A Good Discussion - Stay on Topic

worship aloud publicly, they can always go to ther church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever their house of worship might be.

wow, sounds like the "freedom of speech areas" that Harvard has instituted. One has just as much right to be preaching their religion in public as someone preaching evolution,feminism,nazism, et al. how does one expect people to make informed choices if they are not presented with different viewpoints?

Informed choices about religion should not be made in school. That's what church is for. Schools are for the teaching of fact, and that's all.

Schools are for teaching atheism.

So what if the United States of America was founded on Christian beliefs? What are you trying to prove?

Just because the founders were Christian doesn't mean that all Americans are.


However, our nation is under God, or at least a god...

The majority of Americans believe that. Only the few atheists believe that there is/are no god(s).


If they do remove that line from the Pledge of Allegiance, I'll leave it in there. Our nation is under God.

Truly.

Edit:

Schools are for teaching atheism.

Explain this to me, please. I don't see how schools are for teaching any kind of theism or atheism at all.

They are for teaching proven fact and solid theory.

They aren't for teaching that there is no God.

I really don't mind what what people do to this...to me it is simply the common beliefs in America so I can tolerate that. I don't mind religion really, except the radicals and hippocrits. Aside from that I believe religion is good and mostlikely helps the majority.

About this whole religion vs the state. Who cares? It won't bite anyone...the court isn't based on religion, nothing will change except for some text bein removed...but why care if it stays? I think the whole thing is stupid.

I'm truly not trying to offend anyone in this post!

Personally, I really don't like the idea of "religion". I don't consider myself as Christian, or Jewish, or anything else. I also don't necessarily believe there IS no godly figure, and I'm not an Atheist. This is because of how it is created. We don't REALLY know! I don't like the idea of some guy sitting there, thinking "...and then Adam and Eve did this and that..." to make a nice story (once again, this isn't meant to attack Christians or anyone else). As for America raising a Christian nation, I think you can see it both ways. When Christian americans think of Christmas, they think of a holiday celebrated every single year, for hundreds of years. They don't think of it as a Christian holiday. Do schools decorate for Christmas? Always. Do schools decorate for Hanukah? Not nearly as much. What about Easter? They decorate schools and give candy to kids - on a holiday representing Jesus' birthday or something (I really don't know what Easter truly means).

I am glad school celebrate that...maybe they should celebrate chrismika from now on? That would be a longer celebration in school which would make it better for everyone...in school.

I definately don't agree with not celebrating holidays, while I am in school at least ha.

> This is no more different than the chants that Hitler taught his troops during the holocoust (sp?).
Only difference being that mainstream Christians believe in rightiousness and moral behavior, those supported by our laws. Hitler taught hate, destruction, anti-semitism, etc. Those are not supported with any of our laws. There is a big difference.

Easter is Christ's death and ressurection. It goes Lent - Ordinary Time - Easter - Ordinary Time, cycle.

Perhaps we should censor the founding father's documents? The Declaration of Independence? It mentions God all the time. Maybe we shouldn't teach this document to kids in schools because it might "force" them to accept that this country was founded by Christians (which is fact). They might go home to their parents and ask about God. Hey... thats not acceptable... < Notice the sacarsm >

If you remove the words "under God" from the pledge, I say we edit the Declaration of Independence, too, and wherever it may be posted. And stop supporting any holidays.

This is ridiculous. Fact: This country was founded by Christians. Fact: They believed in God and belieived this country was under God. Fact: The pledge does not force anyone to believe in God.

Those words should stay in the pledge.

Originally Posted by Speedy5

> This is no more different than the chants that Hitler taught his troops during the holocoust (sp?).
Only difference being that mainstream Christians believe in rightiousness and moral behavior, those supported by our laws. Hitler taught hate, destruction, anti-semitism, etc. Those are not supported with any of our laws. There is a big difference.

Easter is Christ's death and ressurection. It goes Lent - Ordinary Time - Easter - Ordinary Time, cycle.

Perhaps we should censor the founding father's documents? The Declaration of Independence? It mentions God all the time. Maybe we shouldn't teach this document to kids in schools because it might "force" them to accept that this country was founded by Christians (which is fact). They might go home to their parents and ask about God. Hey... thats not acceptable... < Notice the sacarsm >

If you remove the words "under God" from the pledge, I say we edit the Declaration of Independence, too, and wherever it may be posted. And stop supporting any holidays.

This is ridiculous. Fact: This country was founded by Christians. Fact: They believed in God and belieived this country was under God. Fact: The pledge does not force anyone to believe in God.

Those words should stay in the pledge.

You're missing the entire point. You preach staying historically correct and opposed to historical revisionism against religion, yet the addition of "under God" was a pro-religious revision of the original pledge. So, what I gather, is that revising things is A-OK just so long as you don't mess with religion, right?

Originally Posted by EvBladeRunnervE

wow, sounds like the "freedom of speech areas" that Harvard has instituted. One has just as much right to be preaching their religion in public as someone preaching evolution,feminism,nazism, et al. how does one expect people to make informed choices if they are not presented with different viewpoints?

You misinterpreted me. When I wrote, "If they want to worship aloud publicly, they can always go to ther [sic] church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or whatever their house of worship might be," the they I was referring to was the religiously inclined public school students, as one would hope would have been clear from the context of the paragraph; and, when I wrote, "they can always go...," I was not necessarily excluding public preaching and proselytizing. By that sentence, I was excluding, though, government-mandated time for prayer or "silence," as well as teacher-led prayer during classtime. I believe it is crucial for public school teachers to keep their personal religious beliefs separate from their teaching because they are, after all, functioning as a vessel of the state.

Your post raises another question: whether "free-speech zones" are really consistent with the 1st Amendment and, if not, where it is lawful and appropriate for one to make public speech. I will not discuss this issue here so that the discussion remains somewhat on topic.

Originally Posted by gcn_zelda

So what if the United States of America was founded on Christian beliefs? What are you trying to prove?

Go back and read what I have been saying, zelda. I already said that was an observation, not an argument. And if you deny that the country was founded on Christian beliefs, then you pretty much deny History. I wasn't trying to prove anything, I was making an observation. Read the thread.

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

So, you want to build up religion in all places, which is not only against the Constitution but will also alienate pretty much everyone out there?

First of all, it is not against the Constitution for the government to encourage religion in general. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof." Tell me how encouraging religion in general violates that statement? It simply does not. That is my point. So many people have taken that clause to mean that religion should be completely void from government, but that is not the case. Yes, we should not teach in our schools that a particular religion is correct. We should not enforce a certain religion, have a national religion, or impose our religion on others. But the founders never meant for religion to be completely taken out of the system.

I hope you do not misunderstand me. Take the issue of prayer in school, for example. I am against public prayer in schools, because I have seen how it offends people, and I also believe many people fighting for public prayer in schools are simply hypocrites. Therefore that is not what I am encouraging at all.

Do schools require students to repeat the Pledge of Allegience?

Not mine.


If they do, sue the school.

And if they require you to say the pledge, then just omit that line if you don't like it.


Don't whine, people. Who cares if other people want to say "One nation under God."?

Those that want it taken out should just get over it, in my humble opinion.

Originally Posted by DavidP

First of all, it is not against the Constitution for the government to encourage religion in general. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excersise thereof." Tell me how encouraging religion in general violates that statement? It simply does not. That is my point. So many people have taken that clause to mean that religion should be completely void from government, but that is not the case. Yes, we should not teach in our schools that a particular religion is correct. We should not enforce a certain religion, have a national religion, or impose our religion on others. But the founders never meant for religion to be completely taken out of the system.

How on Earth do you propose encouraging religion in general without encouraging a specific religion? And then how do you incorporate religion into the system without stepping on the rights of others? Indeed, it is invariable that incorporating religion into the government will trample on the rights of people not of that religion. "We're instituting this law to stone homosexuals to death because the bible tells us to" may make sense to you, but not to the rest of us.

You mean we cant stone them to death? When did this happen?!

The way I see it, the pledge of allegiance is a very small issue, and the phrase should probably just be taken out if it offends people so much.