God hater loses in court.

Well, Frank, which God are we under?

Is that defined somewhere?

The Framers liked God just fine.

They certainly intended for God to be referenced all in our public political ceremonies. They were all still here to complain at George Washington's inauguration wherein George said outright that this nation was a miracle of God--and we owed it to Him not to fall short of our promise.

Say what you will--but the Framers could have changed things as they saw them happening. Or they could have spoken up or written about their displeasure. They didn't.

Prayers and religious overtones have always been a part of Congressional meetings and even the meetings of the Continental Congress... I can understand why people may not like this--but it's not offered up for revision.

I'll talk about what the hell I please.

This is about prayer and the inauguration and the Framers were mentioned a page or so back.

You don't have to like the content--but challenging it is better than trying to censor it.

McGentrix wrote:

Well, Frank, which God are we under?

Is that defined somewhere?

What does that have to do with it?

The wording of the official pledge of allegiance....the words that are recited by school kids every school day...and which opens most public local meetings...contains the words..."...one nation, under god."

That is entirely dismissive of a large segment of our population...people who do not subscribe to the notion that we are a nation under ANY god. And it is unnecessarily...and gratuituously dismissive of US. The function of the pledge is not to define if we are under any gods or not. It is there so that people have an official way of pledging their loyalty to their country. Atheists and agnostics are loyal to their country as well as theists.

I just am surprised...considering you seem to be a fair person and one who sees the needs for equity among our very diverse population...

...that you are not more enthusiastic in supporting the removal of those words.

Lash wrote:

I'll talk about what the hell I please.

This is about prayer and the inauguration and the Framers were mentioned a page or so back.

You don't have to like the content--but challenging it is better than trying to censor it.

Excellent response, Lash.

You are absolutely right...and I was wrong.

My apologies.

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Well, Frank, which God are we under?

Is that defined somewhere?

What does that have to do with it?

The wording of the official pledge of allegiance....the words that are recited by school kids every school day...and which opens most public local meetings...contains the words..."...one nation, under god."

That is entirely dismissive of a large segment of our population...people who do not subscribe to the notion that we are a nation under ANY god. And it is unnecessarily...and gratuituously dismissive of US. The function of the pledge is not to define if we are under any gods or not. It is there so that people have an official way of pledging their loyalty to their country. Atheists and agnostics are loyal to their country as well as theists.

I just am surprised...considering you seem to be a fair person and one who sees the needs for equity among our very diverse population...

...that you are not more enthusiastic in supporting the removal of those words.

You are over representing the group of people who do not beleive in God Frank. The majority of people here in the US have stated that they beleive in God and as someone else posted, 70% of Americans see themselves as Christians. I do not fall into that 70% but I do beleive in God. The majority that you speak of doesn't exist.

That completely wrecked my indignation.

Very gracious. Thank you.

Frank has a way of doing that

[size=7]<He can be charming, sometimes>[/size]

McGentrix wrote:

What do you consider a "significant portion" to be when you say "despite the fact that a significant portion of the population does not subscribe to that notion. "?

Oh...a portion at least as great as say...the Jewish population...or the African American population.

Wouldn't you say those groups represent a "significant portion" of our population?

How big would we have to be before desciminating against us would no longer be okay?

Baldimo wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Well, Frank, which God are we under?

Is that defined somewhere?

What does that have to do with it?

The wording of the official pledge of allegiance....the words that are recited by school kids every school day...and which opens most public local meetings...contains the words..."...one nation, under god."

That is entirely dismissive of a large segment of our population...people who do not subscribe to the notion that we are a nation under ANY god. And it is unnecessarily...and gratuituously dismissive of US. The function of the pledge is not to define if we are under any gods or not. It is there so that people have an official way of pledging their loyalty to their country. Atheists and agnostics are loyal to their country as well as theists.

I just am surprised...considering you seem to be a fair person and one who sees the needs for equity among our very diverse population...

...that you are not more enthusiastic in supporting the removal of those words.

You are over representing the group of people who do not beleive in God Frank. The majority of people here in the US have stated that they beleive in God and as someone else posted, 70% of Americans see themselves as Christians. I do not fall into that 70% but I do beleive in God. The majority that you speak of doesn't exist.

Baldimo...re-read my posts.

No where have I represented that the group who do not subscribe to the notion of a god...is a majority....or even a very large minority.

Read it again...and we'll talk.

That is entirely dismissive of a large segment of our population...people who do not subscribe to the notion that we are a nation under ANY god

It's larger than the Jewish population according to the 2002 census.