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

[Hellbender]

Anyway atheism as far as im aware' date=' isnt a movement.Your not part of a club or cult.Its individuals anywhere in the world who dont believe in God.

Its a bit rich thinking your individual opinion counts more than millions,who just happen to be religious.[/quote']

 

no one said my opinion counts more than millions. Where are you getting this strawman delusion from? Our opinion counts becasue we are American citizens protected under the constitution.

[Phi for All]

Instead of moaning how maligned you all are as athiests,get a life.

Newtonian, please be careful to which depths you will sink to get your point across.

 

Intelligence breeds opinions, not playground jeers. Civility always, people.

[syntax252]

One of the right we have is the freedom to follow whichever religion we choose (or none at all) without the government foisting it upon us.

 

Which, of course, is not the issue here, since the government is not "foisting anything onto anybody.

[syntax252]

sure' date=' its voluntary. But why does it have to be there in the first place? Because christians think this is [i']their[/i] country? It is voluntary, but state owned schools should not favor one religion over another, and having everyone stand up, every morning and declaring an allegiance to their country under the Jueo-Chrisitian god is a perfect example of that. Before 1954 the word "God" wasn't said in it. America is a secualr country. Because a majority of Americans are christian we should favor that one religion? That not being very secular.

 

.

 

 

Nobody is "having" any body do anything. It is voluntary.

[syntax252]

what the heck is this supposed to mean?

 

 

If you took the time to read the thread, you would know....

[syntax252]

hmm since you are obviously bigoted on this' date=' I don't see hopw any argument will get through to you, but here goes. Unlike Israel, America is a secular state, which means there is a seperation of church and state. I don't care if christians worship god, aslong as it is in they don't feel they have to include me in their worship in some way. Schools are places of learning, not places to favor one religion over another. You obviously don't know a whole lot about this country. Just becasue some people are in the majority, doesn't mean we should favor them. That is bigotry. Just becasue whites are the majority in the US, that deosn't mean we shouldn't allow blacks to have right, does it?

Why do you hate atheists so much? Becasue we don't believe in your god? Saying atheists need to "shut up and get a life" is demeaning and insulting and will be reported to a moderator. Maybe you think being a bigot is amusing, but most people don't.[/quote']

 

I asked Carol this and she wouldn't answer, so I will try it on you.

 

If the words "under God" were removed from the pledge, and some of the kids said "under God" anyway during a voluntary recitation of the pledge, do you think that they should be corrected or diciplined for that?

[syntax252]

no one said my opinion counts more than millions. Where are you getting this strawman delusion from? Our opinion counts becasue we are American citizens[/i'] protected under the constitution.

 

But you are mistaken in thinking that the Constitution protects you from hearing the "G" word. It does not.

 

Remember---"or the free exercise therof......"

[Newtonian]

Whooo,I must not have put my point of view across in the correct context.And i apologise.

Horse shit.

There were literally millions of flags out thoughout 2004 with the football supporters pinning them to anything accessible. You could not go two yards without seeing a flag.

Sorry i missed out that we are allowed to fly the national flag on major national sporting events like the world cup.But my statement is still correct otherwise.

hmm since you are obviously bigoted on this' date=' I don't see hopw any argument will get through to you.

Why do you hate atheists so much? Becasue we don't believe in your god? Saying atheists need to "shut up and get a life" is demeaning and insulting and will be reported to a moderator. Maybe you think being a bigot is amusing, but most people don't[/quote']

apologies im not bigotted,and i dont hate atheist people.I was trying to make you see that is what your argument was biggoted to me.To dislike the fact that a voluntary word 'under god' and to try to get rid of it because you dont agree with it,is biggoted is it not.

I would be gratefull if you didnt take my words out of context and arrange them to say something i never.I never said 'shut up and get a life'.

I said Instead of moaning how maligned you all are as athiests,get a life.

All i was trying to say was lifes too short to argue over some trivial word(which is a choice wether you speak it or not) unless im wrong and people are forced to say it.

If im incorrect let me know,your correct i dont know alot of america,but i assumed it was the land of the free.

no one said my opinion counts more than millions. Where are you getting this strawman delusion from? Our opinion counts becasue we are American citizens protected under the constitution

Which has the G..word in it and your free to not say it,so why would you seek its exclusion,when its been there from the beginning.

Just because at different points in time feelings change,or individuals dont like it.That isnt a logical reason to exclude it.Unless the only faith moves to muslim or something

I dont wish to cause offence,i dont really care i just thought it was inconsiderate when no govn agency is forcing citizens to recite religious scripture.

I do hope you forgive me hellbender if ive come across wrong.

[Newtonian]

When i use a joke it isnt meant to be insulting.I use them to a) show with humour a silly perception of logic. b) to take the heat off and give people a giggle and make everyone realise its only a debate.There isnt a need to slag other posters off or scratch their eyes out because you dont like what they say.

If this is a bad thing i wont do it,however reading the threads alot of posts would disappear.

[Hellbender]

okay I am gonna follow coral redd here and say I am done with this. I have stated my opinion and you two have done nothing than troll and dismiss any argument out of hand becasue I am an atheist and you think I am just trying to argue about this becasue I hate christians. I am tired of repeating myself and arguing the same points over and over again. It is obvious I am never going to even make you consider my side of the argument, much less convince you. Call me a coward, hell even declare yourselves the winners of this debate for all I care. I will say for the last time, the post 1952 pledge of allegiance that includes the word "God", denoting the Judeo-Christian concept of a diety is an endorsement of a particular religion, which in a (ideally) secular country is unconstitutional, whether it is voluntary or not. School prayer was decided to be unconstitutional, and that was voluntary. I refuse to argue with people who automatically assign some other (anti-religious) agenda to my arguments. The word "God" doesn't offend me, and shouldn't offend anyone. The fact that it is an obvious endorsement (with the lame excuse of being "voluntary") of Judeo-Christianity offends me. Sure, a kid can refuse to stand, but you are forgetting (or denying) religious teachers who would make them stand anyway and peer pressure from other students. What kid wants to feel alienated? Thats my statement for the last time. I hope Michael Newdow wins this case. Don't bother responding, becasue you won't get any response.

[Newtonian]

Please dont be like that Hellbender.I find alot of your posts well written and enjoy your input.I apologise if you believe im not listening to your argument.I am but merely believe you are using the constitution as a means to persecute 81% of your population whom are christian.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

this means to me that you are free to practice any faith which you see fit,except human sacrifice.

The fact that 81% of your country is christian(it used to be greater),and as such are bound to use religious symbols on architecture,and inevitably use things like swearing on the bible in courts of law.

The ammendment of the constitution gives the individual right to practice whatever religion unhindered ,it doesnt say if you dont like christian things we will ban them for you.

The removing of a monument depicting the ten commandments from the court house in alabama,was religious persecution and discustingly PC.

The acknowledgement of god in a mainly christian country is to be expected.

Jefferson did not call for separation of church and state, but asserted that the legislative powers of government “reach actions only, not opinions,” thus protecting the right of individuals to their religious beliefs and prohibiting government from passing laws restricting the expression of faith.

 

If we agree hellbender and make it law were all reference to God,swearing on the bible etc is removed.Then your giving power to that gov to come in and and say you cannot acknowledge God.Thus restricting the expression of faith.

Which is the very thing your saying you dont want to happen.And is unconstitutional.

[atinymonkey]

Sorry i missed out that we are allowed to fly the national flag on major national sporting events like the world cup.But my statement is still correct otherwise.

Yeah' date=' it was a bit late and I was tired so I as a bit snappy. Sorry about that. Your right, but it's the BNP that have tainted the flag and not religious considerations.

 

 

If we agree hellbender and make it law were all reference to God,swearing on the bible etc is removed.Then your giving power to that gov to come in and and say you cannot acknowledge God.Thus restricting the expression of faith.

Which is the very thing your saying you dont want to happen.And is unconstitutional.

No, nobodys saying remove all reference to God. That's not the point. What is happening in American is that Children are being forced (despite the law) to recite the pledge: -

 

http://www.ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1998_durkee.php

http://www.aclusandiego.org/fallbrookwebpage.htm

 

MaryKait in the above links was forced to sue her school to protect her rights. That's really not allowing people to 'opt out' of the pledge.

 

It may be a little hard to understand, being from Britain, but the fundamentalist chrisitans in America are using the pledge of alligence to indoctrinate children.

[atinymonkey]

I asked Carol this and she wouldn't answer' date=' so I will try it on you.

 

If the words "under God" were removed from the pledge, and some of the kids said "under God" anyway during a voluntary recitation of the pledge, do you think that they should be corrected or diciplined for that? [/quote']

 

If US citizens are being forced to recite the pledge against their will, should we not takes steps to prevent it?

 

http://www.ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1998_durkee.php

http://www.aclusandiego.org/fallbrookwebpage.htm

 

If despite best intentions, it's still a tool of indoctrination then should we not protect the children?

 

I don't see why you won't protect the children?

 

Why do you want to harm the children so much?

 

Why can you only ask questions?

 

What is it your trying to ignore in the opposing posts?

 

Why don't you read the other posts?

 

Why is it you refuse to see the other point of view?

[syntax252]

If US citizens are being forced to recite the pledge against their will' date=' should we not takes steps to prevent it?

 

http://www.ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1998_durkee.php

http://www.aclusandiego.org/fallbrookwebpage.htm

 

If despite best intentions, it's still a tool of indoctrination then should we not protect the children?

 

I don't see why you won't protect the children?

 

Why do you want to harm the children so much?

 

Why can you only ask questions?

 

What is it your trying to ignore in the opposing posts?

 

Why don't you read the other posts?

 

Why is it you refuse to see the other point of view?[/quote']

 

 

This whole "child abuse" thing is a red herring. Even the 2 articles you posted links to attest to that.

 

The courts have held time and time again that children cannot be forced to say the pledge, nor can they be forced to refer to God if they do.

[syntax252]

okay I am gonna follow coral redd here and say I am done with this. I have stated my opinion and you two have done nothing than troll and dismiss any argument out of hand becasue I am an atheist and you think I am just trying to argue about this becasue I hate christians. .

 

I just love this.

 

Here is a guy who has offered no convincing evidence for his side--that kids are somehow "forced" to say the pledge--and then when he encounters opposition to his point of view, he cries "troll."

 

Is this what passes for debate on this forum?

[syntax252]

This comes down to the fact that because an Atheist does not believe in God, that he wants all other people to be disallowed from making any referrence to God.

 

That it patently unamerican on it's face.

 

As I said earlier, it would be akin to the Amish demanding that no child be allowed to have his/her picrure taken for the class yearbook, because the Amish do not believe in having their pictures taken.

 

The Amish are smarter than that, but would any of us support the Amish if they tried to promote such nonsense?

[Newtonian]

Thanks Tiny,I was under the impression it was voluntary.

I remember every day at school assembly we all had to say the lords prayer.I say had to meaning i spent most of the time lip-syncing it(nobodys forced or beaten).The only people excused were muslim children and atheists.

However i do think arguing the indoctrination of children (as if we must protect them from a sadistic cult who worship the devil)as an excuse,is properganda for another agenda.Are we to believe that a godless society knows whats best for our childrens welfare,that to be a well adjusted moral,compassionate human being one must protect them from christianity and God.Without being religious indoctrination i see it as teaching young children morals,love,compassion and sanctity of life(thats christianity not reciting a pledge) just as whatever faith in whatever country your born in does.

 

Im not saying that its the right/wrong way to teach that.At the same time one could say by your actions your denying children access to god,guidence and questions they have.Who says that the children shouldnt have these rights,which are in place to begin with.You/me?

I think the systems in place i.e are of benefit to that child in their country of origin.And later as they mature and have questions that the faith dont answer,they follow the path they chose.Which as adults we do,is that so wrong?

TBH whatever religion you follow,has been guidence to accomplishing a civilised society,we are no longer savages.

However reciting under god,or referring to god is hardly worthy of the titles which you refer.....Christian indoctrination of our children(or mind control)

[atinymonkey]

This whole "child abuse" thing is a red herring.

Why is it a red herring? The cases make trial, and the decisions in court don't agree with your point of view. How is your opinion made vaild?

 

Even the 2 articles you posted links to attest to that.

They attest to the opposite. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that they do not?

 

The courts have held time and time again that children cannot be forced to say the pledge, nor can they be forced to refer to God if they do.

As the links provided, children are being forced to recite the pledge without regard of rights or priviliges. Can you explain why the evidence presented is invalid? Can you expalin why the court has ruled in these cases towards the plaintive, never once towards the school?

 

Thanks Tiny' date='I was under the impression it was voluntary.

I remember every day at school assembly we all had to say the lords prayer.I say had to meaning i spent most of the time lip-syncing it(nobodys forced or beaten))[/quote']

Yup, this is the basic difference between the UK and the US. I too sang in assembly, and recited the lords prayer. Those who did not wish too could sit out of the assembly in secular isolation. It seems as though the US does not have the same tolerence of beleifs.

 

 

However reciting under god,or referring to god is hardly worthy of the titles which you refer.....Christian indoctrination of our children(or mind control)

Well, overstating perhaps. But it's to emphisise a point. No offence intended, it's not a severe form of indoctrination any more than adverts for Coke are.

[swansont]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' date=' or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech[/i']

this means to me that you are free to practice any faith which you see fit,except human sacrifice.

The fact that 81% of your country is christian(it used to be greater),and as such are bound to use religious symbols on architecture,and inevitably use things like swearing on the bible in courts of law.

The ammendment of the constitution gives the individual right to practice whatever religion unhindered ,it doesnt say if you dont like christian things we will ban them for you.

The removing of a monument depicting the ten commandments from the court house in alabama,was religious persecution and discustingly PC.

The acknowledgement of god in a mainly christian country is to be expected.

Jefferson did not call for separation of church and state, but asserted that the legislative powers of government “reach actions only, not opinions,” thus protecting the right of individuals to their religious beliefs and prohibiting government from passing laws restricting the expression of faith.

 

If we agree hellbender and make it law were all reference to God,swearing on the bible etc is removed.Then your giving power to that gov to come in and and say you cannot acknowledge God.Thus restricting the expression of faith.

Which is the very thing your saying you dont want to happen.And is unconstitutional.

 

You don't seem to be distingushing between what the people do and what the government does. Private citizens can put religious symbols basically wherever they please, on private property. They can believe what they want, practice whatever religion they want (as long as specific actions don't violate secular laws) and say what they want (again, within the restrictions of what constitutes speech). If 81% of the country is Christian, it doesn't mean they get to have the country display Christian symbols. The rights of the other 19% matter, too. No having the government erect crosses everywhere is not a restriction of the free expression of religion. The government telling you that you can't build one yourself is (again, within context of e.g. building codes).

[atinymonkey]

I just love this.

 

Here is a guy who has offered no convincing evidence for his side--that kids are somehow "forced" to say the pledge--and then when he encounters opposition to his point of view' date=' he cries "troll."

 

Is this what passes for debate on this forum? [/quote']

 

Here are the related artical of law, setting president: -

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=577

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=602

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=465&invol=668#678

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=463&invol=783

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=268&invol=510

[Sayonara]

The courts have held time and time again that children cannot be forced to say the pledge, nor can they be forced to refer to God if they do.

And yet it still happens.

 

Get that through your skull, and you might see what all the fuss is about.

[Newtonian]

You don't seem to be distingushing between what the people do and what the government does. Private citizens can put religious symbols basically wherever they please, on private property. They can believe what they want, practice whatever religion they want (as long as specific actions don't violate secular laws) and say what they want (again, within the restrictions of what constitutes speech). If 81% of the country is Christian, it doesn't mean they get to have the country display Christian symbols. The rights of the other 19% matter, too. No having the government erect crosses everywhere is not a restriction of the free expression of religion. The government telling you that you can't build one yourself is (again, within context of e.g. building codes).

I was trying to put across the fact that religious symbolism already in situe(say for hundreds of years) are being taken down and off govn buildings.I think its PC gone mad.

What next statues of the crucifiction being removed from outside churches,that overlook public pathways.Because Joe Bloggs the atheist is offended.

I do take on board others points of view,'but really' using children as tools to force agenda,and now a recital of a pledge as 'child abuse' is stretching the creduality of there debate.

[syntax252]

Why is it a red herring? The cases make trial' date=' and the decisions in court don't agree with your point of view. How is your opinion made vaild?

[/quote']

 

It is a red herring because it is an argument that is based on making people think that a problem that is quite narrow in scope is widespread. Does the term "propaganda" resonate with you?

 

They attest to the opposite. Can you explain how you came to the conclusion that they do not?

 

They do not, because they point out that those students who were forced or coerced into saying the pledge, resisted their teachers, took the case to court, and they won! That is the proper way to confront a problem with the teaching staff, not to outlaw the pledge or the words "under God."

 

As the links provided, children are being forced to recite the pledge without regard of rights or priviliges. Can you explain why the evidence presented is invalid? Can you expalin why the court has ruled in these cases towards the plaintive, never once towards the school?

.

 

And again--they said "hell,no" and it was they who prevailed in court, not the teachers. Is it starting to sink in yet?

 

That is what I have been trying to explain to you all along--that we already have legislation in place to take care of any coersion of our students.

[syntax252]

And yet it still happens.

 

Get that through your skull' date=' and you might see what all the fuss is about.[/quote']

 

And your skull? Can't you get it through your skull that when it happens that it is a violation of existing law?

 

What would make you think that taking words out of the pledge of allegience would solve a problem of abuse when the abusers are already violating the law?

[Mokele]

Do kids technically *have to* recite that part of the pledge, or the pledge at all? No. Are there social and possible physical consequences for not doing so? Hell yes.

 

Story time: Once upon a time, I went to HS in an inner-city school in Lousiana, bussed there as part of the gifted program. Nothing special there. But one day, there was an assembly for a purpose I've since forgotten. Something like a pep rally for homecomming, I think. Anyhow, I was sitting with several of my friends, looking about as unethusiastic as your typical nerds at an event dedicated to sports.

 

Then, the principal asks us all to stand, and begins a prayer. Me and my friends, being atheists, sit down and don't pray. Not being disruptive or anything, just not praying.

 

Cue about a dozen rough-looking guys, most of which were about 2-3 times the size of your average silverback gorilla, *demanding* we stand and pray, with the obvious threat of physical violence as a consequence of failure to comply.

 

Now, we didn't comply and we managed to escape the incident without harm at that point or in the future (though I can't recall just how we did). But the point remains that we're talking about more than just peer-pressure here. We were ballsy, but who *really* thinks that our defiance will happen every time, and that there will be a similar lack of consequences for defiance?

 

It's easy to dismiss social pressure on kids to conform, but it's not so easy when the agent of such pressure has biceps muscles the size of your head.

 

Mokele