 Replies

Frank, please clean up your language. All of you are just quibbling about the stupid pledge of Allegience. Now, personally, I am Christian, but I don't approve of things in school being combined with my religion. To me religion belongs in church and at home. Now, I also respect that other people like to advertise their religion. People should just respect each other and their beliefs. I'm tired of just reading about money and the pledge. And for the non-religious in this discussion the dollar bill says "Novo Seclorum Ordo" or New Secular Order. May I also say that living in Georgia, I think it is inappropriate to paste a sticker in books that Evolution is a theory and cannot be proven, and yet nothing is said about the presentation of Creationism as a theory. And if you want to get into pledges, why should students in Texas be forced to recite the pledge of allegience to the republic of Texas? Now, I've read twelve pages of crapola about money and the pledge. Get over it and try a new topic. PLEASE!!!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

My question to you was to explain how your rights, Frank's rights, are compromised or infringed in any way by the words on a coin or in a Pledge when you are not required to profess or believe them and there are no repercussions of any kind if you don't?

I want to get to the remainder of your post...because I, like Rosborne, see an enormous inconsistency in your position. I suspect, however, that by answering this part...I will touch on all the other parts.

I have responded to this, Fox...in fact, on the occasion of my responding...you replied that we were going to have to agree to disagree...because our ideas of what our rights are...are different.

I have a "right" to the peaceful enjoyment of my own philosophy of life...without the worries engendered when I see the government of my country, unnecessarily and inappropriately, favoring philosphies that are at odds with my own.

You seem so easily to see that our government ought not to favor one religion over another.

But you seem absolutely blind to the fact that our government ought not to be, unnecessarily and inappropriately, favoring one philosophy over another.

I am an agnostic.

It offends me...that the government of my country is asserting that OUR country is UNDER some god. It is unnecessary for the government to assert that...and it is inappropriate for it to do so.

It offends me...that the government of my country is asserting that we place our trust in some god. It is unnecessary for the government to assert that...and it is inappropriate for it to do so.

And IT IS MY RIGHT not to be offended in that way.

The framers of the constitution understood this notion although they did not take it far enough. By insisting that the government not establish a religion...they recognized that divergent ideas about THE REALITY exist...and that the government, rightfully, should not establish "a correct way" to think about that REALITY. They framed it in terms of not establishing a religion...or not favoring a religion...but for certain that was a result of the times.

Agnosticism and atheism certainly have a place in today's society. We agnostics and athesists vote, serve in the military, do charitable work, serve as volunteers and all the other things that free citizens of this country do.

Why should we be treated as second class citizens in any of this?

Hell...we are talking about only two items here. Unnecessary wording on our coins and bills...and unnecessary wording in the official Pledge of Allegience to our country.

I maintain it also is inappropriate.

You would not want "In Jesus Christ We Trust" or "...one nation, under Jesus Christ." It is inappropriate. It also happens to be unlawful...but the reason it is unlawful...is that it is inappropriate.

It is inappropriate because a segment of good, upstanding, bona fide citizens are not adherents of the faith of Jesus Christ.

Well, Fox, a segment of good, upstanding, bona fide citizens are not adherents of theism.

There is no reason to scorn us with this unnecessary wording just because you are part of a majority.

I have no idea of what goes on in your head not to understand that.

But it might be worthwhile to simply put this "rights" issue aside...as I suggested earlier...and deal with the questions I asked up above.

You avoided the questions and answered a different set of questions, I notice.

Here they are again. Why don't you highlight and quote them...and then answer them. Perhaps you will gain some insight into our concerns by doing so.

Quote:

Would you consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

Would you consider "In Jesus Christ we trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

0 Replies

peachstate kid wrote:

Frank, please clean up your language. All of you are just quibbling about the stupid pledge of Allegience. Now, personally, I am Christian, but I don't approve of things in school being combined with my religion. To me religion belongs in church and at home. Now, I also respect that other people like to advertise their religion. People should just respect each other and their beliefs. I'm tired of just reading about money and the pledge. And for the non-religious in this discussion the dollar bill says "Novo Seclorum Ordo" or New Secular Order. May I also say that living in Georgia, I think it is inappropriate to paste a sticker in books that Evolution is a theory and cannot be proven, and yet nothing is said about the presentation of Creationism as a theory. And if you want to get into pledges, why should students in Texas be forced to recite the pledge of allegience to the republic of Texas? Now, I've read twelve pages of crapola about money and the pledge. Get over it and try a new topic. PLEASE!!!

Just who in the hell are you to come in here and tell me what I should or should not do. You've posted 10 times in this forum...and you are already tired of something.

Go read your comic books or watch television or whatever else someone of your obvious intellectual abilities does to pass the time.

If you don't like what is going on in this thread...get the hell out of it.

If you don't like my language...don't read my posts.

But don't give me any goddam lectures.

0 Replies

Oh, by the way..

...welcome to A2K.

0 Replies

The First Amendment says "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."

It does not say or imply, nor was it the founders intent, that government be devoid of any references to religion or that those in government should be denied their constiutitonal right to the free exercise of religion. The only intention was that the government not require any person to believe or profess anything in matters of faith or suffer any consequences for not believing or professing anything in matters of faith. The government has no right to make you go to Church or be religious. The government has no right to say you cannot go to Church or be religious.

Religious art, religious words on government buildings, on coins, or in the pledge do neither. Therefore, in my view they are legal and they are also appropriate so long as most Americans want them to be there.

Most Americans were not even alive when the words "under God" were added to the Pledge and I'm not sure when the "in God we trust" went on our money but it has been there for as long as I can remember. To condemn the phrases now for somebody's intent 50 years ago would be like saying nobody should ever vote for a Democrat because most Democrats supported segregation 50 years ago. The present reality is very different from what it was 50 years ago.

0 Replies

Quote:

The present reality is very different from what it was 50 years ago.

and the constitution is how old?

0 Replies

Frank you must have missed one of my posts. I answered all the questions you re-stated today.

And I still fail to see how the words on a coin or a phrase in a Pledge, both of which you don't believe, should in any way interfere with your peaceful enjoyment of anything.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The only intention was that the government not require any person to believe or profess anything in matters of faith or suffer any consequences for not believing or professing anything in matters of faith.

The pledge asks us to profess something, and it does so under the authority of the state.

It's 8am and the kids are still waking up, but little Tommy and Jimmy still have enough energy to tease Sally for her actions yesterday. The bell rings and the teacher stands, "Children, please stand now and recite the pledge of allegience. Place your hands over your hearts and repeat after me..." Sally recites the pledge and mouthes the words Under God, hoping that Tommy won't see her, but he does, and sticks his tongue out at her. Jimmy snickers and elbows Allison to get her in on it. The teacher finishes with, "as you all know children, nobody has to say the pledge, so those who don't want to do it can just sit down, or say only the parts they want to say, and all you other kids leave them alone." Sally cringes as Tommy sneers at her, it's going to be a tough year in school.

0 Replies

I don't mind by the word God in a constitution, but I have heard from an atheist friend of mine that he really does not want the word God in our Canadian anthem and this tells me that there are those who are uncomfortable with the use of certain religious words that are in a government level since they are under that government and they must everyday assume to represent their nationality.

Weren't many of the founding fathers deist btw?

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

The pledge asks us to profess something, and it does to under the authority of the state.

But the State is not asking or requiring you to profess the Pledge. I approved of the fairly recent rule that children could opt out of the Pledge or substitute whatever word they wished to replace "under God". If I disapproved of the language and didn't want my child to feel 'left out', I would simple tell him/her to say the pledge but not those two words. Nobody would notice and little Johnny or Susie doesn't have to feel 'odd'. Meanwhile, all the other children who don't mind saying "under God" or who like saying it are not denied that right.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Ros writes

Quote:
The pledge asks us to profess something, and it does to under the authority of the state.

But the State is not asking or requiring you to profess the Pledge.

Yes it is. When the teacher says, "please stand and recite the pledge", that's the state asking or requiring you to profess the pledge.

Foxfyre wrote:

I approved of the fairly recent rule that children could opt out of the Pledge or substitute whatever word they wished to replace "under God". If I disapproved of the language and didn't want my child to feel 'left out', I would simple tell him/her to say the pledge but not those two words. Nobody would notice and little Johnny or Susie doesn't have to feel 'odd'. Meanwhile, all the other children who don't mind saying "under God" or who like saying it are not denied that right.

Kids are impressionable. Way back in first grade, most of them just follow along, learning and absorbing everything they hear, especially the things the authority figure tells them. What better way to help little kids learn that their nation is "under God" than to place it into their deepest childhood memories and ask them to recite it.

Those words were placed into the pledge for a reason, that reason is a matter of record, and the record shows that the motives for the change were clearly unconstitutional.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Frank you must have missed one of my posts. I answered all the questions you re-stated today.

And I still fail to see how the words on a coin or a phrase in a Pledge, both of which you don't believe, should in any way interfere with your peaceful enjoyment of anything.

No you did not!

And if you don't see by now how the words do interfere with my peaceful enjoyment of things...it is because you are willfully refusing to...not because it has not been explained.

In any case, my questions were:

Quote:

Would you consider "In God we don't trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

Would you consider "In Jesus Christ we trust" to be an insult to any people?

Would you consider it an unnecessary insensitive remark?

You responded:

Quote:

Frank, you asked if I would object to "In Jesus Christ we trust" on coins or "Under Jesus Christ" in the pledge, and I said yes I would as that would favor a specific religion and therefore would be inappropriate. I think the simple term God can be anything we choose to make of it however and favors no particular religion. All religions have some form of "god" or diety and there are generic secular 'gods' as well as mythical 'gods', so I do not see the term itself as in any way being coercive or an establishment of religion.

You asked if I would object to "In no God we trust" or "Under no God". I said I wouldn't like it, but if that's what the majority wanted, I would have to accept it. I don't have any legal grounds to object as my rights would in no way be compromised or infringed. And if I favor majority rule in matters of my preferences, it would be intellectually dishonest to not favor majority rule when the majority favors a different preference.

I didn't ask you if you would object to anything.

I asked if you would consider them insulting to any segment of our population....and I asked if you considered them unnecessary and insensitive.

You answered questions you made up...not those questions.

Why not give the actual questions a response.

0 Replies

All that is being said is well and good. Fox does not have this battle, though he thinks he does.

But he has completely ignored the most fundamental flaw in supporting the addition of this phrase:

We need only look at the intent.

The intent,

Straight from a quote Fox posted himself,

Is for the words "under God"

To be "weapons".

That is the end of the argument.

This point cannot be refuted.

To do so is impossible.

The intention of the phrase, from the camels mouth,

Is for it to be a religious weapon.

This is a clear violation of my rights to freedom of religion.

The US government, in adding this phrase, has declared a religious war.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know