If it doesn't hurt anyone, then why do it in the first place?

We've been hearing this phrase an awful lot lately. "Having the words 'under god' in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't hurt anyone," "It doesn't hurt anyone to pay a Chaplain to pray over each of the bodies recovered from Katrina," "Why shouldn't kids study the Biblical story of creation in school? It doesn't hurt anyone!"

Well, I want to know, if something is so innocuous that it doesn't hurt anyone, what's the point of doing it in the first place? Why spend the time, money, and/or resources to start doing it and keep doing it?

...to pay Charon to cross the river Styx? OH, I forgot...Christian rites don't hurt anyone. Grrr...

PB

innocuous.

after all.

:spray:
You owe me a new keyboard!
:rofl:

I draw it at prayer in school and the teaching of creation....


If a person was consistent in his attempts to totally remove God from the public square they would have to remove "In God We Trust" from currency...

That's not going to happen....

Since you can't fight all battles simultaneously you have to draw the line somewhere...

But I do think the public should stop financing the placement of god in the afore mentioned square.

It probably cost more money for the extra ink to put "In God We Trust" on all the currency....


It's moot or academic....

Now ask me about Chaplains and teaching creationism...

West Virginia v Barnett



http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/raskin_interview.html



Oh, good luck in removing "In God We Trust" from the Pledge...


Here's the latest results from congress....


http://pewforum.org/religion-schools/pledge/


The 2-1 ruling sparked immediate reaction from many corners. President Bush, then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other leading politicians criticized the court's ruling. The Senate voted 99-0 and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to reaffirm the words "under God" in the Pledge. The American Center for Law and Justice criticized the Ninth Circuit's ruling as flawed while the American Civil Liberties Union praised the decision as "consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events."



Like I said the point is moot...

I think there are more important events occurring....

Ever wondered why there are so many court cases involving the pledge and state laws requiring it?

Oh, good luck in removing "In God We Trust" from the Pledge...

The words "In god we trust" were never actually in the pledge.

The point is as you can see by the sentiment in Congress it isn't going anywhere...


It's one of those silly fixtures of American life like placing "In God We Trust" on our currency......

Face it, Jim Crow is here to stay!

The public will never accept the idea of birth control on demand.

Our sodomy laws date back to the foundation of this country. No one is going to defend a bunch of queers.

I remember replying to her thread but it was at least a month and a half ago--poor thing was in Alabama and we haven't heard from her since.If I can find the link I will..........

And it will morally bankrupt this country. We are supposed to be free to have choice in our religious matters. The government is not allowing that freedom of choice by promoting the belief in God and that is exactly what they are doing by keeping that newly inserted phrase into the Pledge. What does it hurt to remove the phrase "under God"? That should be the question not what does it hurt to keep it. Obviously people are hurt or there would not be a law suit.

The federal reserve guarantees the banks; does god guarantee the federal reserve?

It is fine as a personal sentiment, but it has no place on our currency and, in fact, was not on our currency until the 1863 2cent piece. It was not mandated to be on all our currency until 1954, at the same time that the 'under god' was implanted in the pledge.

Both should be done away with.

ON EDIT

These both do hurt me, because they are reminders that to a large number of citizens I am a second class citizen; some, like Poppy Bush, do not consider me a citizen at all.

So why NOT take it out? It's no big deal right? So who cares? Just take it out then.

"It doesn't hurt anyone" :shrug:

It's not a very good one, but it is a popular one. If that's the only argument you have, it's a sign you should rethink your position.

Just a supporting one.

But it certainly seems to be for other innocuous issues...

marriage leads to breakdowns in the family/marriage, beastiality, etc., etc., etc. That was what I was getting at.

same sex marriage.

harm the sanctity of hetero marriage.

Then repeal the first amendment.

The pledge is a complete violation of the first amendment.

Whether participation is required or not it is against the 1st amendment for a government institution to promote religion and the phrase "under god" sure as hell ain't promoting anything other than religion.

So, all of you who want the pledge to stay, please start petitioning for the repeal of the first amendment.

Just don't ask me to sign it.

nt

Of all the debates on DU this is the most "academic"


Hmmmm, the Senate voted 99-0 to keep "In God We Trust" in the Pledge and the House voted 416-3 to keep it in.....

Let me get out my calculator...


What does a change in the law that is opposed by 99.99% of Congress have of passing?

What, you think I am a fucking idiot who doesn't realise what country I live in?

Give me a break, please.

Besides, that is what we have judges and a supreme court for. Congress didn't ban school enforced prayer or end segregation either now did they.

And hell most of the public hated those decisions so I guess we should always bend to the will of the people.

My only point, thank you very much, is that anyone with even half a brain who read the first amendment of the US constitution would know that these things are unconstitutional.

I was illustrating the futility of changing a fixture of American life where there is little popular support to change it....


Oh, I don't think you can look to this Supreme Court for relief....


Let's see....

We're bogged down in a guerrilla war in Iraq....


Bush* is spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have on "god" knows what....


The second major hurricane of the year is wreaking havoc on the Gulf ....


And we are having academic debates on issues that have little public support...

IMHO it's almost a form of intellectual vanity...

those two words.

And it's obvious that today, just like then, religious freedom is only important to those who don't have it.

So it should say, Under god and the flying spaghetti monster. And all science classes should reference his noodliness and his creation of the world. And all the bodies in New Orleans should be sanctified with a few strands of pasta.

God, I loathe these people. I told my daughter that if she is ever forced into anything religious in school to demand that the Satanist view also be presented.

if it doesn't hurt anyone, leave it as it is....

And no Pledge of Allegiance at all!

and violating their First Amendment rights.

we said the Pledge and Lord's Prayer in school in "my day" (before dirt) :) and I am none the worse for it... and neikther is my or your child... it is WE (adults) who cause all the rukus... give it a rest.

The opponents of the Pledge have a great debating point but it's one of the most purely academic debating points in a country where over ninety percent of the people believe in "God"...

is all they know. Never affirm, just debate and condemn. Gets old. I did not realize how anti-most-good we Democrats are over all. DU has been good in some ways for that.. I have learned WHY we are so hated and why we lose a lot.... bujt then I look back to the good ol' Democrat days :) when it was okay to be a Christian and stand for GOOD etc.

Oh well.

On with the show.

I hear Korea is challenging us... if they gotta give up nukes, then we do too... sound right...no?

That pretty much says it all.

sure does. Thanks.

personal freedoms and civil rights?

I think some people are a little fuzzy on what the party stands for.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and state then.

of understanding that religious freedom includes everyone, not just YOUR cult.

So we ARE the worse for it.

Thanks for proving my point!
And I thought I'd have to use freepers as examples...

You're the only one that missed it.

Look alive there, soldier.

It's a divisive issue which isn't going anywhere....

I therefore drop it.

...has a dog in this fight. The idea that "it doesn't hurt anyone so you should just go along with it" is anti-democratic.

There are not enough like minded people to change the laws and the Pledge and "In God We Trust " don't offend me....


It's a fun debate but I am more interested in trying to effect change where change can be effected...

It took nearly 200 years for African Americans to have anything approaching equality, and that fight is on-going.

rights are necessary, and those who think they are just academic issues.

Down below.
Our new friend hasn't realized that Az is one of those who has made "mistakes" in his life.

:rofl:

You just don't hear it often enough...

"Go to the back of the bus, sit down and shaddup!"

I have a dog in EVERY fight where someone's rights are being violated.

That's what being a liberal progressive is all about, not abandoning those who are being treated like second class citizens because their issues are unpopular with the masses.

against non believers.

is that leaving it in allows those that wish to acknowledge a creator to do so while also allowing those who wish to stay silent to do so as well. Therefore, it works for all. If you take it out, it only benefits those who do not wish to acknowledge.

Many people out there think that this creator gave us basic rights and that government's only role is to protect those rights. I think that placing "under God" in the Pledge was simply a reaffirmation that we, as a nation, allow those who wish to believe in said creator to do so.

But the church stepped up to the plate as usual.

Google "Constitution" and "First Amendment" some time.

too.

Has it occured to you that those who wish to acknowledge a creator can do so even without the government shoving it in there?

It's a homage to a piece of cloth. There is nothing affirmative about it. And, i know the "nation for which it stands" part is in there, but this nation doesn't STAND for religion.

It stands for a complete freedom of choice regarding religion. Thus, having the "under god" phrase is anathema to that for which this country stands. That phrase makes the pledge paradoxical, and therefore, worthless, prima facie.
The Professor

"I think that placing "under God" in the Pledge was simply a reaffirmation that we, as a nation, allow those who wish to believe in said creator to do so."

No. The separation of church and state does that.

Those that believe in god so desperately need to be reassured that their beliefs are ok. Because controlling the WH, the senate, and the courts just isn't as reassuring as it seems. (with a nod to Jon Stewart for that notion)

Its very simple. Its unconstitutional for the government to take a religious position. Insisting that we are a nation under god is taking a religious position. Insisting we are a nation not under god would be an atheistic position. Leaving the phrase out would be a secular position. Guess which kind of nation we are.

To reiterate:

Placing god in the public square is siding with religion.

Placing active denials of god in th public square would be the atheistic position.

Not taking sides in the matter is the neutral or secular position.

The laws of our land flow from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The very first thing mentioned in the very first Ammendment before everything else is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. If they put it first maybe, just maybe, they thought it was important.

and I agree with you. The First Amendment is very clear. I also agree that the phrase should be removed and should have never been added. It was added at a time in our history when fear of communism was used as a tool to invoke religion.

Fear is being used again by rethugs to scare people into thinking that religion will be removed and taking "under God" out of the Pledge is the first step. Most people will not research history. That means our Party leaders need to form the argument in different terms.

The government's role is to protect the rights of the minority against the tyrrany of the majority.

I don't care if you pray, got to church, handle snakes, whatever. But you have no more right to coerce me into any of those activies than I have to coerce you not to do them. If it is true that the governmet that governs best, governs least, then the government must keep itself out of the arena of religion.

If they took the words out of the Pledge and removed "In God We Trust" from the currency it wouldn't bother me a bit...


The challenge is there is little public sentiment to remove the saying and the above mentioned inscription....

The dems have been playing the short game. Stand up for issues you can win. Don't lead the people. Follow behind them and do whatever the polls suggest at the time. If that means turning your back on part of your base no problem.

And look what it has got us. The repugs own the White House, The Congress and the the Courts. Slam dunk. George Bush is becoming the single worst President in everyone's mind and the Dems cannot gain any political capital from it. Great battle plan.

An opposition party cannot oppose unless it stands for something. And the Dems have not been standing for much of anything for a while now other than political opportunism.

Its called a spine. We keep begging for the Dems to grow one. Well this is what a spine does. It stands up for the right thing even if it means getting plowed in the face. It means speaking truth to power. It means putting your neck on the line.

People look at the Dems flee from issues they expect them to stand up for and they know them to be political hacks. Yes if someone takes a stand on the Pledge issue the initial reaction is going to be negative. But the long term reaction is going to be trust. It is going to be the people seeing Dems standing for the right things in this nation no matter the cost. And that is what a champion does.

You cannot change the course of things by moving further in the direction things are already going. You have to dig in your heels and pull against tremendous force. At first it is overwhelming. But as more and more people see you doing it they will join in. Its simple human nature. And eventually this is how you turn back the pendulem of politics. Not by closing your eyes and hoping it swings back on its own.

You say:

"Its called a spine. We keep begging for the Dems to grow one. Well this is what a spine does. It stands up for the right thing even if it means getting plowed in the face. It means speaking truth to power. It means putting your neck on the line."

The "right thing" is one thing to you and another to me and another to him/her/them. Go figure.

That is what we come here for. I do not object to a person disagreeing with us about the pledge for honest reasons. But to toss it aside because it is a losing proposition. That is what is costing us elections and changing the course of this nation.

Its not just the pledge issue. Its the entire platform. Its the formula they operate under currently. If its not politically expedient then back away whether its right or wrong.

I am more than prepared to show how the pledge issue is clearly unconstitutional. Worse it was designed to be exclusionary when it was put in in the first place. Its logically false as well. It is wrong in a number of ways.

Who is "us" that I am disagreeing with? Isn't that rather presumptuous? ;)

Oh well... y'all enjoy.... gotta wash my hair :kick:

is to coerce non-believers into saying that there is a god.

Apparantly, the concept of NO law escapes many in this country and a few on this board.