How far should the US take separation of Church and State?

Sayonara · February 3, 2005

Sorry, you can't be mature and a child. Those two words are opposites. Maturity is the state of being fully developed, childhood is the precursor to that.

Or, in a mere four words:

Lord of the Flies.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

"Congress shall make no law affecting an establishment of religion....."

Does the use of the word "an" indicate a singular? Do you suppose that it was worded that way to prevent congress from passing a law affecting a particular religion?

Since "god" is a referrence to a deity, and nost religions have a deity, can the term "God" be taken as promoting a particular religion?

**swansont** · February 3, 2005

Or' date=' in a mere four words:

[b']Lord of the Flies[/b].

True, but using a work of fiction to make a point of fact is shaky ground at best. Although it would be tough to argue that the scenario the novel describes wouldn't be played out in some form.

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

There is no reason to remove 'under God'.

You are entitled to your opinion. I hope you realize that you are speaking only for yourself, and not for everyone.

No one is being forced to say it. Anyone can just skip that part, it's not that hard. It's easy, see: ...One nation, with liberty...

You make it sound so easy. You seem to think that a peer group would NEVER exert peer pressure on anyone to say the words if a child were not to want to. Do you really believe that no child would be pressured by his peer group to conform against his will?

Trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge does not promote religious freedom, it seems like it opposes it.

I think that the goal is not to promote religious freedom, but to promote freedom.

Desiring the every child vocalize the word "god" every morning, or if a child refuses to do so desiring that the child hear others vocalize the word and at the same time realize that he is going against his peer group and what is obviously school policy is hardly a way to promote freedom in my mind.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Do you think that a child should be diciplined for saying "I believe in God," out loud at school?

atinymonkey · February 3, 2005

Do you think that a child should be diciplined for saying "I believe in God," out loud at school?

Are you capable of posting anything other than questions? What are you hoping to contribute? What, if anything, is your point?

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Are you capable of posting anything other than questions? What are you hoping to contribute? What, if anything, is your point?

Don't you think that one can elicit responses that reflect the opinions of others by asking questions? :rolleyes:

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

Are you capable of posting anything other than questions?

Don't you think that one can elicit responses that reflect the opinions of others by asking questions?

I suppose that we should take this as a NO response to atinymonkey.

**Phi for All** · February 3, 2005

Are you capable of posting anything other than questions? What are you hoping to contribute? What, if anything, is your point?

Are you saying this is a defense mechanism? Do you think syntax252 asks questions so he doesn't have to commit to a stance? Do you feel he wants to appear superior by constantly turning the argument around on his opponent? Do you think he fears being caught in an outright statement, so he couches his feelings in the form of a question so he can never be pinned down? Does it make you feel like you're being constantly psychoanalyzed by someone you know nothing about?

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

Are you saying this is a defense mechanism? Do you think syntax252 asks questions so he doesn't have to commit to a stance? Do you feel he wants to appear superior by constantly turning the argument around on his opponent? Do you think he fears being caught in an outright statement, so he couches his feelings in the form of a question so he can never be pinned down? Does it make you feel like you're being constantly psychoanalyzed by someone you know nothing about?

Well said. It does seem clear that some people on this forum prefer to ask questions rather than to make statements. You seem to have found a way to do both at the same time.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Are you saying this is a defense mechanism? Do you think syntax252 asks questions so he doesn't have to commit to a stance? Do you feel he wants to appear superior by constantly turning the argument around on his opponent? Do you think he fears being caught in an outright statement, so he couches his feelings in the form of a question so he can never be pinned down? Does it make you feel like you're being constantly psychoanalyzed by someone you know nothing about?

OK, I will make a statement without a question mark behind it. OK? OOPS!

There has been a lot of concern expressed about children hearing the word "God" in a classroom and I just wondered if it was the word that evoked this terror, or if it was the fact that it was part of a voluntary recitation of a pledge that the kids all made together.

On a side note, there are those who do not want kids exposed to any information regarding differing sexual orientations, and these folks are usually laughed at and called "homophobic." I wonder how many, who would call others "homophobic," are deiophobic (not sure that is a word) themselves.

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

There has been a lot of concern expressed about children hearing the word "God" in a classroom

Do you really think that this is the source of the concern?

and I just wondered if it was the word that evoked this terror,

Terror, huh. It is nice that you don't resort to hyperbole.

or if it was the fact that it was part of a voluntary recitation of a pledge that the kids all made together.

Voluntary, huh. Is that how you consider this situation?

On a side note, there are those who do not want kids exposed to any information regarding differing sexual orientations, and these folks are usually laughed at and called "homophobic." I wonder how many, who would call others "homophobic," are deiophobic (not sure that is a word) themselves.

Since this is your wonder, why don't you attempt a guess. What percentage of people who do not want their children exposed to homosexuality do you think are still quite willing to require that non-religious children are nevertheless forced to be exposed in public schools to religious concepts.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Do you really think that this is the source of the concern?

Terror' date=' huh. It is nice that you don't resort to hyperbole.

Voluntary, huh. Is that how you consider this situation?

Since this is your wonder, why don't you attempt a guess. What percentage of people who do not want their children exposed to homosexuality do you think are still quite willing to require that non-religious children are nevertheless forced to be exposed in public schools to religious concepts.[/quote']

Isn't it?

Well, they do predict all manner of reprecussions to the child who simply doesn't say the "G word,", do they not?

Don't you?

There have been court rulings to the effect that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge, hasn't there?

Define "religious concepts?"

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

Isn't it?

Well' date=' they [b']do[/b] predict all manner of reprecussions to the child who simply doesn't say the "G word,", do they not?

Don't you?

There have been court rulings to the effect that students cannot be forced to recite the pledge, hasn't there?

Define "religious concepts?"

I think not.

Terror is a loaded word that is not called for, I believe.

Somewhat. I think that many children who would prefer not to be exposed to the pharse do not consider it completely voluntary.

To children in the trenches, distant court rulings are not the end all, are they.

Define it however you wish, and then respond, if you would.

Braddock · February 3, 2005

I think he's an idiot. Ill use the same arguement that pro gay marriage folk used in my blog discussion on the subject. Gay marriage/ say the pledge, Doesnt hurt you, doesnt hurt me, doesnt change anything in your life. So why bitch and moan about it? I agree with John 5726. The one thing people seem to forget, Is that America is a predominantly Christian nation. Just as Isreal is a Jewish nation. If I moved to Isreal and started bitching and whining that there were Star Of Davids everywhere that offened me, They would look at me like Im an idiot.IMO, I would be wrong for trying to impose my Christian beliefs on a predominantly Jewish nation. What I should do is blend in like all the other Christians that live in Isreal and respect the fact that Im in a Jewish Nation and celebrate X-mas in the privacy of my own home, Or in a private school. I think the same applies here in America. If your religion conflicts with the norm, The work some overtime and send your kid to a private school and shut up.

Since this a Christian nation, Our Government should reflect that to a degree. The constitution defines that "degree" and its up to us a rational thinking folk to enforce it. To do away with all religious referances insults us all.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Terror is a loaded word that is not called for' date=' I believe.

Somewhat. I think that many children who would prefer not to be exposed to the pharse do not consider it completely voluntary.

To children in the trenches, distant court rulings are not the end all, are they.

Define it however you wish, and then respond, if you would.[/quote']

Terror is a loaded word, but "children in the trenches" is not?

So, if someone would "prefer to not be exposed" to a phrase, then the rest of us should defer our right to free speech?

Would compulsory prayers do?

coquina · February 3, 2005

If they're going to go to extremes they are going to have to raze the Supreme Court building - Moses and the 10 Commandments are carved all over it:

On the doors:

http://www.somosprimos.com/sp2004/spapr04/Copy%20of%20Carving%20of%20Ten%20Commandments%20on%20doors%20of%20the%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court.jpg

In the front at the apex of the roof:

http://www.giveshare.org/news/news016_files/image017.jpg

On the wall inside:

http://www.revelationsofthebible.com/religion2.jpg

Cadmus · February 3, 2005

Terror is a loaded word, but "children in the trenches" is not?

Are you personally offended by the phrase children in the trenches?

So, if someone would "prefer to not be exposed" to a phrase, then the rest of us should defer our right to free speech?

This is not a matter of free spech at all. When you say the pledge of allegiance, you have the right, in my mind, to intersperse god in as many times as you like. When the government determines that a speech that children are encouraged to give everyday should contain a reference to god, and then demand that those who are offended simply refrain from saying it and be satisfied, then I consider this to be beyond the bounds of free speech.

This is not about free speech. It is not about the speakers at all. It is about inserting a religious reference into a sentence that children are encouraged to say every day. If the phrase "under god" were removed from the pledge, how would this restrict your right to insert the word god after every word? How does removing a reference to god affect your freedom to say whatever words you want?

Would compulsory prayers do?

Please rephrase this, as I have no idea what you mean.

Hellbender · February 3, 2005

In response to original post:

No he isn't taking it too far. This is a nation of plurality. It is in the constitution that this is a secular country, yet we have our idiot president sayiong that "God told me to run for president". Now he can have his belifes. Thats fine. But WE elect the president, and tell him what to do, not god. This is not one nation under god. So we exclude all the citizens who are Muslim, Atheists, Buddhists, Daoists, Shintos, Wiccans, Agnostics, pantheists, etc. The use of the word "God" is not all exclusive. It obviously is pertaining to the Judeo-Christian God. There are people who don't accept that there is a god or gods. Are they not U.S. citizens? Should they be excluded and feel alienated from the country's solemn pledge and the president's inauguration ceremony? Ideally, no. But something has to be done about it, and I am glad this guy is.

syntax252 · February 3, 2005

Are you personally offended by the phrase children in the trenches?

Are you personally offended by the word "terror?"

This is not a matter of free spech at all. When you say the pledge of allegiance, you have the right, in my mind, to intersperse god in as many times as you like. When the government determines that a speech that children are encouraged to give everyday should contain a reference to god, and then demand that those who are offended simply refrain from saying it and be satisfied, then I consider this to be beyond the bounds of free speech.

When did government demand that those who were offended refrain from anything?

This is not about free speech. It is not about the speakers at all. It is about inserting a religious reference into a sentence that children are encouraged to say every day. If the phrase "under god" were removed from the pledge, how would this restrict your right to insert the word god after every word? How does removing a reference to god affect your freedom to say whatever words you want?

When did the government encourage children to say the pledge every day? Didn't the government specifically rule that children couldn't be compelled to say the pledge?