Atheist Pleads With Justices

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vidcc+26 March 2004 - 22:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 26 March 2004 - 22:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@26 March 2004 - 12:39
Let me get this right.

In the home of the free, children must pledge allegiance and have no option in this and neither do their parents.&nbsp; Is that what we are saying.

there is not compulsion to say pledge (unless you wish to become a citizen, then you make the pledge at the ceromony)
it&#39;s said as a matter of course rather like they used to have prayers in assembly in the Uk ( i hear that&#39;s not normal these days) [/b][/quote]
So what&#39;s the issue, if his kid doesn&#39;t have to say it then why is he up before the Justices.

One has to suspect another agenda, as others have suggested. Tho&#39; this does seem to take it a bit far.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@26 March 2004 - 14:13
So what&#39;s the issue, if his kid doesn&#39;t have to say it then why is he up before the Justices.

One has to suspect another agenda, as others have suggested. Tho&#39; this does seem to take it a bit far.

the issue isn&#39;t about the pledge more about the inclusion of the words "under god" and this parent being an athiest possible finds it offensive.
As i said a modicomb of common sense could prevail here and the kid could just not say it but this parent wants to make an issue of it, which is his right.
We may see it as trivial in the same way we see lawsuits against mcdonalds for causing obesity, but to this person it seems important.
You appear to look at yourself as something of an authority on the technical word of the law in your counrty.....do you still have to swear on the bible or say "so help me God" if you are a witness in court?....if so could an athiest have a different oath?...which is what this parent wants in regards to the pledge.
The reason it actually ended up in court is because the father (an athiest) who has no custodial rights doesn&#39;t want his child to say the pledge, but the mother ( a believer) who does have custody of the child does wish the child say it

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Phyltre@26 March 2004 - 14:12
3rainiac, you just called my previous religion wrong. Not that it offends me or anything, you have the right to say that, but just because you have the opinion doesn&#39;t make it the kill-all. Rational belief systems are built on the fact that "allegiance" means more than just appreciating the precepts and concepts.

I think that&#39;s what allegiance means, who you listen to in a pinch. "The Republic" is a pretty large term, and I think it&#39;s just more than the constitution and fraternal relationships.

So, basically, no government or nation is worth devoting one&#39;s self to in comparison to one&#39;s higher allegiances to morality, religion, or at the least self interest.

wha? who? why?

i just called your previous religion wrong? do you care to elaborate? i have no idea what yer talkin&#39; about, or why it&#39;s still an issue if it is your "previous" religion.

if you honestly believe that loyalty to one&#39;s country means unquestioning obedience to anyone and everyone who happens to gain some public influence, then we&#39;re not going to find a middle ground. i happen to disagree, and believe that no government or vocal majority should hold a monopoly over patriotism. if allegiance truly meant obedience to the incumbent government rather than the nation&#39;s ideals, there would be no point in even holding elections, &#39;cause by your reasoning any opposition to the incumbent is treasonous. i think you&#39;ve expressed a rather dim, cynical, and wildly slanted view of what allegiance to the republic means.

[cisco52315]

I feel that "Under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. I am seemingly forced to bend under Christian beliefs into saying "Under God." Yes, I may be 16, and yes I am an Atheist, but I respect other people&#39;s right to worship how they please or not to, that’s all fine with me. As long as they don&#39;t try to force it down my throat, like they try here in the mid-west, I won&#39;t complain too much, I just don&#39;t say "Under God." I have no major problems with co-existing with Christians and Muslims and Arabic. And morals, I believe that they have come from evolution and not a god. So many people are bent on the extreme thinking that they&#39;re religion is always right and everyone should be like them. Everyone should stop, step away from their life, and look at everything. Atheists are not killing fanatics with no morals. Take a look at Christian history. Far from perfect. So are humans, so we ALL are humans. The true minority in America is Atheists, and the biggest for of discrimination is based upon religion. I love America and its basis, I accept and respect everyone&#39;s freedom of free speech and religion, and I just don&#39;t think enough people take what makes this country great and different. Still I believe that there should be no church in school, only ones funded by churches. In thousands of years Christians are going to be like the Greeks and Romans, looked upon as silly and ridiculous. I&#39;m not saying you have to remove any references to a god right this minute, but to respect our rights as human beings and our beliefs.

[Neo 721]

ahhhh its all a shear folly, pollitics the law and religion is destructive triangle that will never accomondate one an other its all pointless.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 March 2004 - 01:48

You appear to look at yourself as something of an authority on the technical word of the law in your counrty.....do you still have to swear on the bible or say "so help me God" if you are a witness in court?....if so could an athiest have a different oath?...which is what this parent wants in regards to the pledge.
The reason it actually ended up in court is because the father (an athiest) who has no custodial rights doesn&#39;t want his child to say the pledge, but the mother ( a believer) who does have custody of the child does wish the child say it

I do not see myself as "something of an authority on the technical word of the law". Like everyone else here I express my opinions, sometimes I know things about computers, or the law, or various other things. Then I will state them, as everybody else does. Frankly I don&#39;t see what your problem is with that.

The answer to your question is that witnesses do not have to swear on the bible. That would just be ridiculous, what if they were Muslim or Jewish. In fact they do not have to swear on any Holy Book if they do not wish to.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@27 March 2004 - 11:00
I do not see myself as "something of an authority on the technical word of the law". Like everyone else here I express my opinions, sometimes I know things about computers, or the law, or various other things. Then I will state them, as everybody else does. Frankly I don&#39;t see what your problem is with that.

who said i have a problem?

[Twigboy]

Well if I had to come up with a solution to this problem,this is what I would suggest.
To let everbody who doesn&#39;t believe in it to step out of the classroom while this goes on.

I don&#39;t believe in stepping on someone elses beliefs,and everyone has a right to believe in what they want to.

Living in the states I don&#39;t like someways they go about things.
But the Freedom of speech for what it&#39;s worth gives me a right to voice my opinion.

[Phyltre]

In response:

I was making the point that some religions reject the pledge on different moral grounds, and that the atheistics aren&#39;t the only ones who object to the pledge on religious terms.
They (my former religion) see a pledge of allegiance to a country as a conflict of interests with their obedience to God. I&#39;m not naming this religion because if you know very much at all about religions, you know which one I&#39;m talking about anyway. And if you don&#39;t, then go find out and don&#39;t work off your preconceptions.

The fact that some people see this view of conflict-of-allegiance as "dim," "wildly slanted," or "cynical" is not an issue with me. However, debating the issue merely by delineating said view in such a way is hardly conducive to a positive learning or even debating environment. See, I&#39;m offering a point from the standpoint of another religion. This is not necessarily MY viewpoint, but I know my stuff about it. I&#39;m not offering up some straw man. Arguing with one of the crux points of a religion by calling it dim may not be the best procedural decision.

Oh, and the incumbent basically DOES hold a monopoly on patriotism. That&#39;s certainly not ideal, and I&#39;d hardly call such a system true patriotism. But remember all the instances of our hearing about "un-American" actions and attitudes? That&#39;s propaganda. The president (our incumbent) is a figurehead of patriotism, nearly by definition. And they&#39;ve just about all been guilty of pointing a few stern glances at individuals who dare question said figurehead.

I&#39;m ending this post now so I don&#39;t lose myself in criticizing the shortfalls of government.