setback for atheists

Only if you're a true beliver in lemon oil.

 

that's fine. i don't mind people saying it or believing it. i would just prefer they did it on their own time and their own nickle. and i certainly don't like the idea that you MUST say it (whether you believe it or not). nor do i like the idea that a public school teacher would lead the class in a recitation that in effect "teaches" that god is the supreme ruler of everything.

 

But you have no problem with dictating that you MUST NOT have the option to say if you want to, right.

If you don't want to say the words "under God," don't. If you do, do.

It really is that simple.

 

That is the problem with most of our current laws regarding religious expression. "MUST NOT" is against the current interpretation of the 1st just as much as "MUST" is. In fact, taking the actual words of the 1st and not the "seperation of church and state" reading that uneducated people have been duped into accepting as their mantra, I would say it reads stronger against prohibition than establishment.

 

Not really, it has already been determined that the government is soverign and in the meta activites of the government the constitution is in many application not applicable. So it's up to parents ot develop the morality of their kids not the schools or the courts or the dot or the police department or the military. which are all agents of the government with no offical religion. It is just people who want to co-opt the constitution for their own purposes who get very explicit about the 1st amendment when it suits (teachers evangelizing) their purpose and trample it when it suits their purpose (homeland secuirity). Neocons are such assholes.

 

honestly, i think it's a waste of time to recite the pledge every day. i wouldn't begrudge students a moment before class starts to have a prayer or pledge or whatever it is they want. i don't like the idea of a teacher telling students that god rules over everything.

 

Quite a nice jump there, Mr. Beamon.

The declaration clearly states that the rights we hold dear are granted by God - so to say that we are one nation under Him is clearly consistent.

The question to be asked is "Does the phrase 'under God' constitute a law 'respecting an establishment of religion' and does does taking it out mean that you are 'prohibiting the free exercise thereof'?"

 

You know this who argument is stupid when you go to catholic school and a nun leads the pledge everymorning, and makes you sing the staspankledbanana.

 

dukey stole VOR's password.

 

It certainly would be much more so if the government ever tried to hold us accountable to it.