posted
Wiggin: In God We Trust is part of our official currency. There's no law against changing it, but it doesn't mean we should.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm to the point where I don't even care anymore. This thread has beaten a dozen dead horses.
Take it off, leave it there, It doesn't matter. Currency will still be Currency! I won't stop believing in God just because my money doesn't state my country does.
Just changing my opinion beause I'm tired of arguing about it, and it is an impossible debate to "win".
I don't even say the pledge anymore anyway. I was just trying to say that the only reason this Micheal Newdow fool is suing the Elk Grove School District in California and taking this to the supreme court is because he doesn't like any mention of God in schools.
I know this because I read an article in the Sacramento Bee with an answer to the question: Why do you want the pledge changed in the first place? He answered with words to the effect of what I said above.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Traditions are important... and generally should be upheld unless they conflict with ethics or efficiency.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Traditions are important... and generally should be upheld unless they conflict with ethics or efficiency.
You said:
quote:In this case, the tradition conflicts with both.
I can see your argument for ethics, but efficiency? Does the extra second for saying: "Under God" make a difference? Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not worried about it. Coins will always have a fiat value. I just think that is probably the next step. The people at West Point, NY are probably thinking: Great, another press change!
posted
"Anyway, you haven't backed up either assertion, and you really oughta break that habit, Tom."
Nope. Whenever someone fails to understand the logic behind my inescapable conclusions, it's only because they haven't put enough thought into 'em. j/k
That said, the phrase "Under God" is CLEARLY unethical, as it violates both the letter and spirit of the Constitution (note: see previous discussion for elaboration on this point), and further alienates those who are not of the minority faiths to whom the motto applies.
Furthermore, it is inefficient not only because it adds additional time and effort to the Pledge, but also because it's clearly a point of contention. It provides no concrete benefit, but is instead a divisive and even argumentative phrase that serves only to create ten-page threads. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What intangible benefits, in your opinion, are gained exclusively from the presence of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What benifits are gained by the lack of the presence of that statement?
Its really been blown into a much bigger deal than it should be. I do agree that its unethical, unconstitutional for it to be there.. but really, whats the point of taking it off? Youre still going to have money with that statement on it for decades, and the expense to bring this change about is in much more conflict with efficiency than tradition is in conflict with ethics. It really wont hurt you to use money with the mention of a God you dont believe in.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the "under God" in the pledge why is it worth re-educating people in the change(people will say it for years afterword out of habit anywhy). if you dont like the statement then just dont say it dont try to change something so small. It's not like someones gona shoot you if you don't. O and i never said that the money should be changed i just asked that if we change the pleadge why wouldn't people try to change the money.
posted
No, they are not separate. They are the same issue. If the man who wanted to change the wording of the Pledge (Michael Newdow) for the reasons that he did, those reasons would also apply to any currency that have "In God We Trust" on them as well. That makes them part of the same issue.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this would make a much more interesting thread topic, IMHO, if the question below were addressed...
What do those words mean?
I think inherent in this discussion is a particular casting of God, god, g-d? But I've never read it that way (or spoken in a pledge) so I've never been offended by my own potential assumptions.
My interp of the coin message relating to "god" was that "we" trusted in something, mainly our way of life and a free-market economy. Along with religious freedom if that's important. It seems like a good thing to me.
I mean, it seems better than a stamp that says "We trust in the guy with the monocle and the top hat."
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about: "In Democracy We Trust"? There are alternatives. And no, if you're suggesting that the "God" on the coins represents the freedom of religion, you might as well say ducks are blue. The whole idea is an oxymoron.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
We seemed to have no problem forcing people to change how they recited it in 1954, why is it a bigger deal in 2003???
It's simple, leaving it out allows for a person to believe either that our country is, or is not, a nation "under God." Isn't that part of the true spirit of the USA?
Why people feel that the phrase ought to be LEGISLATED, boggles me.
posted
Or course it was easy to change then. If you didnt believe in God, you were burnt on a stake. Religion was much more unified and less corrupt. Now dont get excited, the stake burning is an exageration, but my point is simple. Most people were 'Under God'. Especially law-makers. Old white land-owning church-goers they were. Now its a little different.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think the only reason most people would want it taken out is because they have issues with either God or religious people.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Nick - mostly I think it's just the issue of separating church and state that folks worry about.
Read up on the McCarthy era and the "godless" commies and the witch hunts taking place in our beloved country at the time and that might explain, IN PART, why the "In God We Trust" got added in to the pledge - and suggest a few reasons for why some people are lobbying to have it taken back out.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Religion was much more unified and less corrupt.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I would be very surprised if religion was ever more unified or less corrupt at any point in history than at any other point.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Read up on the McCarthy era and the "godless" commies and the witch hunts taking place in our beloved country at the time and that might explain, IN PART, why the "In God We Trust" got added in to the pledge - and suggest a few reasons for why some people are lobbying to have it taken back out.
I said most people. I commend those people who are taking it out for the sake of separating church and state. I'm saying I believe a lot of people are using that as an excuse to remove God from schools.
I have read up on the McCarthy era, and I don't like that you implied that I was ignoring that part of history. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well said, Shan. Can I call you the voice of reason?
quote: Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand, but I would be very surprised if religion was ever more unified or less corrupt at any point in history than at any other point.
Out of the mouths of "babes." There's an endorsement of religion if I've ever heard one. *get those bumper-sticker printing presses fired up*
Nick, as wonderful and popular a fellow as I'm sure you are, I doubt that you know "most" people.
If I'm wrong and you do actually know most people, can you toss some of those airmiles my way? Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, filetted, and yes you may. Call me the voice of reason, that is. Until you decide I am unreasonable, in which case you may call me whatever else comes to mind . . .
Nick, Nick, Nick . . . you forever persist in believing I persecute you. Sigh. Thanks for training me up in what to expect from my son as he enters teen and young adult years! Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, worded that horribly.... I hate being wrong.
What I meant was, religion in that time had less involved.. If that makes sense. Nowadays religion can come from a TV infomercial where you buy a 'magik' chest with which you can communicate with the gods. By corrupt, I meant something totally different. A pastor in a church considered Christian, -has- to accept peoples different beliefs. I saw a law case somewhere about this i think.. Back in the 50's, this wasn't true. The pastor could call a man a devil worshipper and kick him out of the church if he thought anything different.
What I was getting at, which Im realizing now isnt incredibly solid, is that living 'Under God' was the acceptable thing to do.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not as easilty though. if the guy didnt do anything too outrageous, he could file a law suit for religious persecution and probably win it. I saw somewhere, this happened. The guy and the pastor had a disagreement on something about what God was, and the pastor decided he didnt like it. So.. the guy had to go prove he was Christian somehow, and won the case.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* I'd avoid trying to be a Discussion Nazi; it won't make you popular, and it certainly won't make the discussions any more interesting, or more on-topic. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nick, as wonderful and popular a fellow as I'm sure you are, I doubt that you know "most" people.
If I'm wrong and you do actually know most people, can you toss some of those airmiles my way?
When I say "most people", I don't mean that I actually know those people face to face. I don't believe I ever said that. You don't have to know "most people" just to speak of public opinion.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my local newpapers, the Sacramento Bee, printed this story. For the people who said Newdow was righteous and only wanted pledge to be changed for constitutional reasons, and not for pushing God on the children, please sit down.
quote: The district is not pushing to "acknowledge God," as the editorial suggests. Instead, we seek only to preserve the pledge as it is currently written. We feel strongly that the phrase "under God" does not push religion on children - as the lawsuit contends - but rather that it reflects the history of this country.
quote: Furthermore, the costs of the current appeal (including the other legal expenses of our defense against Michael Newdow's lawsuit) are covered by the district's liability insurance, not our taxpayers.
[ May 10, 2003, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry, Nick, but what does that press release from Elk Grove have to do with anything? It's largely irrelevant, except that it helps the author sleep better at night.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm sorry, Nick, but what does that press release from Elk Grove have to do with anything? It's largely irrelevant, except that it helps the author sleep better at night.
I don't know if you read the article Tom, but it was in Elk Grove this whole fiasco started. Michael Newdow, although a Greenhaven resident, has his daughter attend a school within the reaches of the Elk Grove School District. He started the lawsuit against the district, and he started the case that demands the Pledge of Allegiance be changed. How is that no relevant?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not relevant because the intention behind the Elk Grove school district's use of the Pledge is not relevant to its constitutionality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't arguing that the Pledge is not unconstitutional, I'm arguing that the people who wan't to change are doing for stupid reasons. I gave up on the Constitution argument long ago. Michael Newdow sued the district because he felt "under God" was offensive to his daughter, but the funny thing is, his daughter attends a church regularly.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't his daughter attend the UNITARIAN church, and then only because her mother takes her? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
Establishing motive on the part of the plaintiff is a pretty pathetic way to argue against a lawsuit, by the way, unless you're going to require that demonstrable harm be shown -- which is not necessary in a Constitutional challenge, although it IS necessary for damages in a civil suit (IIRC).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Establishing motive on the part of the plaintiff is a pretty pathetic way to argue against a lawsuit, by the way, unless you're going to require that demonstrable harm be shown -- which is not necessary in a Constitutional challenge, although it IS necessary for damages in a civil suit (IIRC).
You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not trying to argue against his lawsuit, I'm trying to say he's not righteous. I'm trying to say he's a hypocritical prick. That's all. He has legal grounds for what he's doing, but that doesn't make it any less stupid or hypocritical. Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. So we've gone from debating the rightness or wrongness of the action to whether or not the guy in question is a jerk? *laugh*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ah. So we've gone from debating the rightness or wrongness of the action to whether or not the guy in question is a jerk? *laugh*
I have been saying he was a jerk from the beginning. I just now showed you guys that I was right. That was not my main point.
I still stand with what I say though. The Pledge might be able to be changed, but I don't think there was a reason to. I was trying to prove that he had some pretty stupid reasons to want to change it. That's all. I was not trying to prove him to be a jerk without tying it to what my point is.
[ May 12, 2003, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Nick ]
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think i rember hearing the guy sueing(srry can't rmber the name right now) wasn't leagaly able to use his daugter in the case becasu he had no custady i may be rong though and i relize this has little to do with this but im bored and wanted to post something...almost anything. Posts: 397 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Abyss, are you watching? Do you see what you have created? You posted a question that elicited ten pages of resposes... and only the first was yours.
Despite my brothers long rivalry with you, I must say that I am both impressed and intrigued, Did you create this discussion to hear opinions and come to choose one for yourself? Perhaps that doesn't give you enough credit. Did you desire to see your power to lead people? If so, why did you reply so little? Did you create this discussion just for your own amusement?
Well... Regardless of your intensions, I did like what you had to say originally and I plan to read more of what you've written.
Posts: 10 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
The whole idea is an oxymoron.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
