At some point, the people who realize that "freedom OF religion" makes sense -- will have to realize that "freedom FROM religion" makes even more sense.
The religious have many, many way to express their convictions -- and I honor and respect their rights to do so. But they do not have a right to impose their expressions on the rest of us.
I'm an agnostic who loves this country as much as any theist -- and I would like to pledge my allegiance to it without having to invoke this god of theirs when pledging it with the OFFICIAL national pledge.
And I hope at some point we get rid of the "In God We Trust" nonsense on our money. I'd like to be able to use our country's money without trusting the currently popular god -- a god, I might add, than no reasonable person would trust.
trust no one who tells you who to trust.
Dyslexia, this means that kids must not trust their parents: they often explain to their offspring whom they should trust, and whom not.
steissd, i beleive dyslexia is talking about not trusting government, not about raising children.
i have never thought that the god in the pledge of allegiance was a vanilla god. it seemed to me it was a christian god. when what-his-name, our president talks about god, he is talking about his christian god.
i agree with frank about taking god off of the money too.
Freedom of no religion would be good.
The key word in the phrase 'freedom of religion' is 'OF' religion- not FROM religion. This country was founded by, and still is inhabited by, a vast majority who believe in a supreme being.
As for the color (or flavor, ie. vanilla, etc.) of God, I prefer to think of God as clear- that is having no color like water.
Bush and God
A higher calling: It is his defining journey—from reveler to revelation. A biography of his faith, and how he wields it as he leads a nation on the brink of war
I think I can boil this down to one phrase. Kill it's Gods will.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/878520.asp?0cv=KA01
Jose
You wrote:
"The key word in the phrase 'freedom of religion' is 'OF' religion- not FROM religion. This country was founded by, and still is inhabited by, a vast majority who believe in a supreme being."
COMMENT:
So what?
If it makes sense to say that the government has no business telling people WHAT religion to follow -- why does it not make sense to say that government has no business telling people that they must have any religion at all?
Why not just stay out of the religion issue altogether -- and let the people who want to trust in their god -- trust in their god. And the people who want to live in a country under their god can live in a country under their god.
None of those freedoms are being abridged in any way.
But the government should not drag the rest of us into that kind of thing.
We should have freedom OF religion! And we should have freedom FROM religion also -- based on the same logic.
"SAN FRANCISCO, California (Reuters) -- A ruling by a U.S. appeals court could force millions of students to stop reciting the Pledge of Allegiance within days if the controversial decision is not overturned by a higher court, legal experts said Saturday.
Public schools with some 9.6 million students in nine states have until March 10 to stop reciting the pledge after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals backed its prior ruling that the words "under God" in the pledge are a government endorsement of religion
Sensibility Applied
"...Schools do more than train children's minds. They also help to nurture their souls by reinforcing the values they learn at home and in their communities. I believe that one of the best ways we can help out schools to do this is by supporting students' rights to voluntarily practice their religious beliefs, including prayer in schools.... For more than 200 years, the First Amendment has protected our religious freedom and allowed many faiths to flourish in our homes, in our work place and in our schools. Clearly understood and sensibly applied, it works."
President Clinton
May 30, 1998
Religious freedom si' prayer in schools no!
In Support of One's Country
October 11, 1892
I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1923
I pledge allegiance to my the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1924
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
June 14, 1954
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
Seems Eisenhower screwed this thing up. Wouldn't it seem rational, if the Pledge of Allegiance were amended, back to the June 14, 1924 version, rather than banning it? Or does someone have a problem with the whole concept of pledging allegiance to this country?
totally agree and essentially that is what the courts have ruled (not against the pledge, but specifically against "under god"
I have no problem with the 1924 version. It worked fine -- and got the job done. The addition was unwarranted -- and I hope it is finally corrected.
Hi Frank, good to see you here.
ferrous, I don't know what the occasion was for Clinton's remarks, but students have always had the right to pray silently to their god, any time and anywhere.
Perhaps the prayer advocates read "Horton Hears a Who" too many times, and do not think that God can hear them unless all of the kids pray in unison.
Are they really worried that children might somehow lose their values in the few hours they spend in school if they don't engage in public prayer? They must not have much faith in their faith!
Why should children who are not old enough to vote, fight, drive or enter into legal contracts be asked to swear allegiance to their flag, country, or anything else? With or without the "under God" clause, does this really make sense to anyone?
Interesting point, Terry. Children in state schools, when I was a weelowan, had to do some sort of pledge of allegiance every morning - I, in a church school, did not - they no longer do it - I suppose because it was seen as jingoistic. I am not sure if it had a god component - but the motto of the development of the state school system in this country was "free, universal and secular."
Just as a funny aside - three little anecdotes about pledges and such-like and different ways of dealing with them when they are offensive to you....
Not long ago, every one wanting to become an Australian citizen had to make a pledge which included pledging loyalty to the Queen and her heirs and successors (the difference being?... however..). A number of friends of mine, especially those from Britain, were furious at having to do this - saying that they never had to do it while they lived in the same country as the stupid woman, and risked practically tripping over her, so why should they do it now? They responded, very maturely, by whispering NOT when that bit came, and crossing the fingers of one hand behind their backs!
When I was about 8 or 9 I became a staunch anti-monarchist, and refused to stand up any longer when the National Anthem, which in those days was all about the Queen - (since it was the BRITISH National Anthem!) - was played. My mother respected this stand (or sit, as it ought rightly be called) but one day a crowd (at the races I believe, it was certainly outside) was greeted to the edifying spectacle of a neighbour of ours, who had come with us, furiously wrestling a mutinous and silently, but fiercely, struggling little girl to her feet, and holding her there in despite of gravity, firmly folded legs, and fierce tugging! I never stood for that song again. I probably would now, though, on the basis of respect for other people's beliefs and the unimportance of empty symbols.
The final one is about a teenage client of mine, who has Asperger's Syndrome, and hence is rather rigid in his thinking. He has a scholarship to a local Catholic High School, which takes on a number of students who are not Catholic. He was assured that he would not be compelled to JOIN in prayers - since he is a militant atheist - but was being strongly pressured by his home-room teacher to cross himself during morning prayers in the classroom. Now, this young man has numerous problems of many kinds, and was waging various battles in various areas. It seemed to me that, though technically in the right, it was a tiny point to cede, really.
We worked out a compromise. My ex-Catholic friends had told me a little saying that helped generations of naughty little boys to remember the right way of crossing themselves - an adjuration to point to their "spectacles, testicles, wallet and watch." He LOVED the naughtiness of this - and now solemnly crosses himself in the morning, looking very sweet and obedient, but muttering his rebellious little mantra under his breath and striking, in his mind, a daily blow against tyranny and unreason.
I was once sent to the VP's office in high school after a red-faced, spittle flinging homeroom teacher (not even my homeroom teacher) watched one too many times as I refused to say the pledge of allegiance. I always did, out of respect for others' beliefs try to stay quiet during the moment of silence even though I also thought that an infringement on the seperation of C&S. (still do think that)
I never could understand why the prayer had to come to school. I mean, why not pray to yourself anywhere anytime all by yourself - on the toilet, on the bus, in the halls, during lunch..... how much praying does one need to do? Should/do muslim kids get to take their 5-15 minutes to pray at midday? What other prayer rituals are there that should also be incorporated into the class schedules?
