|
Post by k on Mar 25, 2004 11:56:59 GMT -5
Why are those secular atheists trying to remove the words "under God" from the pledge to the flag? It is time to remove our children from the Satanic public school system! This is awful! Plain awful. Our nation was founded on CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES!
Kids need religious training in schools.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Mar 25, 2004 14:49:19 GMT -5
Kids need religious training in schools. The koran on every student desk??
|
|
|
Post by asv 420 on Mar 25, 2004 17:00:11 GMT -5
Isn't there some provision for separation of church and state? and isn't the problem with the Pledge pretty much in public schools (which are for all practical purposes a part of the state being state funded). So, why should we have religious training in public schools? If parents want religious training for their children in school, then there are private schools. Or, perhaps the parents can provide the religious training as best they can. Or, Sunday school at church. Lots of options other than bringing it into public schools. andy
|
|
|
Post by no name on Mar 26, 2004 13:46:46 GMT -5
I don't agree with religious training in public school.
But in my opinion, expressing the word "God" in the pledge is not a form of specific religious training; simply an acknowledgement of a higher being, other than man (which the majority of people in the U.S. believe). The pledge doesn't say, "one nation, under Christianity" . . . . to me, that would be indoctrination.
I would hope our society doesn't become so secular, that its citizens eventually won't be allowed to wear/display religious articles/items/forms of dress, like what is happening in France.
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on Apr 3, 2004 18:35:51 GMT -5
It says "One nation, under God"
It doesn't say anything about which God or sect or way or church or anything.
Under God is symbolizing something a bit higher or sacred than ourselfs, maybe reminding us more to have good moral values, and hold a sanctity for "good". Values and morals can be passed down from both the "religious" and the "non religious" and I have known both kinds of peoples...Religion may be good in its place because it can set a standard or a form for those who need guidance - it may detour chaos in some instances.
It was true that the pilgrims wanted religious freedom...
Too bad they wouldn't leave the Indians alone. Religious man is always trying to get everyone to believe what they believe. Many "faiths" have caused deaths due to trying to make others come around to their way of thinking. It doesnt always work - nor is it usually wanted.
Live and let live, let each decide which God if any he choose, so long as his beliefs are not shoved down someone elses throats or interfering with anothers rights.
The pledge is fine the way it is. You don't need to say God if you choose not too.
Leave religion classes and prayer for children to the parents and their respective churches. They have schools for those children whose parents want that instruction taught.
It's no one else's decision to force prayer in public schools.
Now, a few minutes of "quiet" time for students to reflect their day each morning is fine. But leave God to each owns discretion.
Peace to all
Cindi
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2004 5:57:03 GMT -5
Why can EVILution be taught and creationism cannot be taught? Double standard?
|
|
|
Post by asv 420 on Apr 5, 2004 14:44:15 GMT -5
Why can EVILution be taught and creationism cannot be taught? Double standard? A little lesson in public vs private schools. Public schools are a part of the state. They are funded by public tax dollars, the government, etc. To my knowledge, private schools are not. A little lesson on separation of church and state. Church/religion matters are not to enter into the workings of the state, nor influence the decisions of the state. (I may have that wrong, since I don't know quite the magnatude of the "separation", but I think that is the general gist.) A little lesson on "EVILution" vs. creationism. Evolution is not from the church. Creationism is from the church. So, since there is a provision for separation of church and state, public schools being a part of the state don't have creationism taught. Private schools, on the other hand, are not a part of the state so they are not bound by the separation. NOW do you say there is a double standard? And what exactly would the double standard be? andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on Apr 5, 2004 18:03:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by botany on Apr 8, 2004 12:36:50 GMT -5
Please realize that the "under god" part was NOT part of the original pledge. The pledge was written by a religious person, and his children and grandchildren agree that he would not have wanted the "under god" put in. "Under god" was added in 1954, from the requests of the Knights of Columbus and other religious people. I do not believe we can say that "under god" definitely belongs and is a part of the pledge's meaning, because it was added 50-some years after the pledge was written, under completely different circumstances and mindsets. andy
|
|
|
Post by no name on Apr 8, 2004 15:34:47 GMT -5
Please realize that the "under god" part was NOT part of the original pledge. I'm aware of that . . . I don't think it "doesn't belong", either. What damage is it doing, other than the fact that a very small group of people are unhappy with it?
|
|
|
Post by botany on Apr 8, 2004 16:29:16 GMT -5
noname: No, it does not say which god or church. BUT, it DOES say that there is a god, and atheists deny this. The higher power I recognize is the force of nature, powered by the sun. That's it. So if you're saying that "god" symbolizes a different power reminding us of good morals, why not say, "one nation under good morals"?? Or better yet, let's put it back to what it was originally. If the author of the pledge intended "under god" to be in it, he would have wrote it in. What damage was it doing BEFORE the "under god" was added? WHY was it added? It was added in the communist scare of the 50s and it tried to show that a scared nation was different from the "godless commies". "Under god" in the pledge is a contradiction of the very notion that our country's government is to allow religious freedom and not try to force particular religious beliefs on anyone. (And quite technically the "in god we trust" on money) By having god in the pledge, it's saying that people that don't believe in god are endorsing this god whenever they say the pledge. Overall, I don't really personally care too much what the pledge says. I never really say the pledge, so it doesn't concern me personally too much. Over the past couple years, I've come to detach myself from the 2x2, and consequently from much of religion and the god idea. So, I can understand where Mike Newdow is coming from, but I don't necessarily agree to the same extent. I have also realized that I tend to be an idealistic person. Being this way, I tend to see the theoretical way things work, and not always the way things actually do work. So, this sorta carries over in this pledge case. I'm bothered by the idea of god being in the pledge. I agree with the idea of removing "under god" but I don't necessarily agree that it's worth all the media attention and hype, nor the degree that it's going to in the courts. It seems a little wasteful for that, but I also commend Mike Newdow for actually standing up for his beliefs and trying to point out inconsistancies in the pledge/policies. andy
|
|
|
Post by To Andy on Apr 8, 2004 18:19:33 GMT -5
If you had grown up in a mainstream church where unconditional love was practiced then you might not be so secular? What do you think? Professing "friends" are often taught more about God's wrath instead of God's love.
The secular atheistic/New Age stuff doesn't explain why we were created and what will happen to us once we rot in the ground. Life is weird. But there is a reason for it all. It didn't just happen.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Apr 8, 2004 21:39:52 GMT -5
If you had grown up in a mainstream church where unconditional love was practiced then you might not be so secular? What do you think? Professing "friends" are often taught more about God's wrath instead of God's love. I agree that 2x2 are taught more about not crossing god's path rather than his love. Part of what I don't like about 2x2. As to whether or not I would feel differently had I grown up in a mainstream church... well, your guess is as good as mine. No way of knowing. I didn't realize that there necessarily HAD to be an explaination of how we got here, why we're here, and what will happen to us after we die. To me it seems like way long time ago some people were confused as to how they got there, why they were there, what would happen to them when they die, etc. So, they developed some theories that easily caught on because it provided an explaination that was much easier to understand and grasp than the open answer "I dunno" without the further scientific knowledge that we have today. I don't know how the world and everything came into existence. I don't know what will happen to me when I die. For all I know I will be eaten by bugs and microbes and feed lotsa little critters. We're here to live, and to not kill the earth. That's enough for me. The "I dunno" answer sits well with me. andy
|
|