Gays Mock Jesus with Last Supper Take-Off

[vraiblonde]

Who was the last person YOU knew that was turned into a pillar of salt??

Who cares? How can Becky possibly go wrong by NOT wanting to piss God off?

Pascal's Wager.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I think you are misinterpreting this. The word “an” and the word “the” (in this case) can be used interchangeably. Your use of the word “establishment” is in the context of “An arranged order or system” . The intent of the word by the framers was meant as “The act of establishing". It can be understood either way, but the intent, it’s clear the framers were talking about the government not establishing a religion rather than a set of beliefs.

Here from wiki again:

​

And from here :

​

And here from Britannica:

​

To a certain degree I understand how the “under God” clause could be construed as the government promoting and encouraging religion but it does not force or coerce anyone to abide by any religious tenets. There is no enforceable law that stipulates a penalty for not citing the “under God” clause or the pledge itself. Therefore it does not ESTABLISH a religion.

"A proper respect for both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses compels the State to pursue a course of 'neutrality' toward religion," Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 792-793 (1973), favoring neither one religion over others nor religious adherents collectively over nonadherents. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97,104 (1968).

And to end on the point with which JusTICE SCALIA begins, the license he takes in suggesting that the Court holds the Satmar sect to be New York's established church, see post, at 732, is only one symptom of his inability to accept the fact that this Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18thcentury establishments. See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S., at 492-495.

Our job, of course, would be easier if the dissent's position had prevailed with the Framers and with this Court over the years. An Establishment Clause diminished to the dimensions acceptable to JUSTICE SCALIA could be enforced by a few simple rules, and our docket would never see cases requiring the application of a principle like neutrality toward religion as well as among religious sects. But that would be as blind to history as to precedent, and the difference between JUSTICE SCALIA and the Court accordingly turns on the Court's recognition that the Establishment Clause does comprehend such a principle and obligates courts to exercise the judgment necessary to apply it.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/687/case.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE

Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School’s student council chaplain delivered a prayer over the public address system before each home varsity football game. Respondents, Mormon and Catholic students or alumni and their mothers, filed a suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. While the suit was pending, petitioner school district (District) adopted a different policy, which authorizes two student elections, the first to determine whether “invocations” should be delivered at games, and the second to select the spokesperson to deliver them. After the students held elections authorizing such prayers and selecting a spokesperson, the District Court entered an order modifying the policy to permit only nonsectarian, nonproselytizing prayer. The Fifth Circuit held that, even as modified by the District Court, the football prayer policy was invalid.

Held: The District’s policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. Pp. 9—26....


....(b) The Court rejects the District’s argument that its policy is distinguishable from the graduation prayer in Lee because it does not coerce students to participate in religious observances. The first part of this argument–that there is no impermissible government coercion because the pregame messages are the product of student choices–fails for the reasons discussed above explaining why the mechanism of the dual elections and student speaker do not turn public speech into private speech. The issue resolved in the first election was whether a student would deliver prayer at varsity football games, and the controversy in this case demonstrates that the students’ views are not unanimous on that issue. One of the Establishment Clause’s purposes is to remove debate over this kind of issue from governmental supervision or control. See Lee, 505 U.S., at 589. Although the ultimate choice of student speaker is attributable to the students, the District’s decision to hold the constitutionally problematic election is clearly a choice attributable to the State, id., at 587. The second part of the District’s argument–that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary–is unpersuasive. For some students, such as cheerleaders, members of the band, and the team members themselves, attendance at football games is mandated, sometimes for class credit. The District’s argument also minimizes the immense social pressure, or truly genuine desire, felt by many students to be involved in the extracurricular event that is American high school football. Id., at 593. The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual. See id., at 596. Pp. 18—21.

(c) The Court also rejects the District’s argument that respondents’ facial challenge to the policy necessarily must fail because it is premature: No invocation has as yet been delivered under the policy. This argument assumes that the Court is concerned only with the serious constitutional injury that occurs when a student is forced to participate in an act of religious worship because she chooses to attend a school event. But the Constitution also requires that the Court keep in mind the myriad, subtle ways in which Establishment Clause values can be eroded, Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 694, and guard against other different, yet equally important, constitutional injuries. One is the mere passage by the District of a policy that has the purpose and perception of government establishment of religion. See, e.g., Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 602; Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612. As discussed above, the policy’s text and the circumstances surrounding its enactment reveal that it has such a purpose. Another constitutional violation warranting the Court’s attention is the District’s implementation of an electoral process that subjects the issue of prayer to a majoritarian vote. Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages. The award of that power alone is not acceptable. Cf. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. ___. For the foregoing reasons, the policy is invalid on its face. Pp. 21—26.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-62.ZS.html

YOur understanding of the establishment clause differs with the Supreme Court's.
Also what you think is coercion is also countrer to the Supreme Court's stare decisis.

 

[PsyOps]

"A proper respect for both the Free Exercise and the Establishment Clauses compels the State to pursue a course of 'neutrality' toward religion," Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 792-793 (1973), favoring neither one religion over others nor religious adherents collectively over nonadherents. See Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97,104 (1968).

YOur understanding of the establishment clause differs with the Supreme Court's.
Also what you think is coercion is also countrer to the Supreme Court's stare decisis.

This was a case that dealt with school systems actually forbidding the teaching of evolution, thus (perhaps) promoting a “creation” method of teaching. In this sense you can cite coercion or indoctrination. This is a violation of the establishment clause. By law the teachers and kids were forced to adhere to a certain teaching. The law stemmed from “the upsurge of 'fundamentalist' religious fervor of the twenties.” Even though there was no specific replacement teaching for evolution, their was a state-sponsored attempt to indoctrinate kids with Christianity by removing anything they considered contrary to their fundamental beliefs.

This by no means pairs out with the “under God” clause in the pledge. The clause still does not force or coerce anyone to abide by it. It does not specify which God; it does not hold any weight in criminality. I stand on this based on:

1) It is a law based on moral and voluntary observance and not criminal consequences

And

2) It has yet to be removed from the pledge. The US v. Newdow decision failed and the “under God” clause remains.

Here is something interesting I found in that case regarding the Establishment Clause… The brief Amicus Curiae explains to the USCS:

“If voluntarily reciting the Pledge is now suddenly unconstitutional because it refers to a nation 'under God,' then voluntarily reciting the Declaration of Independence, which similarly refers to the Creator as the source of our rights, must at least be suspect.”

The USCS agreed and overturned the 9th Circuits decision. The “under God” clause remains. So it seems my understanding is not that far off.

 

[Novus Collectus]

This was a case that dealt with school systems actually forbidding the teaching of evolution, thus (perhaps) promoting a “creation” method of teaching. In this sense you can cite coercion or indoctrination. This is a violation of the establishment clause. By law the teachers and kids were forced to adhere to a certain teaching. The law stemmed from “the upsurge of 'fundamentalist' religious fervor of the twenties.” Even though there was no specific replacement teaching for evolution, their was a state-sponsored attempt to indoctrinate kids with Christianity by removing anything they considered contrary to their fundamental beliefs.

But those cases were cited in a 1990s case.
There is a developed meaning of the Establishment clause and in 2000 a non-denominational prayer before a school game was said by the court to be coercion even if the kids had the option of not participating or by removing themselves.
The Supreme COurt disagrees with you.

This by no means pairs out with the “under God” clause in the pledge. The clause still does not force or coerce anyone to abide by it. It does not specify which God; it does not hold any weight in criminality. I stand on this based on:

1) It is a law based on moral and voluntary observance and not criminal consequences

And

You obviously failed to understand the SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. DOE decision. By requiring the students be in school while the government asks people to participate in a recognition of a particular belief (monotheism), is a violation of the Establishment clause.

2) It has yet to be removed from the pledge. The US v. Newdow decision failed and the “under God” clause remains.

Actually he won the case in the Appeals court, but it was dismissed by the SC because of a technicality. The school district he sued is not allowed to use the words in teh pledge because another lawsuit was decided in Newdow's favor. If it goes to the 9th circuit cour of appeals, then it will apply to nine states. If it goes to the SC, it might apply to the whole country if the agree with the 9th's 2002 decision.

The USCS agreed and overturned the 9th Circuits decision. The “under God” clause remains. So it seems my understanding is not that far off.

It was not overturned, it was dismissed because he was not the custodial parent of the daughter.
You should do a little more research.

The difference between teaching the Declaraion of Independence preamble is that there was no law passed by Congress making a part of the curriculum, it is not a ritual led by the school system which contains religious content, and there is something called "historical context".
The words added to the pledge are part of a ritual led by the state which contains religious content and intent, it is a law specifically passed by Congress to establish religious content in a government ritual, and it is not historical as in during the origins of the country.

 

[Thor]

I detect,,, intelligence...

It certainly does not offend me that you or your daughter don't say it either.

God bless you.. OOPs, I mean,, um, well,,, whatever.

As I said, it does not offend me BUT the real question is do I consider it a form of religious indoctrination, and do I feel it goes against the principals this country was founded on?

The answers to those questions is yes I do.

 

[residentofcre]

Who cares? How can Becky possibly go wrong by NOT wanting to piss God off?

Pascal's Wager.

Thanks...

And for Cappy... I don't get to into organized religion anymore... I work for a living because I have a family I like to help out, a mortgage, and a car payment.

I don't always obey the man but I always try to keep on speaking terms with God.

I'm not sure what OPP is...

 

[Thor]

I think I can sum up what I am trying to say with a reply to this:



By removing the clause doesn’t anymore state that I can’t practice my faith than having it in there forces you to observe a faith. From that respect I wouldn’t really care if it was removed.

​

So lets remove it then. After all it was only added in 1954. That's within living memory for some.

The pledge in its current state is recited every morning by millions of school children all over the country who have no idea what they are pledging their allegiance to. Most parents don't care enough to take notice regardless of what their personal religious beliefs are and that is indoctrination. Is the pledge referring to the Christian god? Absolutely, but that is beside the point, the fact is you are putting into their little minds that there is this thing called god to which you must pledge your allegiance.

Lets just eliminate it.

 

[Thor]

Who cares? How can Becky possibly go wrong by NOT wanting to piss God off?

Pascal's Wager.

Wait . . . are you saying pascal's wager is valid reason to believe in a god??

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Like the respect non believers get in this country? Like when Bush senior said atheists should not be citizens nor are they patriots? Like when Pat Robertson (who by the way preaches to over three million people) says "The Constitution of the United States, for instance, is a marvelous document for self-government by the Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian people and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society. And that's what's been happening."

Here's another Pat quote which shoud be particularly offensive to the ladies out there, "I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."

All religion is intolerant, ALL of them, and group selection theory states that group selection will bread intolerance (which it clearly does).

I acknowledge that you say you are not a religious person (and I believe you) however it seems to me that respect, when referring to a religious belief system, is really code word for "if you don't believe then shut the hell up".

Face it, religions (and I am not attacking a single religion here, the plural was intentional) bread intolerance, every religious book with the possible exceptions of the Hindu vedas, is based on group continuity, and most if not all have killed, shunned, or excluded people who refuse to conform to the belief system. It happens to this day.

To assert that it does not happen in this country is, quite frankly, delusional. I am not going to get into a “you started this first” argument, but I will say that respect is a two way street and the “group think” surrounding religion has been around as long as religion itself.

Telling someone homosexuality is wrong based on a biological standpoint (you can’t make babies that way) is one thing. Telling someone homosexuality is wrong because god told me so; which is arguably also a biological statement ( you can’t make “Christian” babies that way) is a completely different animal.

Please don’t think I am attacking you personally, I am not. I am simply trying to make a point.

Oh, and to the little #### that called me gay earlier (and I expect he did because it appears I am defending homosexuals) to him I say. Sir you do not know me, and if you did you would know I am not a homosexual. In fact, they don’t come much more conservative then I. The difference is my morals come from personal conviction and I am allowed to adjust them based on current evidence whereas you, apparently, are not. As yours are constrained by your “set in stone” belief system.

Ok, i have to finish catching up but I can't give Thor any more rep and i had to thank you for this post. you got my point across quite well and i didn't even have to think in order to have it get said lol. but yeah...i've gotten a couple references to me being gay in red karma due to this thread...and i too and not gay but i guess it comes with the territory of defending the freedom of people to do something that isn't really hurting anyone...

 

[PsyOps]

It was not overturned, it was dismissed because he was not the custodial parent of the daughter.
You should do a little more research.

I disagree. Your interpretation is too narrow. Read here:

Read paragraph 2 under "REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION". The reason for dismisal was because Newdow could prove his daughter's rights were actually being violated, as it was always within Newdows right to teach her his views.

Newdow has not alleged that Elk Grove or the United States has denied him any opportunity to expose his child to his particular viewpoints.

The court of appeals went further, however, and held that Newdow has a right not to have his message to his child interrupted or diluted by the government's educational practices. But, especially when that speech occurs with the consent of the custodial parent, the right of the non-custodial parent to "expose" the child to his views does not entitle that parent to close off all other views. Public schools routinely instruct students about evolution, war, and other matters with which some parents may disagree on religious, political, or moral grounds. What the Constitution protects, in those circumstances, is the parents' right to instill their own views in their children and to place them in a private school that is more consonant with their beliefs.

... even if Newdow possesses some federal right not to have his message of atheism affected by his child's exposure to the Pledge, the court of appeals' limited invalidation of the Pledge in elementary schools does not redress that injury. Newdow's child remains subject to exposure to the Pledge in a wide variety of other assemblies and settings, public or private. In addition, the child's mother could place the child in private school where the official governmental Pledge could be recited daily. Unless the Establishment Clause compels courts to root out every reference to religion in public life, the relief ordered by the court here is incapable of inoculating Newdow's message of atheism against any perceived dilution.

Then this

“On June 14, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Writing on behalf of the Court in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, Justice Stevens concluded that Newdow lacked standing to bring the suit in federal court.”

"Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a concurring opinion, appropriately addressed the merits and concluded that the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause,"

The difference between teaching the Declaraion of Independence preamble is that there was no law passed by Congress making a part of the curriculum, it is not a ritual led by the school system which contains religious content, and there is something called "historical context".

What are you talking about? First of all there is no law stating that the pledge must be part of any curricilum. Secondly, the Declaration is taught in every history textbook in America and contains the very words “Endowed by our Creator”. This, through historical teaching, by it’s very nature is teaching kids that our liberties come from God. Will Newdow sue next to have that removed from our founding documents?

The words added to the pledge are part of a ritual led by the state which contains religious content and intent, it is a law specifically passed by Congress to establish religious content in a government ritual, and it is not historical as in during the origins of the country.

Yes, a ritual. Not a law. It is voluntarily led. It is cited in our Supreme Court, Congress, most lower courts, etc... preceding every session. The very court session that Newdow attended began with the pledge. He probably chose not to recite it. That's his right. He did not go to jail for it nor was he frown upon for it. He was not affected by it whatsoever. Religious context is throughout the founding of this country and the foundation of this country. The primary reason for the establishment of this country was based in religion. And it's obvious, by our discussion and by several court decisions, this debate will never go away.

You're beating me up pretty badly here so I will just finally say this... I don't subscribe to the agenda-driven mindset that the government can't utter the word God in their documents, voices or references, or place the 10 Commandements in public places or nativities on front lawns and by doing so is somehow a violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't believe saying a prayer in school or putting God on our currency or in our pledge in any way violates the 1st Amendment. My interpretation of the 1st is quite simple: Congress can't establish an official state-sponsored religion and by doing so would force all Americans to observe that religion. Unless you're willing to rip every mention of God off of every piece of currency and out of every document that founded this country, then I believe you are fighting a losing battle.

BTW... I was not aware Newdow's SC decision was overturned. Do you have a link for this?

 

[PsyOps]

So lets remove it then. After all it was only added in 1954. That's within living memory for some.

The pledge in its current state is recited every morning by millions of school children all over the country who have no idea what they are pledging their allegiance to. Most parents don't care enough to take notice regardless of what their personal religious beliefs are and that is indoctrination. Is the pledge referring to the Christian god? Absolutely, but that is beside the point, the fact is you are putting into their little minds that there is this thing called god to which you must pledge your allegiance.

Lets just eliminate it.

While we're at it we can remove any mention of God out of the Declaration and other founding documents. We don't want these skulls-full-o-mush getting the idea that we were "endowed by our creator" with certain rights when they crack open their history books.

 

[Toxick]

Absolutely, but that is beside the point, the fact is you are putting into their little minds that there is this thing called god to which you must pledge your allegiance.

Firstly, I don't much care one way or the other about "Under God" in the pledge - I agree in separation of Church and State, and although I don't see how "under God" steps on any toes, I'm not particularly adamant on keeping it in there either.


Now, having pointed that out, I will now point out that the assertion in the above quote is inaccurate. In The Pledge of Allegiance, one does not pledge allegiance to God. One pledges allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which the flag stands. I.e: Maryland and the other, lesser, 49 United States.



"Under God" is merely used in a description of that republic, along with "Indivisible".


Nothing more.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I disagree. Your interpretation is too narrow.

Your interpretaion of what actually happened is way too broad This is why the majority of the justices refused to hear the Constitutional test part of the case.

Held: Because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district’s policy in federal court. The standing requirement derives from the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary. E.g., Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750. The Court’s prudential standing jurisprudence encompasses, inter alia, “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights,” e.g., id., at 751, and the Court generally declines to intervene in domestic relations, a traditional subject of state law, e.g., In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593—594. The extent of the standing problem raised by the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until Banning filed her motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring that the family court order gave her “sole legal custody” and authorized her to “exercise legal control ” over her daughter. Newdow’s argument that he nevertheless retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter his beliefs fails because his rights cannot be viewed in isolation. This case also concerns Banning’s rights under the custody orders and, most important, their daughter’s interests upon finding herself at the center of a highly public debate. Newdow’s standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. Their interests are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict. Newdow’s parental status is defined by state law, and this Court customarily defers to the state-law interpretations of the regional federal court, see Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341, 346—347. Here, the Ninth Circuit relied on intermediate state appellate cases recognizing the right of each parent, whether custodial or noncustodial, to impart to the child his or her religious perspective. Nothing that either Banning or the school board has done, however, impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, he requests the more ambitious relief of forestalling his daughter’s exposure to religious ideas endorsed by her mother, who wields a form of veto power, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the family court’s order has deprived Newdow of that status. Pp. 7—14.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html

I disagree. Your interpretation is too narrow. Read here:

Read paragraph 2 under "REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION". The reason for dismisal was because Newdow could prove his daughter's rights were actually being violated, as it was always within Newdows right to teach her his views.

You quoted the pettition for certori written by the appellants that lost the Appeals case. Of course it is going to say what you want to hear, it is written by the lawyers that you agree with....and they also lost.

“On June 14, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Writing on behalf of the Court in Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, Justice Stevens concluded that Newdow lacked standing to bring the suit in federal court.”

Because he was not the custodial parent, not because his arguments about the Establishment clause was incorrect.

"Chief Justice Rehnquist, in a concurring opinion, appropriately addressed the merits and concluded that the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge does not violate the Establishment Clause,"

Yes, three of the eight justices came right out and said they would have voted against Newdow if they were allowed to hear the case. O'Connor (who is no longer there), Rhenquist (who is no longer there) and Thomas said this, but the other five did not concur.

What are you talking about? First of all there is no law stating that the pledge must be part of any curricilum. Secondly, the Declaration is taught in every history textbook in America and contains the very words “Endowed by our Creator”. This, through historical teaching, by it’s very nature is teaching kids that our liberties come from God. Will Newdow sue next to have that removed from our founding documents?

It is allowed to teach about the history of religion, and the history of the United States. When it is is told or expressed in a historical context it is no where the same thing as asking students that are required to be there to take an oath that a god exists and that the god is supreme. One is telling the kids that is the law of the land as well asking them to also believe such, and the other is just a historical reference to a the authors of a document using artistic flourish. It is defintiley nothing close to your claim. The word "creator" written by Deists did not mean the Christian god.

Yes, a ritual. Not a law. It is voluntarily led. It is cited in our Supreme Court, Congress, most lower courts, etc... preceding every session. The very court session that Newdow attended began with the pledge. He probably chose not to recite it. That's his right. He did not go to jail for it nor was he frown upon for it. He was not affected by it whatsoever. Religious context is throughout the founding of this country and the foundation of this country. The primary reason for the establishment of this country was based in religion. And it's obvious, by our discussion and by several court decisions, this debate will never go away.

The foundation of this country was based on religious freedom and keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is an assurance religious freedom will continue.
This is why they added the non-establishment clause.

It is not voluntarily led because teachers are supposed to lead the pledge as part of their jobs.
It is coercion of the students because they have to be in class.

BTW... I was not aware Newdow's SC decision was overturned. Do you have a link for this?

Not sure what you are talking about.
The Supreme Court never made a decision on the case he brought because they did not hear it since he is not the custodial parent. There was no decision as far as that goes to overturn.
He has another case decided in his favor though that may go before the courts again however.

 

[Thor]

While we're at it we can remove any mention of God out of the Declaration and other founding documents. We don't want these skulls-full-o-mush getting the idea that we were "endowed by our creator" with certain rights when they crack open their history books.

You use the phrase "endowed by our creator" to assert that this country was founded on religious beliefs. At least that's what I can assume by the comment. But later in the same sentence we see the phrase "Inaliable Rights" which which implies these rights apply to everyone regardless of religion. So explain please how god can grant rights to everyone when clearly you interprate the sentence in a Christian context, which would exclude those who do not believe in a god.

 

[Thor]

Firstly, I don't much care one way or the other about "Under God" in the pledge - I agree in separation of Church and State, and although I don't see how "under God" steps on any toes, I'm not particularly adamant on keeping it in there either.


Now, having pointed that out, I will now point out that the assertion in the above quote is inaccurate. In The Pledge of Allegiance, one does not pledge allegiance to God. One pledges allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which the flag stands. I.e: Maryland and the other, lesser, 49 United States.



"Under God" is merely used in a description of that republic, along with "Indivisible".


Nothing more.

Granted on your second point.

Now about your first point. How would the Christians, Jews, or Muslims in this nation feel if it read "one nation under Ganesh"? Or under Buddha?

Once you understand that you'll understand how the people in this country with no religion (and there are more then you can imagine) feel about that particular phrase.

 

[Thor]

Granted on your second point.

Now about your first point. How would the Christians, Jews, or Muslims in this nation feel if it read "one nation under Ganesh"? Or under Buddha?

Once you understand that you'll understand how the people in this country with no religion (and there are more then you can imagine) feel about that particular phrase.

And for this post I got red Karma with this . . . "Go find religion. You need it!"

 

[PsyOps]

You use the phrase "endowed by our creator" to assert that this country was founded on religious beliefs. At least that's what I can assume by the comment. But later in the same sentence we see the phrase "Inaliable Rights" which which implies these rights apply to everyone regardless of religion. So explain please how god can grant rights to everyone when clearly you interprate the sentence in a Christian context, which would exclude those who do not believe in a god.

I didn't use the words "endowed by [their] creator"; the founders did. And I am not putting this in a Christian context. This country wasn't so much founded on "religious beliefs" as it was founded on the need for religious freedom. The first settlers came here with the primary intent of freeing themselves from an oppressive Christian-based government. They wanted the freedom to chose their religion (or no religion at all) without the government interfering in that decision. So the establishment of this country was rooted in religion, not as a belief system but as a free choice.

 

[residentofcre]

Wait . . . are you saying pascal's wager is valid reason to believe in a god??

Hey... whatever works... everyone needs to find GOD somehow...