I'm an atheist. While I do have rights, I seem to understand these rights a little better than people dragging this into courtrooms.

And you religious people aren't any better for that matter. You idiots changed the name of the "Christmas Tree" at the White House to the "Holiday Tree" because Jews were offended. You spend more time nitpicking the different ways you worship the same friggin god...

The Constitution is simple. It says "freedom OF religion", not freedom FROM religion.

It means that we are all free to worship who we want and if you don't like it, fuck off. It doesn't say if you don't like it you change the names of things or change the words of things, or drag each and every little thing that you don't agree with into a courtroom.

It means that I'm free to do what I want, and you're free to do what you want. And if we don't like what each other is doing, to mind our own businesses and move the hell on.

I can agree with this.

Outstanding post, kingslayer.

The Under God part was added in the 50's to indoctrinate America against the "godless commies" in Russia whom we so feared back then as they developed nukes. It had its time, place, and purpose. It's two words. Big fricking deal. Only atheists should have any issue, as every other religion has a god of some sort (Allah is the stupid one )

I don't even think the Under God piece is what bothers me on this. It's the fact that some asshole chooses to litigate over this, wasting federal resources and costing the taxpayers money when we have so many more significant things to be concerned with.

This country's efforts to make everything so plain vanilla as not to offend anyone have just gone too far. Maybe it's time people toughen up a little bit and not get all butt hurt when they see something that bugs them a little bit.

It's my right of free speech to say under God or not on the pledge. Same goes for kids (even though they're not paying taxes).

Don't forget about this...

America the Beautiful

Uh yeah...that's where it says "ESTABLISHMENT of religion."

Courts and historians have agreed that 'establishment' means to endorse, sponsor, or otherwise favor any particular religion or religion itself.

Which pretty much means they never should have put Under God in there to begin with...

Either way, starting a court battle over it instead of just minding your own business is stupid.

I found atheism on my own. One of the things that made me despise religion is the fact that people push it on their children, then look down upon their children when their children don't follow that religion. This guy is doing the same with his atheism, which is wrong.

People should find their religion on their own.

One nation under god...ok and would you object to a Noctulius?

Just wondering.

That makes sense...if the symbol doesn't have meaning for you, and represents another's beliefs...you should be OK with that person displaying it....and yourself going with the flow to avoid wasting tax dollars on a court case, etc.

A pentagram, a cross, whatever...obviously the people who like crosses will tolerate pentagrams just like the people who like pentagrams tolerate crosses...fair is fair.

You pick your own religeon, follow it, and ignore the other religeons, as they are none of your business..

...and if the government adds a clause to the Pledge of Allegiance saying in Satan we Trust, or one nation under Zeus, you can tell your kids not to say it, because it means nothing to you...and if your kid is saying it, maybe to fit in, you know they don't believe it, because you taught them right.

No one is taking away your religeon...you just have to tolerate some meaningless words to go with the flow and avoid wasting tax dollars, etc.



Makes sense to me.

I consider myself agnostic. What do you see as the reason you are atheistic rather than agnostic?

I think I'm gonna sue to have a word removed that has been proven false over and over - "indivisible"

It's not just that. Imagine the difficulty of trying to get anything done if everyone is voting on it. Democracies don't work. A republic is the most effiecient way of getting things done, minus a dictatorship.

While I agree with your premise, Kingslayer, the Constitution actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise therefore."

Your point stands, though, as people trample the second half of that clause in effort to enfore their faulty interpretation of the first half.

I find it furthermore interesting that the idea of a "seperation between church and state" is only found in a letter from one of the founding fathers (Jefferson) and not in any of the documents they collectively agreed on.

Exactly.

Quote:

Either way, starting a court battle over it instead of just minding your own business is stupid.

But is it minding their own business? One could argue having it in the pledge is a "slippery slope" - look at all the attempts to get that joke of a thing, "Intelligent design" put into schools. Just like banning a type of gun is thought of as a slippery slope.

Do I think they will lead to those others? Not really. But some do.



I actually have never come across anyone like that, thankfully.

Too true.

You don't allow children to decide what is good for their body. A good parent limits the food their children eats to food that's nutirtious and healthy.

Do you expect it to be any different for the spiritual wellbeing of a child?

Not true.

Madison: The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State - Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history - Detached Memoranda, circa 1820

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821.

Arguably, Jefferson and Madison were two of the most imporant of the founding fathers, if not the two most important (after all, one wrote the Delcaration, the other is the "father" of the Constitution).

I'll be darned. Thank you for the correction.

One thing though... I don't recall those letters being agreed upon by the other signataries or being ratified by 2/3 of the states.

My point is that the Consitution was a consensus document AND it put forth a procedure to change it. A letter from either Madison or Jefferson, does not fufil that procedure.

True, the letters were not. But Madison was explaining what the First Amendment meant. And he's the one who wrote it - and it was based on the Virginia Statute, which Jefferson penned. Madison knew what the intent was, and explained it in those letters.

The interesting thing is that first Madison quote I listed. He says the "total separation of the Church from the state". NOT "total separation of the state from the Church." If anything, it seems, by that line, that he was more concerned about keeping the church out of the government.

The founding intentions were pretty clear...the separation is to prevent there from becoming a state religeon, such as was the case in England.

The messy part is where we draw the line...is Hamarabi's code or the 10 Commandments, as examples of early examples of law, on display at a court house, a religeous display, implying that these are official government stance on the involved issues?

If employees at a government office want to exchange X-mas presents at an office party, maybe have a tree and some greens...does that imply government involvement/endorsement?

Is the state denying the right of these employees to HAVE a X-mas party a violation of their religeous freedoms?

How does it make you feel if your son comes home and says that everyone in the class says a pledge of loyalty to the government that includes words that refer to another religeon, perhaps ending the pledge with "Praise Allah"...and he's the only one not saying it, and the other kids are looking at him funny and he feels uncomfortable being the only one to not say "Praise Allah".

What if the words were "There is no God"?

What if your kid felt funny being the only one who refused to say there was no God?

Would you complain to the BOE that they should not make the children say there is no God?

Is there a parallel?



Is this even IN the constitution?

I don't think so...I think we took the "No state religeon" concept and expanded it too far.

So - there may be other legal precidents and applicable laws to cover these shades of grey, but I'm not so sure that the constitution is the best venue.

TJ, totally right there. The separation of church and state was placed for exactly that reason. The problem is, the 'leaders' up on the hill have taken that idea and twisted it and pushed it to extremes. The idea was never created to take God out of school, or anything like that; it was created to keep the church from becoming a governmental entity.

I don't know about where you guys are, but where I live they are now starting to have a debate on whether they should teach the idea of creation in school along with the current curriculum of evolution. This seems wrong to me. It doesn't matter which side of the theological fence you're on, isn't it the best idea to teach our kids a good chunk of everything so they can make their own informed decisions? They've taken God out of everything because they think it might 'hurt' some of the poor kids that don't believe in God. What about the poor kids that do? They've gone all their lives doing things certain ways, and now they can't because it's not "PC"? It boggles me, how our government and standards can be so messed up sometimes...

On the other side of the fence though, we still have a lot more religious freedoms than are available in many other countries, so I guess we should still be thankful for that...

Wrong Moby. Jefferson didn't write the Constitution, he merely rewrote it so it was legitable. Alexander Hamilton actually wrote it.

Correct you are sirs. Well done.

Exactly!

Even atheists don't care about this bullshit.

The more time we waste on crap like this, the the less time we have to solve real, important problems facing our nation.

Um...you want to read that sentence again...

One wrote the declaration, the OTHER is the "father" of the Constitution.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration. The "other" is Madison.

Hamilton had nothing to do with the writing of the Declaration, and he had almost nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution.

Where did you learn your American History, anyway?

1. I don't think you can say that Jefferson intended us to seperate church from state to the extent we have. After all, he wrote that we were endowed by OUR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights (in the Declaration of Independance).

The modern (mis)inperpretation of "Seperation of church and state" is now attempting to exclude a the Dec. of Indep. from schools because it mentions God. Clearly we've misinturpreted what that founders intent. What's worse is we allowed our misinturpretation of the opinions of 2 founders to hijack the constitution.

2. I doubt that the other founding fathers would have agreed that Madison and Jefferson were the most important. I think its easy to tell who John Hancock thought was the most important.