Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision")

This is a discussion on Kinda surprised no one has mentioned this ("Under God" Decision") within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; well that sucks but that shouldn't have happened i just don't see how having God in these things forces anyone ...

  1. #31
    Sweet
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,801
    well that sucks but that shouldn't have happened i just don't see how having God in these things forces anyone to believe in God
    Woop?

  2. #32
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    It doesn't "force anyone to believe in God". It implies state endorsement of a religion, and according to the Constitution, that is illegal. Jesus, it shouldn't be this complicated.

  3. #33
    Sweet
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,801
    your not understanding the constitution was based on God check this one im sorry for the link bombing
    http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html
    Woop?

  4. #34
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    > your not understanding the constitution was based on God check this one im sorry for the link bombing

    Learn how to construct a sentence that makes sense, please.


    Also, hahahahhaha

    I was waiting for someone to pull that crap out. The Courts have repeatedly interpreted the establishment clause of the Constitution to mean that Church and State are intended to be seperated. I'm not going to go through all the garbage on that site, but that's simply the truth. It's the SCOTUS's job to interpret the Constitution, and that's how it's been interpreted.

  5. #35
    Registered User major_small's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    2,787
    first off, to all those saying that children aren't forced to say it: there are alot of schools across the nation that will suspend children for not saying the pledge... (read: the children are forced to say it)

    second, this sums it up best:
    Those religious conservatives who worry much over the "original intent" of laws and statutes are hard put to argue that Congress was not acting with religious intent in 1954 when it inserted "under God" by joint resolution. The Cold War context provided the motive to contrast our way with godless communism. President Eisenhower declared, "From this day forward the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim ... the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." As the flag was then raised above the U.S. Capitol, the bugler played "Onward Christian Soldiers."
    (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/077323.htm)

    IMO, it should be taken out of the pledge and off the money. the word 'God', even if used in the context you're talking about, still implies a higher being, a higher solitary being. not only do alot of people not believe in any higher beings, alot also believe in more than one higher being. no matter how you look at it, it's offensive to millions of americans.
    Join is in our Unofficial Cprog IRC channel
    Server: irc.phoenixradio.org
    Channel: #Tech


    Team Cprog Folding@Home: Team #43476
    Download it Here
    Detailed Stats Here
    More Detailed Stats
    52 Members so far, are YOU a member?
    Current team score: 1223226 (ranked 374 of 45152)

    The CBoard team is doing better than 99.16% of the other teams
    Top 5 Members: Xterria(518175), pianorain(118517), Bennet(64957), JaWiB(55610), alphaoide(44374)

    Last Updated on: Wed, 30 Aug, 2006 @ 2:30 PM EDT

  6. #36
    Sweet
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,801
    I say we agree to disagree and leave it at that
    Woop?

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    129
    Was there any reason why this guy brought his case to the supreme court other than he didn't want his daughter to hear it in school? If he is just trying to fix the world, he's going to need some help you guys

    edit

    I do think that it is unconstitutional, but there are so many other things that normal people have to put up with in their everyday lives that putting up such a strong fuss about this seems at least moderately silly, even if he's right. I guess this is just really important to him, but I would never try to change it, no matter how much I agree.
    Last edited by vNvNation; 06-16-2004 at 09:58 AM.

  8. #38
    Mayor of Awesometown Govtcheez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    8,825
    Quote Originally Posted by prog-bman
    I say we agree to disagree and leave it at that
    Translation: My argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

  9. #39
    Sweet
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona
    Posts
    1,801
    no im just tried of researching for posting here when i could be studing c++ stuff
    Woop?

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    367
    It violates seperation of church and state. End of story. I don't know why people have to make things overcomplicated. Is it going to hurt you not to say "under God" in your pledge? No it will not. But does it hurt millions of people TO say "under God" in the pledge? Yes.

    If you guys would ever try to see things from more than one angle, this crap wouldn't even get started.

    And the part about "the US was founded on Christian beliefs". That is BS. If the country was founded on Christian beliefs, this country would be much, much different. Even if it was formed "in christian intent", it's the statement of law, not the intention, that matters. If you write something and mean something else, well then you are a flipping moron.

    I know this country will never change. It's because we have so many ignorant Christians in this country. No, I am not saying anything bad about Christians, I'm saying ignorant people who just happen to be Christian as well. They don't want to consider people of other religions. No, they want to criticise and/or convert them. They figure that they have to shove the bible down everyone's throat. You know a perfect example of this? George Bush. That retard needs to STFU. My cousin has a pet rat that could do his job a heck of a lot better than he can.

  11. #41
    Rad gcn_zelda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    942
    I don't care whether or not they take it out. I'm going to say it anyway. And the majority of the Christians in high school are going to say it, also.

  12. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    470
    first off, to all those saying that children aren't forced to say it: there are alot of schools across the nation that will suspend children for not saying the pledge... (read: the children are forced to say it)
    I don't remember in news of any children who were forced to say the pledge.

    Are you willing to remove all those songs played at school dances containing the word God?

    IMO, it should be taken out of the pledge and off the money. the word 'God', even if used in the context you're talking about, still implies a higher being
    This only amounts to those who are willing to see money as a religious symbol. These same people, who would see the words "in God we trust" on money as a religious symbol, should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.

  13. #43
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    If it offends you don't say it.

    The military no longer even requires you to say 'so help me God' in their oaths but they give you the option to.

    Say whatever you want but don't make a big deal over nothing. Seems to me lots of folks are spending lots of time on issues that are more based on a personal dislike or a personal vendetta.

    Everyone is offended somewhere at sometime in this country. Get over it, man. You'll never remove everything that is offensive to everyone because we are all different people, with different backgrounds, different views, different principles, etc, etc. What is it that you guys are looking for? A perfect world? A perfect country? It ain't gonna happen.

    I personally wouldn't waste my time on the issue.

    ...should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.
    A fact that is overlooked quite often. One could argue that the endorsement of no religion is actually an endorsement of a religion to not have one. Either way you are going to offend those who don't like the slogan because they don't have a religion or they do....it's just a decision not to have one....or you are going to offend the one's that do claim a certain religion.

    Either way, no religion is still a religion or we wouldn't have the word atheism in our vocabulary.

    Face it....there is no correct answer here. Waste of time.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 06-19-2004 at 02:13 AM.

  14. #44
    Registered User whackaxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by bludstayne
    Even if it was formed "in christian intent", it's the statement of law, not the intention, that matters. If you write something and mean something else, well then you are a flipping moron.
    thats exactly what happend in france. in the constitution it is written that two "persons" may be joined in mariage, seeing as it was written 50 years ago it was supposed that these two people would be of opposite sex. recently the mayor of a town (who's function is to celebrate mariages) married two blokes. he then got suspended.(said mayor is also the leader of the green party ) the couple are being sued to cancel their mariage

    Quote Originally Posted by bludstayne
    I know this country will never change.
    shame that, because in that case you're pretty much screwed
    Last edited by whackaxe; 06-19-2004 at 11:14 AM.

  15. #45
    The Earth is not flat. Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    1,420
    These same people, who would see the words "in God we trust" on money as a religious symbol, should also see it removed to be an endorsement of atheism.
    That's nonsense. If they replaced it with "We don't trust in God because we don't think he exists" THAT would be an endorsement of atheism, simply removing it would make money/ the pledge religion neutral - neither for nor against.
    Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21