Appeasing atheists

[Michele 1]

(I dunno why I chose this morning to get into this particular conversation...)

Look, there is a law in California which allows children to "opt out" of anything even superficially religious, such as the inclusion of the words "under God". Because of that law, many children do not utter those words. Why can't I if I choose? Why can't I pledge my allegience to my country, and state a belief that this nation is, indeed, one under God...

What a powerful expression of solidarity and unity. I mean, think about it. One nation, as large as we are. One nation, as diverse as we are. One nation, as incredible as we are BECAUSE of the size and diversity...and to express it as "one nation under God" brings to the table the thought that everyone, regardless of religion, ethnicity, sex, creed, political leaning - we are all equal, all one, all together in this - under God...this speaks volumes to the fact that we are *ALL* given the rights stated in the Declaration of Independence and further ennumerated in teh Constitution. It doesn't state we are all equal under a political party - or only caucasians, or men, or little green people - it states clearly and emphatically that irrespective of your personal belief system - be it roman catholic, jew or athiest - you are as free and equal as me, and I am as free and equal as you, but we are united in this country, and we are united together.

The phrase "under God" talks to that which is bigger than - more than - a political agenda, or a "religious" code, or a personal moral and ethical system which may or may not include theistic qualities. It elevates a person from being part of a particular crowd/idea to part of the whole...which is what this country is, essentially, founded on: each person has a value, and no value is better than another.

Just my rambling thoughts this morning. Please save the flames, but I think most people haven't seen it this way, and I thought I'd share another perspective.

Ciels and Pinks-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Iflyme 0]

I'm with you, Chickenhawk420!

[chickenhawk420 0]

Sorry this is not a flame i'm just disagreeing, but from my perspective nation of one under god to an atheist is absurd. If you don't believe in god, you can't be one of the whole under this statement therefore you could never feel united or a part of this one nation. Quite simply its a contradiction of atheist belief however i don't see how not having it make such a difference to you. How about simply one nation and in that way you don't alienate anyone from it and that is truely one nation. Basicly i see "under god" as doing the exact oppossite to what you've just said. By saying under god you are alienating the people with a personal moral and ethical code which do not in anyway rely on theistic qualities and therefore god.

[pilotdave 0]

As I said before, I'm not an atheist but I totally agree with you chickenhawk. The fact is, "under god" does not refer to all gods. It refers to one god, which not everybody believes in. It does not unite people of different beliefs. It alienates them.

Dave

[kallend 2,026]

Is there any evidence that reciting a somewhat meaningless incantation actually increases patriotic feelings?

The concept of a pledge of allegiace would make, say, the British, French, Australians and most other nationalities fall about laughing, but I believe they are just as patriotic as Americans.

Recall that the current wording came about at the time there also existed a government "Committee on UnAmerican Activities", chaired by none other that Joseph Macarthy, one of the sleaziest people ever elected to Congress.

Can you imagine a committee on unAustralian activities or UnNorwegian activities? The whole concept is ridiculous.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[agitator 0]

yeah, you're correct. We should never change anything about our government or traditions. All the changes we've made have been bad...
I mean, if we would just have left everything alone, then we could still be living in a Eutopia where blacks and women don't have the right to vote. Black folks would still have to sit at the back of the bus! It would be great if it were not for those meddlers!!
USA, love it or leave it huh? What a dick you are.
I AM an athiest, and the reason we should get rid of "under god" is not because it offends me or us..... I frankly could give a crap if the rest of you dummys want to believe in god, and it never killed me to say "under god" when I was in school, I just chalked it up to everyone being more stupid than I was.
The reason it has to go is because it is so ridiculous to assert that this "great melting pot" is composed entirely of people who believe in a Christian god (and let's be honest, the word "god" is NOT meant as a "blanket" god that covers all religions, it pretty clearly means the Pope-type god), especially with such a shifting demographic. What about allah, buddha, and whatever other deities are worshipped in this country? Doesn't the emphasis on the christian god in fact serve to drive us apart, and alienate the non - christian populations? We are less and less of a melting pot every day, as the white european folk (which I am) deny the fact that other cultures have a right to exert influence on the American way of life.
I read somewhere else that some weirdo said that god gave us our rights. How stupid!
God did not give us our rights, it was the blood of Americans that gave us our rights.
Let the flaming begin. And I am not referring to hell, which, by the way, doesn't exist any more than heaven does. Church on Sundays? Think of all that time you folks are wasting? Oh wait, you guys are all out at the DZ on Sundays, you must not believe that much if yall are out having fun on the stupid lord's day. hahahahahahaha!

[agitator 0]

don't worry buddy, they are all just big dummies who probably still believe in santa claus. they can stay in our country because they are otherwise smart enough to contribute something to our society.
we athiests will be proven right, when all the other folks die and panic that there is no white light leading them somewhere. yee haw, worm food time!!!!

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I just chalked it up to everyone being more stupid than I was

I'm sure thats it.....

[skybytch 273]

Quote

What a dick you are.
if the rest of you dummys want to believe in god

You may want to read the Forum Rules and Etiquette, which you can find in the Announcements forum, before you post again. Personal attacks are NOT allowed here. Consider this your first and only warning.

[pilotdave 0]

Quote

You may want to read the Forum Rules and Etiquette, which you can find in the Announcements forum, before you post again. Personal attacks are NOT allowed here. Consider this your first and only warning.

Although I agree it wasn't an appropriate thing to say (assuming it wasn't meant as a joke), I don't think calling everyone that believes in god "dummies" can quite be classified as a personal attack. Offensive, maybe, but personal?

Dave

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

You may want to read the Forum Rules and Etiquette, which you can find in
the Announcements forum, before you post again. Personal attacks are NOT
allowed here. Consider this your first and only warning.

One person's personal attack is another's statement of fact.
Despite his use of colorful metaphor, I think he is quite correct.

[skybytch 273]

I consider statements like "what a dick you are" to be personal attacks...

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I consider statements like "what a dick you are" to be personal attacks...

I think that settles the issue.....unless someone instituted a voting policy.....

[tooueay 0]

I don't consider removing "under god" appeasing just atheists. What about agnostics (like myself). I guess appeasing religious types is okay though? I love double standards. At least all skydivers believe in one thing...gravity:D

Give me ambiguity...or something else.

[DickMcMahon 0]

Maybe AGITATOR didn't mean anything negative.
Could be he was just refering to me since I posted
the original message in the thread.

Yea, I'm a Dick

[billvon 2,989]

>One person's personal attack is another's statement of fact.
>Despite his use of colorful metaphor, I think he is quite correct.

Quite possible. But being incorrect is no problem here; attacking someone personally (like calling someone a dick) is.

[quade 4]

Quote

Maybe AGITATOR didn't mean anything negative.

On the other hand, uh, the name is kinda of a give-away isn't it?

I think Lisa's being pretty tolerant considering he's an anonymous user. I tend to feel that if somebody has something useful to add they usually don't hide behind too many pseudonyms. In this particular instance, my guess is that this individual is probably here to do what is implied by the name.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jtval 0]

hey guys how are you--whoa is it hot in here?
I'll be right back. I'm gonna open the window!
you guys try to play nice!

My photos

My Videos

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

on't you find it unsettling that after 70 years of banning God from their country,
Russia is now 'permitting' the belief once again. And at the same time, we as a
country, are starting to boot Him out?

False premise, no-one is trying to boot out any deity. The fuss is about the appropriateness of government coercion to utter religious statements.

And coercion it is regardless of any argument that the kids don't have to say it. The coercion is implied by the power imbalance between the teachers/school administration and the kids.

The ONLY way the Supremes can overturn this is on the grounds that the words "under God" are meaningless, like they did with "In God we trust". Do the Christians really want the Supremes to rule this way?

"with liberty and justice for all except those the Attorney General thinks are terrorists."

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

The ONLY way the Supremes can overturn this

"Stop....in the name of love....Before you break my heart...."

[billvon 2,989]

>And coercion it is regardless of any argument that the kids don't
> have to say it. The coercion is implied by the power imbalance
> between the teachers/school administration and the kids.

Oh my god! I never realized this. My niece was taught "ring around the rosy" by her teacher. I thought it was a harmless kid's game, but now that I've read your post, I realize that she is being coerced into participating in a ritual that pays homage to the Black Plauge! We better get her into counseling quick, and put a stop to any teacher who teaches something not approved by some sort of Council for Approved American Non-Offensive Activities.

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Council for Approved American Non-Offensive Activities.

Don't say that too loud.....someone will start having visions of large government grants and a carefree life of not ACTUALLY having a job but getting paid very well......

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

>And coercion it is regardless of any argument that the kids don't
> have to say it. The coercion is implied by the power imbalance
> between the teachers/school administration and the kids.

Oh my god! I never realized this. My niece was taught "ring around the
rosy" by her teacher. I thought it was a harmless kid's game, but now that
I've read your post, I realize that she is being coerced into participating in a
ritual that pays homage to the Black Plauge! We better get her into
counseling quick, and put a stop to any teacher who teaches something
not approved by some sort of Council for Approved American Non-Offensive
Activities.

The difference is the Constitution, which prohibits the government from doing some things (like enforcing any form of religius activity) and doesn't prohibit others (like making children learn Mother Goose rhymes). Either way, if the teacher says do it, what 6 year old is going to refuse based on constitutional grounds? 6 year olds don't even know what their rights are, which is why it is important that they have someone else do it for them.

If this country had a flawless record of protecting the rights of minorities (of all sorts) it wouldn't be an issue. Unfortunately the tyranny of the majority has not been eliminated, and that's why this is an important case. The majority seems to say "so what, no big deal, it's just two words", but it's not the majority who are affected or need protection.

There once was a congessional committee on "unAmerican Activities" chaired by one Joseph Macarthy. Can you imagine the Norwegians setting up a government committee on UnNorwegian Activities, or the Scots on UnScottish Activities? Or the Austrians or the Australians or the Italians or the Canadians... That's why the US needs the protection of the Constitution.

"...with liberty and justice for all except those the government locks away without access to counsel."

[billvon 2,989]

>The difference is the Constitution, which prohibits the government
> from doing some things (like enforcing any form of religius activity)
> and doesn't prohibit others (like making children learn Mother
> Goose rhymes).

I don't see how asking children to sing (for example) christmas songs (which is extremely centric to one religion) is more OK to you than asking them to say the pledge. In both cases - if it bugs you don't do it.

>There once was a congessional committee on "unAmerican Activities"
> chaired by one Joseph Macarthy. Can you imagine the Norwegians
> setting up a government committee on UnNorwegian Activities .. .

I can do better than imagine; it was called the legal purge of Norway. It was nearly identical to our version, except the Norwegians arrested around 50,000 people. Just replace "communist" with "nazi sympathizer."

>That's why the US needs the protection of the Constitution.

Why? Because no other country had such a committee? Since other countries did, in fact, have such "purges" is your point now invalid? I don't see the relationship.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

I don't see how asking children to sing (for example) christmas songs (which
is extremely centric to one religion) is more OK to you than asking them to
say the pledge. In both cases - if it bugs you don't do it.

It's wrong because 6 year olds don't have the same understanding of what they must do compared with what they may refuse, as you do and I do. We're dealing with small children here in a situation where the adults have total control of them. The simple fact is, the two words "under God" simply don't belong there; they are a literary and constitutional wart.

Quote

There once was a congessional committee on "unAmerican Activities"
> chaired by one Joseph Macarthy. Can you imagine the Norwegians
> setting up a government committee on UnNorwegian Activities .. .

I can do better than imagine; it was called the legal purge of Norway. It
was nearly identical to our version, except the Norwegians arrested around
50,000 people. Just replace "communist" with "nazi sympathizer."

I'm sorry that you can't tell the difference between dealing with those who collaborated with an invading, occupying, enemy army (usually called "traitors" or "quislings") and those who had political views at variance with the government. Dissent is not treason, although Macarthy (and now Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft) wanted it to be so.