"Under God..."

[logic]

What do you think???

[Icarus]

In other words something like the following:

"NO! WE WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS A SIGNIFICANT CITIZEN OF OUR COUNTRY YOU EVIL ATHEIST SCUMBAG......, but if you could please keep doing research for us and staying out of our prisons, that would be great."

No...


Is there a reason you see it as yelling and name calling?

[Piper Plexed]

I intend to speak from the perspective of a French Huguenot Settler descendent. I certainly am well aware that I do not make the case of all that suffered from Religious tyranny though I am quite sure my Great Great Great....Grandfather would have agreed with my position being that he was a Pastor and most likely left all of his worldly possessions and family in France not to seek out today's “AMERICAN DREAM” but to save his life from the oppressive and murdering hands of Catherine de Medici and Pope Gregory XIII. Most settlers did not run from their homelands to abandon the practice of their faith, if that was their intention then they would just as easily stayed in Europe and converted to the state sponsored religion. No my Grandfather came here and preached, there still stands a French Huguenot Church in Staten Island dedicated to him as the founder.

http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm (a brief history)

Funny how Britain, Australia, and France happen to have had a long and bloody history of religious warfare, and now have among some of the most secular populaces in the world. Coincidence, I think not.

In the case of France and the extreme secularism that exists today, well there are socio/economic reasons as well for their reaction.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor2

Just as France suffered a notable loss through emigration of the intelligent, capable Huguenots, so the American colonies gained through their immigration. The colonists who had already settled North America were mostly farmers, laborers, ministers, soldiers, sailors, and people who had been engaged in government. The Huguenots supplied the colonies with excellent physicians and a large number of expert artisans and craftsmen. For example, Irenee Dupont learned how to make gunpowder from the immortal Lavoisier, and Apollos Rivoire, a goldsmith, was the father of Paul Revere.

Moreover, the Huguenots adapted themselves readily to the New World and showed an astonishing propensity for marrying people who were not Huguenots. Their descendants increased rapidly and spread quickly throughout the American colonies. Today, people of Huguenot origin are found in all parts of the United States.

France lost most of their skilled laborers, educated citizens there was not much left to drive their economy, as France suffered, America prospered.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor8

For the most part, Huguenots in France were artisans, merchants, seafarers, and what we today call professional people, and they brought with them the knowledge and skills acquired in their homeland. The skills of their cabinet makers, weavers, silversmiths, and artisans of a host of other trades, as well as their proficiency in agriculture, greatly contributed to the economic development of the American colonies. People who at that time would forsake their homeland because of their religious beliefs had to be people of strong conviction and determination, for the undertaking of the rigors of life in frontier settlements required great steadfastness of purpose.

Although deeply religious and proud of their heritage, the Huguenots were not intolerant of the beliefs of others. Their traits of character, their skills, and their beliefs they passed onto their descendants.

Be grateful that the constitution keeps religion distant from politics, otherwise we would have eventually come to the same conclusion as those countries...

I am very grateful as that was their intention. Though the intention was not to abolish Faith but to foster free expression.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor8

The Huguenots "carried with them the fixed principle of the supremacy of constitutional law. Liberty of thought; liberty of faith; liberty of worship -- these were the aspirations of the Huguenots. They fostered here the germ of independence, regulated by law, which brought to pass what... we call American democracy."

I don't buy the heritage argument because the phrase "under god" has no such heritage. It's only been around for 50 years and was put in to generally tell ourselves (the theistic people anyway) how much better we are than the commies. The confederate emblems on the southern flags were similarly added to oppose desegregation.

I am saddened that so many dismiss our history so quickly.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor2

Remember that our inheritance of honorable names and of the incessant blessings of civil and religious liberty carry with them the obligation to keep them in honor and maintain and defend them; that we hold them in trust, to enjoy in our lifetime and transmit them untarnished and undiminished to posterity. We cherish these traditions, not for the glorification of family names, but for the honor and advancement of humanity, as incentives to those private and public virtues that constitute the true strength of a nation.

"NO! WE WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS A SIGNIFICANT CITIZEN OF OUR COUNTRY YOU EVIL ATHEIST SCUMBAG......, but if you could please keep doing research for us and staying out of our prisons, that would be great."

Please do not yell. I too was once an “EVIL ATHEIST SCUMBAG”, though I was never offended by the word God, as I always understood that I was free to not worship him. Thanks to those that came to America and founded our Nation that is.

[ENIGMA]

A case in point is the Puritans who left England because of religious persecution and ended up practicing similar persecution to unbelievers in their colonies.

ENIGMA wrote:


Be grateful that the constitution keeps religion distant from politics, otherwise we would have eventually come to the same conclusion as those countries...

I am very grateful as that was their intention. Though the intention was not to abolish Faith but to foster free expression.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor8

Quote
The Huguenots "carried with them the fixed principle of the supremacy of constitutional law. Liberty of thought; liberty of faith; liberty of worship -- these were the aspirations of the Huguenots. They fostered here the germ of independence, regulated by law, which brought to pass what... we call American democracy."

...and no one here is proposing an abolition of religious belief. What I am contesting is the right of the government to pass judgement on religious belief or lack thereof, when such a belief's practices violate no secular law.

ENIGMA wrote:


I don't buy the heritage argument because the phrase "under god" has no such heritage. It's only been around for 50 years and was put in to generally tell ourselves (the theistic people anyway) how much better we are than the commies. The confederate emblems on the southern flags were similarly added to oppose desegregation.

I am saddened that so many dismiss our history so quickly.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor2

Remember that our inheritance of honorable names and of the incessant blessings of civil and religious liberty carry with them the obligation to keep them in honor and maintain and defend them; that we hold them in trust, to enjoy in our lifetime and transmit them untarnished and undiminished to posterity. We cherish these traditions, not for the glorification of family names, but for the honor and advancement of humanity, as incentives to those private and public virtues that constitute the true strength of a nation.

http://www.huguenotsocietyofamerica.org ... ml#anchor2

Remember that our inheritance of honorable names and of the incessant blessings of civil and religious liberty carry with them the obligation to keep them in honor and maintain and defend them; that we hold them in trust, to enjoy in our lifetime and transmit them untarnished and undiminished to posterity. We cherish these traditions, not for the glorification of family names, but for the honor and advancement of humanity, as incentives to those private and public virtues that constitute the true strength of a nation.

Except the sum total of the history behind these icons is an effective to the percieved enemy at the time.

One should not preserve "our heritage" just because its "our heritage", but rather one should preserve the heritage that is worth preserving.

ENIGMA wrote:


"NO! WE WON'T ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS A SIGNIFICANT CITIZEN OF OUR COUNTRY YOU EVIL ATHEIST SCUMBAG......, but if you could please keep doing research for us and staying out of our prisons, that would be great."

Please do not yell. I too was once an “EVIL ATHEIST SCUMBAG”, though I was never offended by the word God, as I always understood that I was free to not worship him. Thanks to those that came to America and founded our Nation that is.

The quote above was my general attempt at coming up with how the government is supposed to " let him still feel like they can contribute and make a difference, but not on that particular issue." as Icarus requested.

Considering that open atheists are all but barred from public service (50%+ would not vote for an atheist), and atheists are one of the few groups which it is perfectly acceptable for public officials to denigrate.

Case in point:

George H. W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

He was running for president at the time. Do I really need to point out that the fallout that would have happened if he considered Jews or Christians as unpatriotic would have killed his presidential race right then and there?

[Piper Plexed]

A case in point is the Puritans who left England because of religious persecution and ended up practicing similar persecution to unbelievers in their colonies.

I am sorry, I do not see the connection, please explore the links I supplied. I discuss the French Huguenots and their direct impact on what we know as American Democracy, not the English. You will find that many of the founding fathers were of Huguenot decent that includes the Father of our Nation, George Washington as well.

One should not preserve "our heritage" just because its "our heritage", but rather one should preserve the heritage that is worth preserving.

Please clarify, In what way is Huguenot Heritage unworthy of preservation? We are what we are, the sum of our experiences. Since Huguenot Ideals fostered the concept of liberty as well as the separation of Church and State. Just because the founding fathers based these ideals on the Idea that there are inalienable God Given rights, should I be offended? In this case God was the path to truth, so what, the truth is what is important isn't it? Why not give credit where it is due and acknowledge Gods influence on who we are today. Like I have said before the pledge is not a part of the constitution therefore will not affect our laws, only how we perceive who we are and how we became what we are today.

The quote above was my general attempt at coming up with how the government is supposed to " let him still feel like they can contribute and make a difference, but not on that particular issue." as Icarus requested.

Considering that open atheists are all but barred from public service (50%+ would not vote for an atheist), and atheists are one of the few groups which it is perfectly acceptable for public officials to denigrate.

Please show examples where atheist have lost rights (preferably case law) as far as I know atheists are as protected by the same constitution that protects people of faith.
If you are speaking of public opinion well I don't think there is much of a basis for an argument as right to liberty assure the freedom of thought and if one wishes for the Government to become the thought police well here we go again....Pack your bags cause I sense a mass exodus on the horizon.

Case in point:

George H. W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

He was running for president at the time. Do I really need to point out that the fallout that would have happened if he considered Jews or Christians as unpatriotic would have killed his presidential race right then and there?

Might be a Darn good reason not to vote for him me thinks, (atheists can still vote right?) he is one man and one President. I venture to say if the above comment is actually true (as I do not see any supporting evidence) this sort of speech may offend even people of Faith. Actually if you can supply proof I will be equally offended. I still don't see why we must abolish all reference to our history because of the thoughts of one or even a group of Americans. The Ideals of liberty, freedom and the separation of church and state are still very fixed in our laws and constitution. The Origins of these ideals are our history and a part of our National identity. It appears to me that some have blurred the lines of distinction and clarity is in order.

[ENIGMA]

A case in point is the Puritans who left England because of religious persecution and ended up practicing similar persecution to unbelievers in their colonies.

I am sorry, I do not see the connection, please explore the links I supplied. I discuss the French Huguenots and their direct impact on what we know as American Democracy, not the English. You will find that many of the founding fathers were of Huguenot decent that includes the Father of our Nation, George Washington as well.

I brought it up as the first example off the top of my head as a persecuted belief system fleeing persecution, establishing a dominating control over a new colony only to become the persecutors with their newly established power.

One should not preserve "our heritage" just because its "our heritage", but rather one should preserve the heritage that is worth preserving.

Please clarify, In what way is Huguenot Heritage unworthy of preservation? We are what we are, the sum of our experiences. Since Huguenot Ideals fostered the concept of liberty as well as the separation of Church and State. Just because the founding fathers based these ideals on the Idea that there are inalienable God Given rights,

I must again inquire into how rights can be both inalienable and God-given, since anything that is God-given can be God-retracted.

Anyway back to topic:

...should I be offended? In this case God was the path to truth, so what, the truth is what is important isn't it?

At least your ancestors thought so. There are plenty who think differently today. On what basis do you determine which is right?

Why not give credit where it is due and acknowledge Gods influence on who we are today.

Funny you should mention "Giving credit where it is due", considering how often people thank God when an injured relative is saved by a surgeon's skillful operation, or when disaster rescue teams save a friend or family member from a burning house, or flood.

Would it really be so much to ask that people thank the people who, in some cases, risk their lives to save their loved ones? Really...

Like I have said before the pledge is not a part of the constitution therefore will not affect our laws, only how we perceive who we are and how we became what we are today.

Who we are today and how we have developed as a society is more exemplified by the ideal of E Pluribus Unum which acknowledges an ideal by the founding fathers so fundamental that it was on our currency long before "In God We Trust" was printed, again, to the commies.

The quote above was my general attempt at coming up with how the government is supposed to " let him still feel like they can contribute and make a difference, but not on that particular issue." as Icarus requested.

Considering that open atheists are all but barred from public service (50%+ would not vote for an atheist), and atheists are one of the few groups which it is perfectly acceptable for public officials to denigrate.

Please show examples where atheist have lost rights (preferably case law) as far as I know atheists are as protected by the same constitution that protects people of faith.

The Constitution is only a piece of paper without the full support of government to back it up, as is quite clearly evidenced by the current administration's various breaches in protections against search and seizure and the prosecution of those accused of "terrorism" (The 18th century equivalent of which would be "treason", and the 17th century equivalent being "practicing witchcraft") by military tribunals and being held incommunicado without access to legal counsel.

I have an example of atheists recieving death threats with no governmental intervention to stop an instance of what could be legitimately called terrorism. Apparently the government thinks that if it's "good christians" doing the death threats then it's perfectly okay.

Death Threats

If you are speaking of public opinion well I don't think there is much of a basis for an argument as right to liberty assure the freedom of thought and if one wishes for the Government to become the thought police well here we go again....Pack your bags cause I sense a mass exodus on the horizon.

I have no desire for the government to be thought police, just for the government to leave it's citizens be, and allowing them to believe as they please and to not endorse any belief or any group of beliefs as being an
"official" or "fundamental" or "preferred" belief system/systems.

Case in point:

George H. W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

He was running for president at the time. Do I really need to point out that the fallout that would have happened if he considered Jews or Christians as unpatriotic would have killed his presidential race right then and there?

Might be a Darn good reason not to vote for him me thinks, (atheists can still vote right?) he is one man and one President. I venture to say if the above comment is actually true (as I do not see any supporting evidence) this sort of speech may offend even people of Faith. Actually if you can supply proof I will be equally offended.

Here ya go

Also, considering that that "non-religious" are 10% of the population which have political views ranging from Marxist to Libertarian/Capitalism a la Ayn Rand, with 50% of the population inherently opposed to such a groups existance, getting any substantial influence in government is something of a pipe-dream. Have you ever heard the story of the use of democratic decision making amongst 3 wolves and 1 sheep as to what to eat for dinner?

I still don't see why we must abolish all reference to our history because of the thoughts of one or even a group of Americans. The Ideals of liberty, freedom and the separation of church and state are still very fixed in our laws and constitution. The Origins of these ideals are our history and a part of our National identity. It appears to me that some have blurred the lines of distinction and clarity is in order.

If you wish to make reference to our history, then there is nothing stopping you. However, supporting "Under God" in the pledge has no such history, since it was not written to support your ancestors, but rather as a McCarthian to the communists. Just because it supports your ancestors doesn't make it a valid tribute to their memory.

[Piper Plexed]

A case in point is the Puritans who left England because of religious persecution and ended up practicing similar persecution to unbelievers in their colonies.

I am sorry, I do not see the connection, please explore the links I supplied. I discuss the French Huguenots and their direct impact on what we know as American Democracy, not the English. You will find that many of the founding fathers were of Huguenot decent that includes the Father of our Nation, George Washington as well.

I brought it up as the first example off the top of my head as a persecuted belief system fleeing persecution, establishing a dominating control over a new colony only to become the persecutors with their newly established power.

Persecuted seems to be a subjective term here, for me persecution is when rights are denied to citizens via our laws. Since the supremes are the final say as interpreters of our constitution, please show where they have failed at their mission and ruled against the rights of the individual.

One should not preserve "our heritage" just because its "our heritage", but rather one should preserve the heritage that is worth preserving.

Please clarify, In what way is Huguenot Heritage unworthy of preservation? We are what we are, the sum of our experiences. Since Huguenot Ideals fostered the concept of liberty as well as the separation of Church and State. Just because the founding fathers based these ideals on the Idea that there are inalienable God Given rights,

I must again inquire into how rights can be both inalienable and God-given, since anything that is God-given can be God-retracted.

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictiona ... enableMain Entry: in·alien·able
Pronunciation: (")i-'nAl-y&-n&-b&l, -'nA-lE-&-n&-
Function: adjective
Etymology: probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>

I really didn't think there was a misunderstanding on this one though, since I was asked again, feel it is best if I spell it out how I understand it to be. Because they believed that man is the son of God and that by virtue of this higher status on earth the relationship (or in the case of the atheist lack there of) between man and God was a personal soul determining relationship, there is no place for the input of the state. It was their experience that when the state intervened in this relationship the state then tended to play God thus impacting and determining the fate (lives and souls) of the citizens. Liberty and inalienable rights are the basis for self determination and the rights of the individual. A birth right as a human. The only way I know of to retract these right is through death, and we have laws against killing each other though I guess we can die naturally thus God in essence is then retracting these rights.

...should I be offended? In this case God was the path to tru th, so what, the truth is what is important isn't it?

At least your ancestors thought so. There are plenty who think differently today. On what basis do you determine which is right?

Why not give credit where it is due and acknowledge Gods influence on who we are today.

Funny you should mention "Giving credit where it is due", considering how often people thank God when an injured relative is saved by a surgeon's skillful operation, or when disaster rescue teams save a friend or family member from a burning house, or flood.

Would it really be so much to ask that people thank the people who, in some cases, risk their lives to save their loved ones? Really...

When the people today try to amend our constitution to retract the rights of individual citizens....that is wrong. When citizens express their opinion with no effect on our laws and the rights of the individual, though I may not always agree, this is liberty in action and it must be tolerated. So in the end any one can say thank God though we can never be required to thank God. Nobody is forced to say Under God or the Pledge for that matter.

Like I have said before the pledge is not a part of the constitution therefore will not affect our laws, only how we perceive who we are and how we became what we are today.

Who we are today and how we have developed as a society is more exemplified by the ideal of E Pluribus Unum which acknowledges an ideal by the founding fathers so fundamental that it was on our currency long before "In God We Trust" was printed, again, to the commies.

Well, unfortunately that is not the tag line that was adopted, though I agree it would have been interesting.

The quote above was my general attempt at coming up with how the government is supposed to " let him still feel like they can contribute and make a difference, but not on that particular issue." as Icarus requested.

Considering that open atheists are all but barred from public service (50%+ would not vote for an atheist), and atheists are one of the few groups which it is perfectly acceptable for public officials to denigrate.

Please show examples where atheist have lost rights (preferably case law) as far as I know atheists are as protected by the same constitution that protects people of faith.

The Constitution is only a piece of paper without the full support of government to back it up, as is quite clearly evidenced by the current administration's various breaches in protections against search and seizure and the prosecution of those accused of "terrorism" (The 18th century equivalent of which would be "treason", and the 17th century equivalent being "practicing witchcraft") by military tribunals and being held incommunicado without access to legal counsel.

I have an example of atheists recieving death threats with no governmental intervention to stop an instance of what could be legitimately called terrorism. Apparently the government thinks that if it's "good christians" doing the death threats then it's perfectly okay.

Death Threats

As long as the individual has the right to petition the Supremes.... this does not make the case for me. As far as I can see the checks and balances are working quite well, please note recent references to those "Dag Nab it, Activist Judges..." Woo Hoo they are doing their job and it is playing out as it should.

I have no desire for the government to be thought police, just for the government to leave it's citizens be, and allowing them to believe as they please and to not endorse any belief or any group of beliefs as being an
"official" or "fundamental" or "preferred" belief system/systems.

The constitution has not been amended to require a belief in God let alone any particular faith, so I do not know why people feel this way.

Case in point:
George H. W. Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

He was running for president at the time. Do I really need to point out that the fallout that would have happened if he considered Jews or Christians as unpatriotic would have killed his presidential race right then and there?

Might be a Darn good reason not to vote for him me thinks, (atheists can still vote right?) he is one man and one President. I venture to say if the above comment is actually true (as I do not see any supporting evidence) this sort of speech may offend even people of Faith. Actually if you can supply proof I will be equally offended.

Here ya go

Also, considering that that "non-religious" are 10% of the population which have political views ranging from Marxist to Libertarian/Capitalism a la Ayn Rand, with 50% of the population inherently opposed to such a groups existance, getting any substantial influence in government is something of a pipe-dream. Have you ever heard the story of the use of democratic decision making amongst 3 wolves and 1 sheep as to what to eat for dinner?

I still don't see why we must abolish all reference to our history because of the thoughts of one or even a group of Americans. The Ideals of liberty, freedom and the separation of church and state are still very fixed in our laws and constitution. The Origins of these ideals are our history and a part of our National identity. It appears to me that some have blurred the lines of distinction and clarity is in order.

If you wish to make reference to our history, then there is nothing stopping you. However, supporting "Under God" in the pledge has no such history, since it was not written to support your ancestors, but rather as a McCarthian to the communists. Just because it supports your ancestors doesn't make it a valid tribute to their memory.

Seems to be more opinion and hear-say, which is fine, freedom of speech assures that all citizens can express these opinions, even organize and go so far as to petition to make changes to our constitution through their elected officials. Yes in this case Atheist are the minority just as homosexuals... yadda yadda etc.. The constitution is the last line of defense for the individual and the minorities and it remains intact and viable. I still see no basis for the Under God argument as an infringement on individual rights so in this case I suspect that the atheists have a bit more work to do before I jump on the band wagon with them.

I may not agree with what you say, but to the death I will defend your right to say it

- Voltaire (Evil Atheist French Guy)

Oh I love Voltaire, use to read alot when I was in HS pre-atheist portion of my life. You debate the post atheist though as I said before, never had a problem with under God I thought he was more of a deist though.

[lifeisboring]

What do you think???

Well, there's no rule that says you have to say it. So if you don't believe in God, just don't say anything while other guys go "Under God."

[kam&tam]

I believe we should not change our pledge to remove god. Specifically because the word god does not define religion. Religion uses (GOD) as a faith based tool to challenge your spirit. In our pledge, god as a word has no tangeable definition, therefore is not unconstitutional. Taking it out ,may be ,just that.

[MagusYanam]

What difference does the Pledge make? It's silly anyway, just get rid of the whole damn thing. It just detracts from the school environment and disrupts the daily routine - that's how I remember it. Taking five minutes out of the day just to salute the flag? I'd rather have been learning... well, pretty much anything.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

But of course, the pledge is nothing but a government ploy to manipulate our youth into supporting each and every ill-concieved, socially-detrimental policy contrived for the sole purpose of screwing over the masses to benefit the rich and powerful. The "under god" bit was added in to give leverage for future efforts to convert our nation into a full-fledged theocracy.

One must be quick to cite conspiracies in an incurably dishonest world such as our own.



[/sarcasm]