OT: Court Rules Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional
Su
Julianne Weight
<1971...@nospam.telocity.com> wrote:
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html
How long will it be before people refuse to handle money because it
says "In God We Trust?" <G>
14tonks
IRS would have to refuse to accept them? <grin>
--
&%) Sheila
To reply to me, you must add the prefix real. to my address.
"Julianne Weight" <jul...@nospam-alphabest.com> wrote in message
news:3d1a2ca8...@news.speakeasy.net...
RaeMorrill
How long will it be before people refuse to handle money because it
says "In God We Trust?" <G>
>
Well, anyone who can't in good conscience handle it for that reason, please
send to me
Rae Morrill in Maine
"Ya can't get theyuh from heeah"
_______________________________
Spam mailers WILL be reported to their respective postmasters and AOL TOSSPAM!
Gdubson
send to me
>
>
>Rae Morrill in Maine
Nice of you to sacrifice yourself! Did you ever get your cable modem problem
fixed?
Gisele
RMJCMT
God We Trust?" <G>
>>
>>Well, anyone who can't in good conscience handle it for that reason, please
send to me
>
And the god was not put in the pledge of allegience until 1954. I grew up
saying it without.
I'd rather be a has been than a never was.
RaeMorrill
Nice of you to sacrifice yourself! Did you ever get your cable modem problem
fixed?>
Well, I swapped the plug from my puter in the hub with DH's and mine now is
faster. I also found on IE it was faster than Netscape. I can now DL 30 min of
tape in a couple of minutes depending on wav file settings. Even the one saved
at 20 mb I could DL from FTP site in less than half hour.
Edward Gmys
of money!
Even though I believe this is one country, under God, and do trust in God, I
do not think that
agnostic tax-payers should have to recite that in the allegiance or use
currency with that saying.
Ed
"Su" <1971...@nospam.telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3d1a1e15$1...@nopics.sjc...
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html
>
>
>
>
Liz
klee
are a strong nation built on a belief in God, this nation was formed
because we wanted our religious freedom. Have people so quickly
forgotten what happened on 9/11?? Thousands were killed because their
killers believed they could do this and loose their own lives in the
process because they would have a reward waiting for them; an eternal
life in paradise for the murder of Americans and giving up their life
in the process. NO THIS IS WRONG!!
aka FeFiFillio
>do not think that>agnostic tax-payers should have to recite that in the
I think some Americans have become just as radical as some Islamic
zealots...who in this country is *forced* to pray, intimidated to recite the
allegiance or sing the national anthem, etc. If someone is agnostic, I respect
their view...however, they have no right to *force* me to "shut up" about God
whether I be in a court room, school, government office, etc. This
country/government was founded on religious freedom. No one has to pledge
allegiance to this country....heck, you can say how lousy it is each and every
day if you like....but let a person mention "God" in a school graduation, etc.,
and we're back in the courts....IMO, I'd rather see In God We Trust on currency
rather than In Corporate America We Trust or America Trusts No One....Of all
the problems plaguing our country, I think separation of religion/government is
the very, very, very least of our concerns...
Pat
~ "Every soul has its own destiny" ~
Becky Young
>
>Even though I believe this is one country, under God, and do trust in God, I
>do not think that
>agnostic tax-payers should have to recite that in the allegiance or use
>currency with that saying.
>
Becky Young
....Though nothing can bring back the hour of splendour in the grass, of glory
in the flower, We will grieve not; rather find strength in what remains behind
-- William Wordsworth
JMorngstar
>are a strong nation built on a belief in God, this nation was formed
>because we wanted our religious freedom.
Interesting. The thing that you site as your reason for why this is wrong, is
the very reason why this decision was correct.
You want your religious freedom but you don't want to give it anyone else. Why
is that? Further, this country was already here before it was founded by some
people of faith, that is your faith.
Janice
JMorngstar
our money is good. We trust the United States that our money will be good. It
is probably misplaced since they no longer have the silver to back it up, but
what is a person to do.
Janice
MizGriz
wasn't there originally.
As someone who doesn't think God has a whole lot to do with government, I'd
prefer it not to be there. I'm not going to go to court over it, but I
don't see why it's on our money either.
There are multiple religions in this country and for too long we've had to
accept the Christian values whether we liked it or not. I think it's about
time, those who don't see God the way others seemingly do, at least have our
rights respected. If you feel inclined to say it, say it, and that of
course, works each way. But just as Melinda's friend wants her son to be
able to pray before eating, I think my family should have the option of not
participating without fear of retribution and that's just not how it is.
"Julianne Weight" <jul...@nospam-alphabest.com> wrote in message
news:3d1a2ca8...@news.speakeasy.net...
JBuxton569
of money!>>
How about replacing it with In Corporations We Trust? Just a thought.
Judity
MizGriz
your God? Think about what you just said here. 9/11 has nothing to do
with this, other than it's allowed religious fanatics a platform....of MANY
religions.
"klee" <kpmte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:41e7958c.02062...@posting.google.com...
Liz
What happened on 9/11 has nothing to do with this issue. I can't
imagine where you got that idea! As a matter of fact, the perpetrators
were religous zealots who believed in God and thought they were carrying
out His wishes!
Liz
MizGriz
home for refusing, given detentions, paddled for being "uncooperative"......
if you seriously think there's "freedom" here, then think again. We have as
much freedom as our government allows us to *think* we do....and no more.
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627081944...@mb-co.aol.com...
Edward Gmys
"klee" <kpmte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Have people so quickly
> forgotten what happened on 9/11??
Ummm, no! You do realize that 9/11 was committed because of **their**
belief in God! That's all the MORE reason to remove statements about God
from the Pledge of Allegiance AND off of the money!
Ed
Edward Gmys
"JMorngstar" <jmorn...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020627095011...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Liz
>
> I think some Americans have become just as radical as some Islamic
> zealots...who in this country is *forced* to pray, intimidated to recite the
> allegiance or sing the national anthem, etc.
True, no one is "forced," but how about the first grader, whose parents
just might be atheists, being taught the Pledge which contains the words
"under God"? Is a 6-year-old child going to refuse to chant along with
his/her classmates?
If someone is agnostic, I respect
> their view...however, they have no right to *force* me to "shut up" about God
> whether I be in a court room, school, government office, etc.
Is there any reason you personally can't recite the Pledge of Allegiance
as it currently stands, including the words "under God"? What's to stop
you? But why force your belief in God on people who for whatever reason
do not believe in His existence?
It's a simple matter to remove two words from the Pledge of
Allegiance...two words which were added by Congress in 1954, BTW.
Liz
Edward Gmys
money and the pledge of allegiance that you are comparing me to an Islamic
zealot. THE VERY FACT THAT the religion is mixed with the government in the
first place REEEEEEEKS of Islamic zealots.
Why should a tax-paying agnostic be forced to participate, and YES, you are
forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school, and talk about God when
that is not their belief, and has no business being in the PoA in the first
place?
Ed
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627081944...@mb-co.aol.com...
JBuxton569
accept the Christian values whether we liked it or not. I think it's about
time, those who don't see God the way others seemingly do>>
Okay, I'm going to ask the same question I asked on our AOL boards. Why if you
believe in God does this make you a Christian? It's just one of many names
for our Creator. I thought a Christian was someone who thought Jesus was God.
I think of an agnostic as someone who believes in God but not that Jesus is
God. What about Jews? They believe in God, don't they? A college student
interviewed on TV last night said her parents were Jehovah's Witnesses and
didn't believe in God. Now that surprised me. I thought Jehovah was just
another name for God.
I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong and don't want to start another religious
war here, just curious.
Judity
RaeMorrill
If it said Under Vishnu would you want to recite it? That's the problem.
Liz
doesn't "know" God; in other words, maybe there is a God and maybe there
isn't, s/he just doesn't know and won't worship a god for that reason.
An atheist, on the other hand, is a person who definitely does not
believe there is a god. And you're right about the Jehovah's Witnesses
- they believe in Jehovah, who is God.
Liz
JMorngstar
>If it said Under Vishnu would you want to recite it? That's the problem.
Under the devil is more likely.
One nation under hippocrites - oh I like that one.
One nation under cheaters, philanders, alcoholics.
aka FeFiFillio
if>you> believe in God does this make you a Christian? It's just one of many
names
Good question Judity...I think of God as our creator...but God encompasses all
religions and is called by many different names, Allah, etc. To me, a
christian is someone who believes Christ is the savior and is the son of God.
Jews believe in God, but I don't believe they think Christ was the savior and
are still awaiting the first arrival of the savior, while I'm waiting for the
second arrival...
Therefore, when it comes to government, I see nothing that indicates one
religion is touted over another as the religion of the U.S....its just
recognizing that the *majority* of the people believe in A GOD, a
creator....and I believe that would apply to the world and not just the U.S. I
personally did not agree with the "evolution" theory that was jammed down my
throat in school, BUT if one does not have exposure to opposing views, how
does one develop their own concepts/constructs.
aka FeFiFillio
>home for refusing, given detentions, paddled for being "uncooperative"......
>if you seriously think there's "freedom" here, then think again. We have as
>much freedom as our government allows us to *think* we do....and no more.
Noooo, its been a looong, loooong time since I've been to elementary school,
but I find what you are saying incredible....what part of this country do you
live in? Paddled! Given detentions and sent home! Not in New England, to my
knowledge, does this occur...I'm more worried about teacher's safety these days
because of LACK of discipline in school and at home...
As far as religious freedom, where in the world can you get the freedom you
have here in the U.S. regarding religion. I see Stars of David, crosses,
statues of Buddha and Mary and Jesus in people's front yards. Should ONE
religion be identified with the U.S....absolutely not, but none is that I can
discern.
MizGriz
I'm sure you've looked at and studied other religions. I never said if you
believed in GOD you were a Christian. I said we've had "Christian" values
put upon us whether we liked it or not and I believe that's true. You are
right, there are many other religions who in some way recognize "a" god.....
a creator..... so we could propose to change the terminology. I, however,
just don't see what it has to do with our government which is supposed to be
FREE of religious bias.
"JBuxton569" <jbuxt...@aol.comignore> wrote in message
news:20020627101538...@mb-cd.aol.com...
14tonks
people - that is, the Christian god, since the English has been a Christian
culture as long as English per se has been a language. A Christian is
someone who thinks Jesus was the son of God, or perhaps one of the three
parts of God, depending on how they view the trinity. The name Jesus is not
interchangeable with the word God, even for Christians, though. It does
carry associations of Christian belief. Jews will generally say God in
English if they say anything, largely because it isn't the word for their
god, which is a word they are forbidden to pronounce.
A Mohammedan would say Allah, a Hindu Vishnu, or a lot of other names. At
the very least, those of polytheistic religions would want it to say "under
the gods". Buddhists don't recognize a god in our sense, etc., etc. God is
not a linguistically neutral word, good for anyone of any religion.
The phrase was stuck in there during the McCarthy era, to differentiate us
from those godless Communists. Well, McCarthy is thankfully long
discredited, the godless Communists are out of power most places, and the
words don't really belong.
I wouldn't go to court to get them removed myself, but since someone has, I
think they have a point.
&%) Sheila
To reply to me, you must add the prefix real. to my address.
aka FeFiFillio
>belief in God! That's all the MORE reason to remove statements about God
I believe 9/11 occurred because they believed ALLAH and only THEIR Allah is the
true and only God. To me, that is one more reason to keep statements
concerning God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on the money...to recognize the
Creator as everyone's Creator....and if someone does not believe in God, well,
we are still teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution in schools and our corporate
business structures are conducting business in ungodly ways, so we do have lots
of ungodly things going on in the U.S....personally I think the U.S. needs God
more now than ever.
MizGriz
"JMorngstar" <jmorn...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020627102324...@mb-cf.aol.com...
aka FeFiFillio
>just might be atheists, being taught the Pledge which contains the words
>"under God"? Is a 6-year-old child going to refuse to chant along with
How about Darwin's Theory of Evolution...totally contradicts what I learned and
believe, but it was *mandatory* learning in school. The parents might be
atheists, but I believe a child should be exposed to ALL views, not just
parental views.
>Is there any reason you personally can't recite the Pledge of Allegiance
>as it currently stands, including the words "under God"? What's to stop
>you? [Liz]
Nothing at all to stop me, but then I could say what is stopping you or anyone
else from *excluding* the words "under God"?
>But why force your belief in God on people who for whatever reason >do not
believe in His existence? [Liz]
Why force your belief that God does not exist on people? The
opposing/scientific views are taught in school, but God cannot be mentioned any
longer? Who is forcing who? [I'm not referring to you specifically, Liz, just
asking the general question]
MizGriz
differentiating that YOUR god is the RIGHT one and anyone who doesn't accept
that is in some way wrong. Your post right here smacks of prejudice, bias,
and being unwilling to think that maybe, just maybe, there are other
religions in the world just at right as yours......
9/11 has NOTHING to do with this issue, nothing. Because it stirred up a
bunch of (appropriate or not) patriotism, and our dear Baby Bush likes to
keep it that way, there are people like you who want to take any dissenting
opinion re government and/or religion and fry these people. It's so wrong.
It's wrong that we are no longer allowed to say our government sucks without
fear of being fired from our jobs or jailed or arrested for disorderly
conduct. It sucks that we have to accept that god is in our pledge of
allegiance, on our money, said before Congress of people we've elected to do
a GOVERNMENTAL position, not a religious one, to hear it in our schools,
during our Christmas plays, blah, blah, blah. I generally just keep my
religious views to myself. I don't impose them on anyone else, I don't cause
a fuss when I'm sitting through yet another minister or rabbi or priest
giving yet another sermon about things I don't even think are real..... I
just listen or don't depending on the speaker. I then just go about my day.
I've done this all my life. I think it's time I should be able to say
baloney, I don't want to play the game of accepting everyone elses values as
my own.
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627110052...@mb-fd.aol.com...
MizGriz
> As far as religious freedom, where in the world can you get the freedom
you
> have here in the U.S. regarding religion. I see Stars of David, crosses,
> statues of Buddha and Mary and Jesus in people's front yards. Should ONE
> religion be identified with the U.S....absolutely not, but none is that I
can
> discern.
Perhaps you might want to hone your discerning skills ....... :-)
Becky Young
jbuxt...@aol.comignore (JBuxton569) writes:
>
>Okay, I'm going to ask the same question I asked on our AOL boards. Why if
>you
> believe in God does this make you a Christian? It's just one of many names
>for our Creator. I thought a Christian was someone who thought Jesus was
>God.
In my religion, we believe that FS&HG are one - no difference.
>
>I think of an agnostic as someone who believes in God but not that Jesus is
>God. What about Jews? They believe in God, don't they? A college student
>interviewed on TV last night said her parents were Jehovah's Witnesses and
>didn't believe in God. Now that surprised me. I thought Jehovah was just
>another name for God.
That surprises me too.
>
>I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong and don't want to start another
>religious
>war here, just curious.
I think discussion teaches.
Melinda Meahan
>
> As someone who doesn't think God has a whole lot to do with government, I'd
> prefer it not to be there. I'm not going to go to court over it, but I
> don't see why it's on our money either.
What I don't understand is that it has not been said in public schools
here for AGES because somebody ruled that it is not right to expect all
the immigrant children who aren't citizens to have to pledge allegiance
to another country's flag, so why in the world did they bother to do
this anyway?
At any rate, it *was* added after the fact, and I won't complain if the
ruling passes to take it out so that those who are offended by it don't
have to be exposed to it, *provided* that they also remove all
visualization, TM, spirit guides, and all the rest of pagan, New Age,
eastern, and humanistic religious practices out of the public schools
for the sake of those who are offended by them as well. Betcha they
won't do *that*, though. :)
--
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle.
I just wish that He didn't trust me so much. - Mother Teresa
Edward Gmys
in the same! You cannot have your cake and eat it too!
Religion has NO place being forced on anyone in this country. There should
not be statements about any God on money or in Pledge of Allegiance or in
anything that has to do with the government. I thought that MAYBE one of
the good things that would come out of the tragedy last September would be
that people should realize the danger of religous zealots and the dangers of
a government that controls civil and religious matters simultaneously, but I
guess that went over like a lead balloon!
However, if someone personally wants to pray before they eat, Thank God in a
valedictorian speech, I have no problem with that, and I do not think others
should either.
Darwin's theory is taught as what "science" believes how humans evolved. If
you want a story book version, i.e. the Bible, then that should be taught at
home or in private religious school or Sunday school. It was not crammed
down your throat but rather taught like any other subject in school, and
that is EXACTLY how it should be.
The fact that I am taking other's views into consideration (as I firmly do
believe in God), and you are taking a selfish view speaks volumes about
where we are coming from.
FWIW, I agree with you that I think that this country needs God now more
than ever before. However, that is up to the citizens of this country to do
this on a personal level and it should be their choice not a
goverment-sanctioned, government-condoned, or government-mandated thing.
Ed
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627110052...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Melinda Meahan
>
> I think of an agnostic as someone who believes in God but not that Jesus is
> God.
An agnostic is someone who is not convinced that God exists but who
isn't ruling it out either.
> What about Jews? They believe in God, don't they?
There are Jews these days who claim to be Jews and also atheists, but
the JHVH of Judaism is the same God of the Christian New Testament.
> A college student interviewed on TV last night said her parents were
> Jehovah's Witnesses and didn't believe in God. Now that surprised me.
> I thought Jehovah was just another name for God.
They do, too, believe in God -- they don't believe in participating in
government but they do believe that JHVH exists, although they call him
Jehovah -- which is a contrived name and not one that God ever claimed
to be called by.
Melinda Meahan
>
> Even though I believe this is one country, under God, and do trust in God, I
> do not think that
> agnostic tax-payers should have to recite that in the allegiance or use
> currency with that saying.
Aren't those the same types of issues as people who are militantly
anti-abortion who want the government to stop funding a particular
surgical procedure that will cause another flame war if I mention it
again here?
aka FeFiFillio
>money and the pledge of allegiance that you are comparing me to an Islamic
No I wasn't and I'm sorry it came out that way...I was trying to get across the
fact that I believe people are becoming "fanatical" about the word "God" in
government these days...
> THE VERY FACT THAT the religion is mixed with the government in the
>first place REEEEEEEKS of Islamic zealots. [Ed]
Why is it believed that because "God" is mentioned that we do not have
separation of church and state? Is the Pope, a minister or rabbi running this
country now and I'm unaware of it? Should we ONLY elect presidents,
congressman, etc., who are atheists? I personally do not see where religion is
mixed in with the government except to say everyone has religious freedom and
the freedom NOT to believe.
>Why should a tax-paying agnostic be forced to participate, and YES, you are
>forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school.....
I pledge allegiance to the *flag* of the United States of America. One nation,
under God, indivisible, with LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL...
Idealistic [yes], .patriotic [yes], religious [not to me...I'm sorry, but I
just don't see where this is forcing anyone to believe in God].
>and talk about God when>that is not their belief, and has no business being in
the PoA in the first>place? [Ed]
I could say the same about Darvin's Theory of Evolution ....not my belief, so
why should I have been forced to study it, take exams on it? I went to public
schools...I never had to study religion and take exams on it. I was, however,
given the opportunity to be out of school for Jewish holidays or be released
from school one morning a week to study catholicism [we used to call it
"release time"...and though I consider myself a baptist, I received permission
to attend release time because all the catholic kids were getting out of school
one day a week and I was not LOL].
BTW, what is PoA?
I apologize I didn't make myself clearer in my reply post to you Ed...no
offense or comparison was meant and I do respect your rights and
beliefs...though I may not agree with this particular one.
Melinda Meahan
>
> I am happy to hear this. I also think In God We Trust should be taken off
> of money!
I was listening to a commentator on the local news station, and they
said that the courts generally differentiate between references to God
made by the framers of the Constitution, assuming that if they felt a
particular mention of God was okay then it was consistent with the
original meaning of "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion" (i.e. Congress shall make no law creating an
official state religion), compared with those things that were added
after the fact. I think they did mention the "In God we trust" on money
and said that it was made by the framers of the Constitution and was not
likely to be changed.
Melinda Meahan
>
> conduct. It sucks that we have to accept that god is in our pledge of
> allegiance, on our money, said before Congress of people we've elected to do
> a GOVERNMENTAL position, not a religious one, to hear it in our schools,
> during our Christmas plays, blah, blah, blah.
Um, out here where that decision was made, it is not allowed to mention
Christmas or Easter any more in the public schools (although mention of
religious holidays of other faiths is allowed).
Melinda Meahan
>
> True, no one is "forced," but how about the first grader, whose parents
> just might be atheists, being taught the Pledge which contains the words
> "under God"? Is a 6-year-old child going to refuse to chant along with
> his/her classmates?
What about the 6YO child who is taught that the world happened just by
chance over millions and millions of years and that even the idea that
it happened by some supernatural force of creation (a belief that even
some non-religious scientists think is possible), that we should not be
loyal to our own country but to the world as a world citizen, taught
Gaia worship, etc.? It's all a matter of tradeoffs.
Melinda Meahan
>
> Guess you haven't been to elementary school recently. We've had kids sent
> home for refusing, given detentions, paddled for being "uncooperative"......
For doing what?
Melinda Meahan
>
> Why should a tax-paying agnostic be forced to participate, and YES, you are
> forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school, and talk about God when
> that is not their belief, and has no business being in the PoA in the first
> place?
I dunno. Why should Christian children in public schools have to learn
a bunch of things that directly contradict their Christian beliefs, not
even to do with teaching religion but that they should not live under
their parents' authority, yadda yadda
Liz
>
> As far as religious freedom, where in the world can you get the freedom you
> have here in the U.S. regarding religion.
Turkey, for one. Even though the Muslim religion seems to be the most
prevalent, there is no national religion, and all religions are welcome.
aka FeFiFillio
Perhaps you might want to share what I've missed... :)
Liz
> >belief in God! That's all the MORE reason to remove statements about God
> >from the Pledge of Allegiance AND off of the money! [Ed]
aka FeFiFillio wrote:
>
> I believe 9/11 occurred because they believed ALLAH and only THEIR Allah is the
> true and only God.
> <snip>....personally I think the U.S. needs God more now than ever.
Pat, it sounds like you're saying only YOUR God is the true and only
God. Your use of the word "personally" indicates that only YOUR God is
acceptable! Can't you see how an athiest would "personally" not want
the word "God" to appear in the Pledge that their children are forced to
learn and recite?
Liz
Edward Gmys
believe.
Do you mean that winter break and spring break are not to be called
Christmas and Easter breaks respectively? That makes more sense, and I can
understand that. I do, however, find it hard to believe a student cannot
say the word Christmas or Easter.
Ed
"Melinda Meahan" <mme...@sonic.net> wrote in message
MizGriz
> At any rate, it *was* added after the fact, and I won't complain if the
> ruling passes to take it out so that those who are offended by it don't
> have to be exposed to it, *provided* that they also remove all
> visualization, TM, spirit guides, and all the rest of pagan, New Age,
> eastern, and humanistic religious practices out of the public schools
> for the sake of those who are offended by them as well. Betcha they
> won't do *that*, though. :)
BUT.... are those supported, encouraged, fostered, and sometimes forced by
the government?
If so, then I agree with you. If not, then you're taking the freedom from
them, right? I don't begrudge a Christian or any God-believer, who wants to
sit in a corner and sing hymns all day if that makes them feel good. I
shouldn't be expected to stay there and listen if I choose not to, and
definitely not to sing along.
Edward Gmys
school boards and what not. If you don't like it, or you find it offensive
or against your beliefs, then you have the options of private schools or in
your situation, home teaching.
Ed
"Melinda Meahan" <mme...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> I dunno. Why should Christian children in public schools have to learn
MizGriz
had a minister, a priest, a rabbi. We then listened to several hymns, and
then went on to have the school administrator give all the credit to God and
then.... we were asked to pray, and THENNNNN...<ggg> we finally got to see
the kids graduate.
Our choral group is excellent and does an absolutely beautiful Christmas
program. I love it. I, however, focus on appreciation of talent performing
rather than the content.
I have no problem with the religions being represented. I just think there
are times when it's appropriate for the masses (like church??) and times
when it's not.
"Melinda Meahan" <mme...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3D1B31FA...@sonic.net...
Edward Gmys
I went to public school for 10 ouf of the 12 years,
and did not come across any of the stuff you mentioned.
Ed
"Melinda Meahan" <mme...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> At any rate, it *was* added after the fact, and I won't complain if the
Liz
> >just might be atheists, being taught the Pledge which contains the words
> >"under God"? Is a 6-year-old child going to refuse to chant along with
> >his/her classmates? [Liz]
aka FeFiFillio wrote:
> How about Darwin's Theory of Evolution...totally contradicts what I learned and
> believe, but it was *mandatory* learning in school. The parents might be
> atheists, but I believe a child should be exposed to ALL views, not just
> parental views.
Poor analogy...children learning about sociology should not be confused
with their being forced to recite the Pledge containing the words "under
God" on a daily basis.
>
> >Is there any reason you personally can't recite the Pledge of Allegiance
> >as it currently stands, including the words "under God"? What's to stop
> >you? [Liz]
>
> Nothing at all to stop me, but then I could say what is stopping you or anyone
> else from *excluding* the words "under God"?
Nothing, but that's not the issue. The actual issue is separating God
from government, and the words "under God" tie the two together.
>
> >But why force your belief in God on people who for whatever reason >do not
> believe in His existence? [Liz]
>
> Why force your belief that God does not exist on people? The
> opposing/scientific views are taught in school, but God cannot be mentioned any
> longer? Who is forcing who? [I'm not referring to you specifically, Liz, just
> asking the general question]
Let's make one thing very clear - as a practicing Catholic, I most
certainly DO believe in the existence of God. However, I defend any
atheist's right to object to having their children be set apart from
their peers if they refuse to speak God's name when pledging allegiance
to their country. As far as opposing views being taught in school, I
think you're off on another tangent here. The discussion at hand is not
about what is being taught in school, but rather what is being said on a
daily basis when reciting the Pledge at the start of the school day.
Liz
MizGriz
theology last fall, there's a Darwinian Scholars branch of the Catholic
church who study the theory and are considering that there is some merit to
it.
"Edward Gmys" <Edwar...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:uhmbt5g...@corp.supernews.com...
MizGriz
For refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance;
For refusing to recite ALL of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I've seen kids forced to write the Pledge of Allegiance 100 times so that
they would "remember" all the words.
That's not freedom.
"Melinda Meahan" <mme...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:3D1B329B...@sonic.net...
MizGriz
> country now and I'm unaware of it
LOL!! No, that's where that Darwinian theory ya learned comes in to
play.... See....we really DID descend from monkeys and they can even get
smart enough to become president! LOL!
Just adding some levity to a verrrry heavy conversation.
aka FeFiFillio
>differentiating that YOUR god is the RIGHT one and anyone who doesn't accept
I respect your thought process, but I believe you are wrong <g>...Where did you
get the idea that MY god is the RIGHT one and anyone who doesn't accept that is
in some way wrong? I believe in God...yes...I do not believe my view is right
and atheists are wrong! I believe my view is right for ME and don't we all
stand up for views we believe in? I do not support one religion over another
and I do not attend any particular church...if I feel like going to church,
there isn't one I hold preference to over another...catholic, protestant,
Jehovah's, etc. I've been to them all and I've been to Temple as well... so
prejudice, bias, and unwilling to think that maybe, just maybe, there are other
religions in the world just as right as mine....I don't know where that is
coming from because I really do not belong to one religion...my views come from
several sources which make sense to me.
>there are people like you who want to take any dissenting >opinion re
government and/or religion and fry these people [MizGriz]
What? I really don't see where you are coming from....how did I attempt to
"fry" someone for having a different view than mine. Someone states a view and
I stated an opposing view...I never mentioned anything about it being wrong to
dissent against the government...It is a person's right to go to court and try
to *legally enforce* every mention of the word "God" out of every government
document, etc., I may not agree with their view on this, I may think we have
more pressing matters to concern ourselves with, but I would never say they
don't have the right to do it....just like I wouldn't say someone has the right
to try to STOP that from happening.
>It's wrong that we are no longer allowed to say our government sucks without
>fear of being fired from our jobs or jailed or arrested for disorderly
>conduct. [MizGriz]
Do you know someone that this has happened to? Fear of being fired for saying
the government sucks??? We say it all the time right here on this NG...anyone
been arrested yet?
>I think it's time I should be able to say
>baloney, I don't want to play the game of accepting everyone elses values as
>my own. [MizGriz]
Its a right you have ALWAYS had...you may not have exercised it in the past,
but that was your personal preference and I certainly would not advocate taking
that right away from YOU or ME....for every view, there is an opposing view.
Edward Gmys
"MizGriz" <sorrycharlien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EYGS8.827
Liz
>
> Liz wrote:
> >
> > True, no one is "forced," but how about the first grader, whose parents
> > just might be atheists, being taught the Pledge which contains the words
> > "under God"? Is a 6-year-old child going to refuse to chant along with
> > his/her classmates?
Melinda wrote:
> What about the 6YO child who is taught that the world happened just by
> chance over millions and millions of years and that even the idea that
> it happened by some supernatural force of creation (a belief that even
> some non-religious scientists think is possible), that we should not be
> loyal to our own country but to the world as a world citizen, taught
> Gaia worship, etc.? It's all a matter of tradeoffs.
I was with you up until the closing parenthesis, and then you lost me.
However, to respond to what I DID understand...First of all, not to be
picky, but Darwinism is NOT taught in first grade! Secondly, I went
through 12 years of Catholic school and learned quite a bit about
Darwinism...it was presented as a theory, not a fact. True, the nuns
sneered at the idea, but still and all, it was taught. My children went
to public school, and I don't recall their ever coming home to tell me
that it was a fact that the world just happened by chance. They were
taught the same as I (although without the religious opinions of the
nuns, of course) - they were presented with another theory regarding the
beginning of the universe, and allowed to choose to believe what they
wanted to believe. How this can be compared to a 6-year-old child's
being coerced into learning the Pledge of Allegiance which states that
their nation is "under God"?
Liz
>>
> Therefore, when it comes to government, I see nothing that indicates one
> religion is touted over another as the religion of the U.S....its just
> recognizing that the *majority* of the people believe in A GOD, a
> creator....
That's fine if you happen to be a member of the "majority," but what if
you're a member of the "minority"?
>I personally did not agree with the "evolution" theory that was jammed down my
> throat in school, BUT if one does not have exposure to opposing views, how
> does one develop their own concepts/constructs.
> Pat
"jammed down my throat"....????? Where in the world did YOU go to
school? Or are you perhaps overreacting just a bit?
Liz
>
> In my religion, we believe that FS&HG are one - no difference.
Okay, I give up. What do FS and HG stand for???
Liz
>
> What I don't understand is that it has not been said in public schools
> here for AGES because somebody ruled that it is not right to expect all
> the immigrant children who aren't citizens to have to pledge allegiance
> to another country's flag, so why in the world did they bother to do
> this anyway?
>
> At any rate, it *was* added after the fact, and I won't complain if the
> ruling passes to take it out so that those who are offended by it don't
> have to be exposed to it, *provided* that they also remove all
> visualization, TM, spirit guides, and all the rest of pagan, New Age,
> eastern, and humanistic religious practices out of the public schools
> for the sake of those who are offended by them as well. Betcha they
> won't do *that*, though. :)
Melinda, in PA schools the pledge of Allegiance is still recited at the
start of each day. As far as the rest of your post...if those are the
kinds of things that kids in CA are exposed to, no wonder you home
school yours!
Liz
Edward Gmys
Ed
"Liz" <liz...@Erols.com> wrote in message news:3D1B3D...@Erols.com...
Liz
working???? <G>
Jay Vance
centavos' worth: What if in fact the reason we have the degree of religious
freedom in this country that we do have is BECAUSE the men who framed the
Constitution were able to balance their belief in God with their tolerance
of opposing viewpoints? What I'm hearing from several posters is that you
believe that whatever freedom we have now is IN SPITE OF the religious
influences that inarguably affected the founding of this country, and that
acknowledging a belief in God is somehow antithetical to the "American"
ideal. Again, what if what we know as the American ideal is in fact a
PRODUCT of Godly ideals and principles that were incorporated into the civil
fabric of our nation from the very beginning?
Proverbs 14:34 says, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach
to any people." I believe that is a universal truth. I guess I feel sad
when it seems that we may be demeaning the very principles--belief in a
higher power and belief in objective standards of right and wrong which were
established by a higher power--that enables us to enjoy the freedoms that we
have.
Isn't it at least worth consideration to compare the relative
status--economic, moral, political--of the populations of nations which have
roots in various religions? If you want some objective way to measure the
"rightness" or validity of religious influence, certainly that would be one
way to look at the differences in a practical way which is less susceptible
to personal interpretation. I realize that some here will reject any cause
and effect relationship between religious influence and relative economic,
moral or political status; some will say that it's all a matter of
geopolitical happenstance or whatever, that how or whether people relate to
God is irrelevant. We can certainly agree to disagree on that, but I think
truly open-minded people should be able to at least consider the possibility
that if there IS a God, that He may in fact honor one religion over another
if He so chooses. The idea that God MUST accept all forms of worship as
equally valid is strictly a human notion, when you come right down to it.
In fact, if you give any credence whatsoever to the Bible, you will find
that in the very beginning God accepted worship from Abel and rejected
worship from Cain, even though both acknowledged Him as their God.
Jay
"MizGriz" <sorrycharlien...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c%FS8.571$8t6.4...@monger.newsread.com...
> Pat, I totally respect your thought process, but it's wrong. You are
> differentiating that YOUR god is the RIGHT one and anyone who doesn't
accept
> that is in some way wrong. Your post right here smacks of prejudice,
bias,
> and being unwilling to think that maybe, just maybe, there are other
> religions in the world just at right as yours......
>
> 9/11 has NOTHING to do with this issue, nothing. Because it stirred up a
> bunch of (appropriate or not) patriotism, and our dear Baby Bush likes to
> keep it that way, there are people like you who want to take any
dissenting
> opinion re government and/or religion and fry these people. It's so
wrong.
> It's wrong that we are no longer allowed to say our government sucks
without
> fear of being fired from our jobs or jailed or arrested for disorderly
> conduct. It sucks that we have to accept that god is in our pledge of
> allegiance, on our money, said before Congress of people we've elected to
do
> a GOVERNMENTAL position, not a religious one, to hear it in our schools,
> during our Christmas plays, blah, blah, blah. I generally just keep my
> religious views to myself. I don't impose them on anyone else, I don't
cause
> a fuss when I'm sitting through yet another minister or rabbi or priest
> giving yet another sermon about things I don't even think are real..... I
> just listen or don't depending on the speaker. I then just go about my
day.
> I've done this all my life. I think it's time I should be able to say
> baloney, I don't want to play the game of accepting everyone elses values
as
> my own.
>
>
>
>
> "aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020627110052...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> > >Ummm, no! You do realize that 9/11 was committed because of **their**
> > >belief in God! That's all the MORE reason to remove statements about
> God
> > >from the Pledge of Allegiance AND off of the money! [Ed]
> >
> > I believe 9/11 occurred because they believed ALLAH and only THEIR Allah
> is the
> > true and only God. To me, that is one more reason to keep statements
> > concerning God in the Pledge of Allegiance and on the money...to
recognize
> the
> > Creator as everyone's Creator....and if someone does not believe in God,
> well,
> > we are still teaching Darwin's Theory of Evolution in schools and our
> corporate
> > business structures are conducting business in ungodly ways, so we do
have
> lots
> > of ungodly things going on in the U.S....personally I think the U.S.
needs
> God
> > more now than ever.
> >
> >
Su
Take out the two words, which they should, and the pledge is constitutional.
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627103623...@mb-fd.aol.com...
> >>Okay, I'm going to ask the same question I asked on our AOL boards. Why
> if>you> believe in God does this make you a Christian? It's just one of
many
> names
> >for our Creator. [Judity]
>
> Good question Judity...I think of God as our creator...but God encompasses
all
> religions and is called by many different names, Allah, etc. To me, a
> christian is someone who believes Christ is the savior and is the son of
God.
> Jews believe in God, but I don't believe they think Christ was the savior
and
> are still awaiting the first arrival of the savior, while I'm waiting for
the
> second arrival...
>
> Therefore, when it comes to government, I see nothing that indicates one
> religion is touted over another as the religion of the U.S....its just
> recognizing that the *majority* of the people believe in A GOD, a
> creator....and I believe that would apply to the world and not just the
U.S. I
> personally did not agree with the "evolution" theory that was jammed down
my
> throat in school, BUT if one does not have exposure to opposing views,
how
> does one develop their own concepts/constructs.
aka FeFiFillio
That is right...*I* believe God, Allah or whatever name someone wishes to call
the creator are one and the same. I believe what I said it was the *Islamic
zealots* who perpetrated 9/11 who believed ALLAH was the one and only God...not
me...
>Religion has NO place being forced on anyone in this country. There should
>not be statements about any God on money or in Pledge of Allegiance or in
>anything that has to do with the government. [Ed]
Hmmm, you state that as a FACT Ed...rather than an opinion...though I am
understanding it is *your* personal opinion..
>>However, if someone personally wants to pray before they eat, Thank God in a
>valedictorian speech, I have no problem with that, and I do not think others
>should either. [Ed]
That is the point I am trying to make Ed....in my area, students are NOT
allowed to mention God in a valevictorian speech or pray before eating their
school lunch, etc. I don't believe that is right. They are allowed a moment
of silence, which I think is fine. I'm not advocating they say, "bow your
heads in prayer", as they did when I was growing up....but now we have people
disputing even the "moment of silence".
I just think its a bit like the smoking versus nonsmoking debate. I am a
smoker, but I certainly do not advocate nonsmokers should have to put up with
my smoke! So, I agree that restaurants, public places, etc., should have
designated smoking/no smoking sections. However, this is where it gets
ridiculous [to me], nonsmokers now want to ban smoking in EVERY restaurant in
my state (RI)...no smoking anywhere. Would you think that is right? I
personally do not think so and would not think so even if I was a nonsmoker.
To me its a classic example of fanaticism...take it to the umpteenth limit...
Now I think of the issue we are discussing and I feel the same way. Prayer has
been taken out of schools, nativity scenes scrapped, etc. I have no problem
with it...I can still pray and I can still have a nativity scene of my own [in
my own home]...but now it seems that is not satisfactory, we have to scrap the
name God from money, the pledge of allegience, etc. To me its
fanatical...that's just how I view it. BTW, I'm not trying to say that I am
right...I am saying this is how I view it....
>It was not crammed>down your throat but rather taught like any other subject
in school, and >that is EXACTLY how it should be. [Ed]
Well, as a matter of fact, when I was trying to discuss different views of
evolution versus creation with the teacher I had in school, I was called "a
fool" in front of the class for believing in "creation". I held my tongue
[quite unusual for me] until the end of the class, whereby I told this teacher
that HE was the fool for
>If >you want a story book version, i.e. the Bible, then that should be taught
at
>home or in private religious school or Sunday school. [Ed]
I believe religion should be carried out at home, in private religious school
or Sunday school....but are you saying that the Bible is the story book version
of Darwin's Theory of Evolution???? My, my, my, we certainly hold different
view points here..
>The fact that I am taking other's views into consideration (as I firmly
do>believe in God), and you are taking a selfish view speaks volumes
about>where we are coming from. [Ed]
Interesting observation...how am I coming across as "selfish"? Explain
please..
> However, that is up to the citizens of this country to do>this on a personal
level and it should be their choice not a>goverment-sanctioned,
government-condoned, or government-mandated thing. [Ed]
I agree and as we go forward isn't this what we are trying to achieve? BUT, do
we have to go backwards into time to change everything to today's standards
[i.e., currency, pledge of allegiance, God Bless America, etc.] ...that kind of
reminds me of the Taliban destroying all the statues of Buddha...
Jay Vance
> prevalent, there is no national religion, and all religions are welcome.
Ummm, let's take a look at that.
Quoting from a couple of sources, first one a Turkish scholar who remains
anonymous:
"When Christians are persecuted in predominantly Muslim nations, the
presumption is usually made that Islam is to blame. But in many cases
Christians are persecuted for nationalist or secular reasons, with Islam
sometimes used as a pretext to gain popular support.
In secular Turkey, persecution against Christians almost always occurs
alongside persecution of Muslims who do not enjoy support of the staunchly
secular army and government. Young women are not allowed to express their
faith by wearing traditional headscarves and non-sanctioned Muslim prayer
meetings are raided by the police. Muslim activists are routinely followed
and harassed by the Turkish counter-terrorism police and other authorities."
Also from our own State Department:
"The 52-page country report on Turkey in the 1999 State Department Human
Rights Report, released on February 25, 2000, offers discouraging proof that
Turkey has made little or no progress in improving its dismal human rights
record. Much of the language is carried forward from earlier reports. The
first paragraph highlights the pervasive and anti-democratic role played by
the military in Turkish governance, stating that "the military exercises
substantial influence over government policy and actions."
Subsequent sections list a catalogue of violations of basic human rights,
torture, minority persecution, infringements of civil and press liberties,
religious persecution, and transgressions on women's issues. Some of the
prominent examples under these headings are as follows:
a.. Abuses by the security forces: "Members of the security forces,
including police 'special teams,' other Turkish National Police personnel,
village guards and Jandarma committed serious human rights abuses;"
b.. Torture: "Torture, beatings and other abuses remained widespread, at
times resulting in deaths;"
c.. Infringements of civil and press liberties: "Limits on freedom of
speech and of the press remained a serious problem...at least 18 journalists
remained imprisoned at year's end...the police and Jandarma continued to
limit freedom of assembly and association. The police harassed, beat and
abused and detain a large number of demonstrators."
d.. Minority persecution: "The situation in the southeast remained a
serious concern. The [Turkish] government has long denied the Kurdish
population, located largely in the southeast, basic political, cultural, and
linguistic rights."
e.. Religious persecution: "The Authorities monitor the activities of the
Eastern Orthodox Church and their affiliated operations. The Ecumenical
Patriarchate in Istanbul consistently expressed interest in reopening the
seminary on the island of Halki in the Sea of Marmora. The seminary has been
closed since 1971 when the state nationalized most private institutions of
higher learning. Under current restrictions, including a citizenship
requirement, religious communities remain unable to train new clergy"
f.. Women's issues: "Spousal abuse is serious and widespread...beating in
the home is one of the most frequent forms of violence against women...some
abuse of children, and child labor remain serious problems...Discrimination
against women persists."
AHI General Counsel Eugene T. Rossides stated:
"The State Department report on Turkey shows that Turkey's record of human
rights abuses is comparable to that of a rogue, backward Third World or
communist state. No basic progress is being made. The fundamental reason for
this sad state of affairs is that Turkey is not a normal Western democracy.
Instead, under the Turkish constitution the military pervades all aspects of
Turkish governance and civil structures.
In its December 1999 decision accepting Turkey as a candidate for accession,
the European Union made it a requirement that that Turkey takes undertake
fundamental reforms before accession negotiations can start. This is the
right approach. We now call on the U.S. to follow a similar policy of
calling Turkey to account for the human rights abuses documented in the
State Department report and to call on Turkey to amend its constitution to
bring the military under civilian control."
14tonks
the the god in question regularly changes his/her mind about what form of
worship he/she prefers, since economic, moral, and political power has
frequently shifted geographically, nationally and religiously multitudinous
times over the millenia.
Tell, me, Jay, if the US goes into a decline, and the new economic and
political center of the world is China, will you take that as proof that
your god wants you to change the way you worship?
If so, you are at least consistent in your opinion, however I will still
disagree with wealth of its practitioners as a measure of the worth of a
religion.
--
&%) Sheila
To reply to me, you must add the prefix real. to my address.
"Jay Vance" <j...@vancedigital.com> wrote in message
news:jvHS8.3367$071.5...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
Isn't it at least worth consideration to compare the relative
status--economic, moral, political--of the populations of nations which have
roots in various religions? If you want some objective way to measure the
"rightness" or validity of religious influence, certainly that would be one
way to look at the differences in a practical way which is less susceptible
to personal interpretation. We can certainly agree to disagree on that, but
MizGriz
> In fact, if you give any credence whatsoever to the Bible, you will find
> that in the very beginning God accepted worship from Abel and rejected
> worship from Cain, even though both acknowledged Him as their God.
Bingo! ;-) Some of us believe it's a very well-written historical piece
of fiction/lore.
I fall into that category. If that means I will fry in your hell, then so
be it. I just don't happen
to see it that way. I *do* believe in higher powers; I just don't believe
the lore that some seem to attach to the particular God referenced
throughout our government. I also don't believe the government *was* based
on God or that the religious views of the founders should impact today.
We're an evolving country, a baby in the eyes of the world. The "founders"
came here and imposed their views on the existing citizens, but many seem to
lose sight of that.
MizGriz
their beliefs. I like to think that I can be just as open-minded in
discussing things with Christians as I can in discussing things with
atheists and all those that fall in between and beyond. Learning is
something I hope I never stop doing.
Well, I've got to head out to my "night" job. Y'all keep this conversation
going. When I'm done writing a paper after 11 p.m., I'll be back to read.
"Liz" <liz...@Erols.com> wrote in message news:3D1B38...@Erols.com...
aka FeFiFillio
forced to recite the Pledge containing the words "under>God" on a daily basis.
But don't they recite the pledge only in elementary school? I do not remember
ever saying it in jr. high or high school. The analogy would be that
"creation" cannot be taught, but "evolution" can be. That is hypocritical to
me...
>Nothing, but that's not the issue. The actual issue is separating God
>from government, and the words "under God" tie the two together. [Liz]
I thought the issue was to separate church and state....what I guess I don't
comprehend is why the word "God" is offensive...A person can believe in God,
but not in religion. I just don't see where the government is teaching or
forcing religion on anyone just because God's name is mentioned?
>>Let's make one thing very clear - as a practicing Catholic, I most>certainly
DO believe in the existence of God. [Liz]
>> Why force your belief that God does not exist on people? [Liz]
Sorry, Liz, I wasn't referring to you, I was talking in general...I should have
worded it differently...
>The discussion at hand is not>about what is being taught in school, but rather
what is being said on a>daily basis when reciting the Pledge at the start of
the school day.
[Liz]
They are being *taught* the pledge of allegiance, just as they are *taught*
opposing views.
aka FeFiFillio
>God. Your use of the word "personally" indicates that only YOUR God is
>acceptable! [Liz]
No, I didn't mean that at all...by personally, I mean my personal opinion...I
believe in a creator...now whether someone calls Him God, Allah, or Snoopy
makes no difference to me, He is one and the same to me. Muslims own the store
across the street from me and they believe that Allah is the creator or God of
all people. I was referring to Islamic zealots who think that their
interpretation of Allah is the one and only right way....gee, I'm on a roll for
not stating myself clearly today...
>Can't you see how an athiest would "personally" not want>the word "God" to
appear in the Pledge that their children are forced to>learn and recite? [Liz]
I can see how they "personally" would not want it, but I think its being
carried to the extreme to remove the word "God" from every single document,
pledge, song, etc., to achieve separation of church from state.
aka FeFiFillio
>school boards and what not. If you don't like it, or you find it offensive
>or against your beliefs, then you have the options of private schools or in
Well, Ed, if someone feels their child is being forced to say the pledge of
allegience and it is offensive to them....they can do the same...private school
or home teaching, can't they?
Jay Vance
conclusion
> the the god in question regularly changes his/her mind about what form of
> worship he/she prefers, since economic, moral, and political power has
> frequently shifted geographically, nationally and religiously
multitudinous
> times over the millenia.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I believe that nations that have
honored Godly principles--knowingly or unknowingly--have been more
prosperous, politically influential and in general better places to live
than nations that have not.
>
> Tell, me, Jay, if the US goes into a decline, and the new economic and
> political center of the world is China, will you take that as proof that
> your god wants you to change the way you worship?
>
> If so, you are at least consistent in your opinion, however I will still
> disagree with wealth of its practitioners as a measure of the worth of a
> religion.
You only mentioned two of the three factors I brought up--and those aren't
the only factors that could be considered, for that matter. There is also
the moral aspect to be considered--the way people treat each other, the way
the government treats its people, the degree of freedom the citizens enjoy,
etc. As discouraged as I get with some things in our country, I would not
even begin to compare China's overall record in these areas--past and
present--to ours. I did not say we in this country have not also had our
egregious assaults on human dignity and liberty, but nothing to compare to
the way people are treated EVERY DAY in China and in many, many, many other
countries around the world today.
Jay
Jay Vance
piece
> of fiction/lore.
> I fall into that category. If that means I will fry in your hell, then so
> be it. I just don't happen
> to see it that way. I *do* believe in higher powers; I just don't believe
> the lore that some seem to attach to the particular God referenced
> throughout our government. >
I understand that is your point of view and I certainly respect your right
to hold to it. I do not believe, as has been implied in this thread
already, in trying to "cram" my beliefs down anyone's throat. I firmly
believe that the principles taught by the Bible and by Jesus and the
Apostles either work or they don't work; I don't have to "force" anyone to
believe something or not. However, as I've said many times before, you
cannot base a judgement on whether a belief system is true or not based
SOLELY on your own experience. I believe that you hold to your beliefs
sincerely, as do I. But I hope that you would remain open to the
possibility that there may be truths that you have yet to encounter.
>I also don't believe the government *was* based
> on God or that the religious views of the founders should impact today.
> We're an evolving country, a baby in the eyes of the world. The
"founders"
> came here and imposed their views on the existing citizens, but many seem
to
> lose sight of that.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. While we may be a baby in
the eyes of the world, in fact their is no nation on earth right now with a
Constitution that has been continuously in force as long as ours has been.
I guess I have difficulty with the idea that the founding fathers should not
get SOME credit for that, and if they should get credit for it, then their
religious beliefs that helped shape their construction of this nation cannot
be ignored, surely.
Jay
Liz
>
> Very provocative discussion we got going here. Let me put in my two
> centavos' worth: What if in fact the reason we have the degree of religious
> freedom in this country that we do have is BECAUSE the men who framed the
> Constitution were able to balance their belief in God with their tolerance
> of opposing viewpoints?
Jay, if that's the case, how come the words "under God" were not added
to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954?
Liz
Liz
>
> I just think its a bit like the smoking versus nonsmoking debate. I am a
> smoker, but I certainly do not advocate nonsmokers should have to put up with
> my smoke! So, I agree that restaurants, public places, etc., should have
> designated smoking/no smoking sections. However, this is where it gets
> ridiculous [to me], nonsmokers now want to ban smoking in EVERY restaurant in
> my state (RI)...no smoking anywhere. Would you think that is right?
I sure do think it's right! If you think putting nonsmokers in
designated "no smoking" sections solves the problem, think again! Most
of the time the "no smoking" section is one table removed from the
smoking section, and there's nothing worse for a nonsmoker than to have
to smell that disgusting odor of burning weed while eating! If smokers
can't handle the total no smoking in restaurants rule, then they can
either stop smoking or stop going to restaurants!
Liz
aka FeFiFillio
and taxpayer. [Su]
I wouldn't speak for ANYONE other than myself...and I'm part of the U.S.,
registered voter and taxpayer as well...
Liz
counteract your lengthy post with anything so literate. I based my
comment on my own experience when visiting Turkey in May of 2000. The
gentleman who was our guide for a day and a half stressed quite
definitely that Turkey welcomed all religions, and I saw nothing in my
four days there which would make me doubt that what he told us was true.
Liz
Edward Gmys
The Czech Republic is vastly an atheist state, and I certainly wouldn't mind
living there. I think their standard of living is pretty close to ours.
And, as nations that have honored Godly principles, how do you justify that
for the USA, the government of which defies probably one of the most sacrad
principles of all--Thou Shalt Not Kill! A country that embraces the death
penalty?
Ed
"Jay Vance" <j...@vancedigital.com> wrote in message
> I believe that nations that have
Jay Vance
commotion over the Pledge is merely the latest in a series of symbolic
conflicts. The fact is, however, that there are many, many evidences of the
founding father's religious beliefs influencing their decisions regarding
the birthing of this nation, not the least of which are their own writings.
Jay
"Liz" <liz...@Erols.com> wrote in message news:3D1B55...@Erols.com...
aka FeFiFillio
We have book stores, libraries, etc., that carry all the Satanic rituals,
books, etc. Having been to Salem, MA, I can tell you witches still abound
aplenty in N.E....doesn't bother me or a lot of other people. Are you saying
the artifacts would be destroyed, stolen, etc., if you put them outside your
home. I can see that happening...but we also have a lot of desecration of
graves, swatiskas on Temples, broken statues in front of homes, etc. Just like
we have abortion and antiabortion proponents who try to *enforce* their
beliefs, smokers and nonsmokers, etc.
I guess what I am trying to say [come on Pat, spit it out and clearly this
time]...is that I DO believe in separation of church and state and a lot of
changes have been made in that regard. I just think that banning the pledge of
allegience because it says "under God" is carrying it to extremes...
Edward Gmys
We have our own home-grown version right here in the
good 'ol USofA! However, they are Christian.
I can change "Islamic zealots" to Right Wing Christian Fanatics
and change "Allah" to Bible, and Voila! There we have
any number of whackos in this country. However, we do not
punish them like we want to punish the Islamic version,
we instead reward them with things like Radio Talk Shows,
high political offices, CEOs, and what not.
Ed
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I was referring to Islamic zealots who think that their
Edward Gmys
Everyone who is in a class room is American, and a nonsecular pledge
of allegiance should be sufficient in any reasonable's person's mind. Or
at least I would assume?
Ed
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627141239...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Liz
>
> >children learning about sociology should not be confused>with their being
> forced to recite the Pledge containing the words "under>God" on a daily basis.
> [Liz]
>
> But don't they recite the pledge only in elementary school? I do not remember
> ever saying it in jr. high or high school. The analogy would be that
> "creation" cannot be taught, but "evolution" can be. That is hypocritical to
> me...
Poor analogy, and off topic. We weren't discussing what is taught in
school. The discussion involves children having to speak the words
"under God" in their rote recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, and has
nothing at all to do what what they are taught during the school day.
>
> >Nothing, but that's not the issue. The actual issue is separating God
> >from government, and the words "under God" tie the two together. [Liz]
>
> I thought the issue was to separate church and state....what I guess I don't
> comprehend is why the word "God" is offensive...A person can believe in God,
> but not in religion. I just don't see where the government is teaching or
> forcing religion on anyone just because God's name is mentioned?
"State" is used to mean government and "church" implies God in the
phrase "separation of church and state," as I'm sure you know. The word
"God" is in no way offensive, nor is anyone here implying that it so.
And the government is not "teaching or forcing religion" with the
mention of God's name either. We're talking about the fact that God's
name does not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance because people who do
not believe in His existence find it offensive, in case you forget what
the original topic is.
Edward Gmys
smell or ill-effects that go along with it. Do I want to see your right to
smoke be abolished--hell no. Do I want to see smoking abolished in public
placess--hell yeah!
I drink beer. There are entire counties in this country that prohibit my
doing so. So, I think if
it is fair to ban drinking beer with a meal, it certainly is acceptable to
totally ban smoking in a
restaurant.
Ed
"Liz" <liz...@Erols.com> wrote in message news:3D1B56...@Erols.com...
Liz
>
> >Pat, it sounds like you're saying only YOUR God is the true and only
> >God. Your use of the word "personally" indicates that only YOUR God is
> >acceptable! [Liz]
>
> No, I didn't mean that at all...by personally, I mean my personal opinion...I
> believe in a creator...now whether someone calls Him God, Allah, or Snoopy
> makes no difference to me, He is one and the same to me. Muslims own the store
> across the street from me and they believe that Allah is the creator or God of
> all people. I was referring to Islamic zealots who think that their
> interpretation of Allah is the one and only right way....gee, I'm on a roll for
> not stating myself clearly today...
Yes, you certainly are!
>
> >Can't you see how an athiest would "personally" not want>the word "God" to
> appear in the Pledge that their children are forced to>learn and recite? [Liz]
>
> I can see how they "personally" would not want it, but I think its being
> carried to the extreme to remove the word "God" from every single document,
> pledge, song, etc., to achieve separation of church from state.
We were discussing the Pledge of Allegiance, and a couple people brought
up "In God We Trust" on our national currency. I don't recall anything
about removing the name God from every song, however. Where are you
pulling this from??? Or maybe I missed a couple of posts.
Edward Gmys
later to put your two cents in! Anyway, glad it was the "right" two cents
or should I say "left?" LOL!!!
Ed
"Su" <1971...@nospam.telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3d1b495a$1...@nopics.sjc...
Liz
at the start of each day. As for home teaching, that really isn't an
option for most people. Ask Melinda how much intelligence, patience,
and hard work it takes to do it right.
Liz
>
> I guess what I am trying to say [come on Pat, spit it out and clearly this
> time]...is that I DO believe in separation of church and state and a lot of
> changes have been made in that regard. I just think that banning the pledge of
> allegience because it says "under God" is carrying it to extremes...
>
That's one thing you HAVE made clear. It's your defense of your belief
that is a bit blurry.
Edward Gmys
desecration of graves are commited by Christians!
Yet one more reason God has no reason being intertwined with our government!
Ed
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
> I can see that happening...but we also have a lot of desecration of
aka FeFiFillio
>you're a member of the "minority"?
We are all in a majority or minority in one way or another, aren't we,
considering socioeconomic, political, racial, education, etc. I think
solutions to problems need to take into consideration ALL sides of the equation
~ not just ONE side. To BAN the pledge of allegience is a one-sided
solution....it does not address ALL citizens. Requiring the pledge of
allegience be said is also a one-sided solution...and does not address ALL
citizens.
I would say the fairest thing would be to allow a child to say the pledge if
they want and allow them NOT to say it if they do not want to....but I doubt
that will happen because people want to *force* people to do things their way
whether they be smokers, politicians, abortion/anti-abortion activists, etc.
If they said, you are not REQUIRED to say the pledge of allegience if you do
not want to...I'm fine with that...just as I am fine with someone who wants to
say the pledge of allegience being allowed to.... >
>"jammed down my throat"....????? Where in the world did YOU go to
>school? Or are you perhaps overreacting just a bit? [Liz]
A little melodramatic <g>..yes...[I was recalling my discussions with teachers
and my philosophy professor at college about creation vs. evolution ...wherein
I was called "a fool" for believing in creation]. You would laugh if you
could see the physical antics [talking with my hands, rolling of the eyes and
other body language] that goes on at the same time <VBG>.
aka FeFiFillio
I agree with you about smoking/non-smoking sections that are close to one
another...that's plain stupid to me..The restaurants I frequent have separate
rooms that are well-ventilated...
>If smokers>can't handle the total no smoking in restaurants rule, then they
can
>either stop smoking or stop going to restaurants! [Liz]
Perfect example Liz of what I'm talking out...your reaction is to tell smokers
to stop going to restaurants...to enforce your view. My solution would be to
have separate/enclosed rooms and adequate ventilation in order to appease both
sides. If I were one-sided about it, I could say nonsmokers can stop going to
restaurants that have a smoking section if they don't approve.
Su
"Edward Gmys" <Edwar...@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:uhmnfmg...@corp.supernews.com...
14tonks
with one smallish room? Perhaps the owners should just close them until
they can afford to expand into more luxurious quarters? Or the non-smokers
should just shut up and suffer?
Before the no-smoking rules came into being, there were places I simply
could not eat in because my asthama could not tolerate smoke, and it was an
absolute certainty that there would be smokers, who would have been furious
with me if I had even suggested they refrain.
I still remember the time I hauled a huge pile of baggage onto a train,
after having to drag everything to a car at the far end of the platform to
find a no-smoking car. We were no sooner out of the station that a smoker
lit up in the seat behind me. The response to my pointing out it was a
no-smoker was to tell me that if I didn't want to smell his smoke, _I_
should change cars. By the time the conductor finally came along to tell
him to put it out, the whole car was permeated with smoke. That's one
instance, but it was not an isolated one. That stuff happened to me all the
time, over and over, and the smokers were invariably as rude as they were
inconsiderate.
If some of us are delighted to see no-smoking rules enforced anywhere and
everywhere, it is the result of having to deal with hundreds of obnoxious,
rude, inconsiderate smokers for years. I figure anything smokers suffer
now, they brought on themselves. I used to have to live with the smoke, now
they can just live with the no-smoking rules.
--
&%) Sheila
To reply to me, you must add the prefix real. to my address.
"aka FeFiFillio " <patsy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020627152431...@mb-fd.aol.com...