I agree with you Salty. I don't understand why these parents won't stand up for their kids on an individual basis rather than ruining it for everyone's children. I'm disappointed that my children won't be alloted the opportunity to show their devotion to their country in that way. If you want to know how I really feel I think they're all a bunch of ***** *** liberals who get off on complaining and changing ever last thing this country was founded on. I find it ironic they want this amendment changed for everyone. How terribly hypocritical can you be? You want to offend 95% of the population by deprieving them of their right of freedom of speech and religion just because you "think" you child is being "forced" to say "under God". They'll disregard the rights of the population just to get the satisfaction of knowing they've ruined a great thing for a nation.

 

Wow, this one just got hot. All over the most inconsequential topic.

 

Boy, you have a distorted perception of this population. 95%!!! gimme a break. Also... how would refusing to acknowledge a religious diety offend anyone? Are you offended that I don't go to church, also?

I understand that the pledge is traditional and hasn't really changed over time. But that's the problem, because the world and our nation have changed, greatly... almost to the point where continuing to have our children have this beaten into their heads is couterproductive to our efforts to reduce religious extremism around the world.

Please think before you post next time.

If we want to encourage secular governments and schools in other countries, depriving some people's children to combine church and education is a small price to pay, I think. (but I know you don't care about that, so what the hell am I doing wasting my time here?)

 

don't worry, I got us back on the issue... and didn't cool anything down either...

 

I beg your pardon?!?!?!?! How in any way did I ever lead you to believe that those who have different religious beliefs than myself offend me? I'm all for religious freedom. Be what ever you want, that's what motivated the founders of this country. The only reason I'm offended by this entire issue is that we are changing an American past time simply because a few people don't want to say a small part of it. What about the majority that do want to say it? Should we abolish their rights just to a please a few? Why not have a find a middle ground where both sides can fullfil their ethical obligations?

 

You make no sense to me- Who is depriving (or abolishing - i like that one ) anyone any rights by not making the pledge a class activity? Nobody is preventing anyone from saying whatever they want. The issue is whether we want to subject everyone to a religious idea in a publicly funded educational environment. So, are you proposing that the children who (or whose parent's) don't want them to recite the phrase just leave out the phrase, or go stand in the hall, plug their ears momentarily, or what? Any of those options would either alienate those few or subject them to the phrase anyway (if they just left it out and recited the rest with the class). Or should we segregate everyone and have a muslim pledge, athiest pledge, christian pledge, etc. If someone was so adamant about having god included in a daily recited routine, they could always opt for a private school which blended church and school.


...And if you weren't aware, I believe that 'majority' you speak of is becoming less and less overwhelming. The court would not have ruled as it did if this were not so.

 

I'm saying we need to keep how it is and make a revised version for those who don't want to say the original. If the "majority" you speak of is so less and less overwhelming they'll be the minority using the "under God" portion anyway so they'll be the "outcasts".

 

Brilliant... not. I was being sarcastic when I suggested the segregation option. Unless we want to go backward rather than forewad - I think that is a horrible idea.


...Which brings us to the easy solution, stop making it a daily classroom routine. Voila.

 

I could deal with that. Don't change it and if you want to say it say it on your own.

 

So you agree with the judge's ruling and (or at least) understand the reasons behind it?

 

Of course, I understand times are changing and I understand we must adapt to them. No one should have something they don't agree with forced upon them. I'm just sad to see another one of America's timeless heritages changed. I should have been born a long time ago that's all. Things like this are the reason patriotism and pride in ones country aren't as evident as they were in earlier times.

 

I agree with this idea. Unfortunately, this is not the issue we're faced with today. If it was just you and me on this planet then we could agree on this and be done with it. You must look at it in a different light:

My point is that if there’s an overwhelmingly large majority of people that don’t care or do find meaning in "under God" as opposed to those atheists (primarily atheist liberals) that make up the minority with no sacred spirituality or religion, then wouldn't it be much easier to turn the tables and ask them to simply ignore, skip, or not volunteer in the pledge? Seems like an alternative "Voila" that affects far less people.

And this is precisely why nobody cares about this except every atheist/liberal with an abomination filled agenda. Courts only seem to care because they have no choice but to interpret the case they were given from these vampires. So where do you draw the line on similar abominations (God on currency, etc) and how do you handle the issue(s)? Is it worth it to side with the legal aspect in order to please a few on an issue they push out of spite? Or is it worth it to welcome utilitarianism in order please a huge figure on an issue they hold sacred? Then you have to ask yourself why in the hell I give a damn about a two second phrase to begin with if it pleases that greater good? It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

I see it more destructive to upset a growing minority than to not 'please that greater good' by continuing with the pledge as normal. It kinda goes back to us setting the example for other countries, upholding our tenets of freedom and liberty, while not accrediting or tying those to any god or religious figure or idea. It goes... under god, with liberty and justice for all. Now, considering the fragile global political climate and the growing number of Americans who feel religion is unnessary and/or outdated, I think that we should take steps to set an example of a secular government and public society that respects all beliefs, including that of athiests. And this is just one step we can take toward that goal. If everyone could just keep it to themselves, I would have no problem with religion, but from my point of view, it seems that religion has created more problems than it has solved lately...

As for our currency, that's a little harder to change than a simple court ruling... but I have always wondered why no one has really complained about it. Which is understandable, because most athiests I know are quite reasonable, and they would understand why that has not been changed (the difficulty of replacing all of the currency all at once), but one may wonder why we have not abandoned the -to some- dated pledge.

Thats pretty much my view.

 

A growing minority? Hmmm… it's more like a ridiculous minority. Because regardless if those within the actual minority agree to disagree with the majority, there's an even smaller number of them willing to take it to the courts like their ridiculous counterparts. It's just not that big of an issue and why it's considered an abomination.

Still, the "growing minority" is currently and will most certainly be dwarfed by the majority of religious people and those that simply don't care enough till the end of time.

 

Im with you on this one.

Atheism is the greatest paradox. It is a "belief" that is based on the idea that religious faith can not be proven.

The paradox lies within the fact that the inherent characteristic of atheism -- that being that what can not be proven should not be believed in -- is disqualified by the fact that there is no absolute proof that God in whatever form does not exist.

Agnostics certainly have logical grounds to stand on... atheists can only cling to fallacious reasoning.