Ted,<br> <br> You wrote that it promotes, <span style="color: rgb(0, 127, 64);">"a specific form (t)hat form of religion as 'monotheism,' "</span><br style="color: rgb(0, 127, 64);"> <br> So your whole argument is based on the prospect that there is not an "s" on the end of the word "God"? Seems rather silly to me. <br> <br> As far as I know, people that believe in One True God also believe there are other gods. And obviously people that believe in multiple Gods believe that one would be in charge of the welfare of the United States, so it can be that God.<br> <br> <span style="color: rgb(0, 127, 64);">"Either you take a firm stand on separation of church and state or you do not."</span><br> <br> That is an illogical statement called a false dilemma, Ted. I can very well understand the difference between a King that declares himself the head of the only Church in the Country and a word being recited by choice in a pledge. I
can understand that a ruling by the Archbishop of the Boston Disease should not have the rule of law in Boston. I can understand that difference, Ted. Can you?<br> <br> You cannot realistically completely separate the belief in God from a culture based on it. It is not possible. Should we rip out the Crosses, Stars of David, and statues of Buddha displayed in PUBLIC cemeteries? Why not, it is using public space to promote a spiritual belief?<br> <br> Should we not use public dollars to hire military priests? Should we deny Priests the right to visit public hospitals for last rites? Should we deny church services to be administered to those living in publicly funded nursing homes that cannot leave? Even our entire form of Government was based on the 12 tribes of the Iroquois's, established by a religious leader. <br> <br> "<span style="color: rgb(0, 127, 64);">Apparently you have not read the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision that
declared the words "under God" in the pledge to be unconstitutional?</span>"<br> <br> Well Ted, if we are not allowed to include God in our government, then we must assume that such a decision is not divinely guided, and therefore is a flawed decision, by its own self admission. A circular argument if you will. <br> <br> <div>"<span style="color: rgb(0, 127, 64);">I'm sure you've read this statement below, the First Amendment to the US Constitution:</span></div> <div> </div> <strong>'<span style="font-style: italic;">Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</span>' "</strong><br> <br> And since nobody is forced to say the pledge their rights are not abridged. If saying the pledge is a religious act, as you claim,
denying others the right to say it is "prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is it not, Ted?<br> <br> Best,<br> <br> _DJA<br><br><b><i>Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> <div align="left">Donovan et. al.</div> <div> </div> <div>Apparently you have not read the 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision that declared the words "under God" in the pledge to be unconstitutional?</div> <div> </div> <div><a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062602a.htm">http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062602a.htm</a></div> <div> </div> <div>"To recite the pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism," the court continued. "A profession that we are a
nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god.'" </div> <div>--------</div> <div>of religion," not a specific religion, and I described tI wrote that the pledge promotes "a specific form hat form of religion as "monotheism," as you can read below in my previous post forwarded, referencing the wording of the court decision. Even if the pledge said "under Christ" this would not necessarily be promoting a specific religion, given that there are numerous religions who follow Christ, in one way or another, with differing views of the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. differing religions who follow Christ who vehemently disagree with each other's basic principles. </div> <div> </div> <div>I'm sure you've read this statement below, the First Amendment to the US Constitution:</div> <div> </div> <div><strong>Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. </strong><br>---------</div> <div> </div> <div>Either you take a firm stand on separation of church and state or you do not. Apparently you do not take a firm stand on separation of church and state, because it appears you wish to promote monotheism via the institutions of the state. </div> <div> </div> <div>As long as we are clear that this is what you wish to promote...</div> <div> </div> <div>Ted Moffett</div> <div><em></em> </div> <div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/12/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Donovan Arnold</b> <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div>"The pledge does amount to state sponsored promotion of a specific form or religion." Ted Moffett.<br><br>Ted which specific religion does it promote?<br><br>I do not understand why this is such a big deal. If you do not believe in God so what. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or little Leprechauns. But you don't see me out there smashing the fun and whatever others get out of it, do you? Who cares, really, if there is no God, it won't hurt to let others say His/Her/Its name? <br><br>Second, it isn't asking you to believe in God, or that you pledge allegiance to a God, it isn't even saying saying that God is real. It is simply making a statement that it is under God, real of fiction. Does Rudolph pull Santa's slay, or are we going to argue that he doesn't because the slay and the man he is pulling really doesn't exist? Regardless of your belief in Santa, everybody
knows that Rudolph has a shiny nose and Santa asked him to guide his slay on Christmas Eve night. And everybody knows that God is above all things, people, and nations, real of imaginary. Apollo is the Sun God, I can say that, even though I personally believe he doesn't exist. <br><br>Do you agree with everything else in the pledge? Do you believe that it is one nation? A nation being one group of people with a shared culture, religion or ethnic background? I should say that is also a false statement. What about truth? Does the US ever lie? Is it always truthful, Ted? Another false statement. How about, "Liberty and justice for all". Do you believe that the US gives liberty and justice for all? Do you Ted? No, so if we want to start ripping apart the pledge, and excluding statements we feel are not true, we would not have a pledge anymore would we? <br><br>The pledge is simply meant as tool to pull us together, instill pride and a commonality among all
peoples in the United States, regardless of who or what we claim to be. There is no one statement, no one sentence, no words in which all peoples in this country will agree. But we can all generally agree what this country is suppose to be, or should be, a good nation that is dedicated to doing what is right, together, as one for everyone. <br><br>Best,<br><br>_DJA</div> <div><span class="e" id="q_10da18d04488df98_1"><br><br><br><br><br><b><i>Ted Moffett <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a> ></i></b> wrote: <blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;"> <div>Donovan et. al.</div> <div> </div> <div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/020903-pledge.html" target="_blank">http://www.aclunc.org/opinion/020903-pledge.html</a></div>
<div> </div> <div>In adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress intended to put religion in public school. As President Eisenhower said in signing the law, from "this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim, in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Since students were praying daily in many public schools, the new Pledge language was not subject to an immediate constitutional challenge. Courts had not yet recognized the rights of minority faiths to be free of religious coercion in public schools. </div> <div>--------------------------------</div> <div>I recall in a 5th grade public school in North Carolina in 1961 starting every school day with the Lord's prayer... The pledge of allegiance's "under God" phrase was then a minor issue!</div> <div> </div> <div>The words "In God We Trust" on currency are not a
pledge that I am compelled to recite with my hand over my heart. The pledge of allegiance is, or was when I was in the public school system. </div> <div> </div> <div>The out for those who defend the pledge of allegiance with the words "under God" continuing in public schools, despite the apparent state promotion of specific religious beliefs (monotheism over the State), is that any student can refuse to recite it without being officially compelled to conform, or officially punished. The student can legally opt out of saying the pledge. It is not "forced" on any student, technically speaking. </div> <div> </div> <div>The pledge, to be more religiously broad, might read "under whatever God, Gods, Goddesses or other forms of spiritual beings or powers, or the lack of them, that prevail" to avoid state promotion of specific forms of religious belief, but this is cumbersome and wordy for a pledge. And the
reason the words "under God" were placed in the pledge during the 1950s was not to be open minded about including different religious beliefs, but to send a specific message to the atheists of the godless Communist Soviet Union, and other communist nations, that the USA was a nation under God, a specific sort of God. The words "under God" added to the pledge are thus a legacy of cold war politics. </div> <div> </div> <div>I find the argument that the words "under God" are spiritually generic, and can refer to all forms of spiritual belief, and thus are not state endorsement of a specific religion, disingenuous. I heard this exact argument from a federal lawyer working in the federal court in Boise, a lawyer who knew the justices involved in the 9th US Circuit Court who ruled that the pledge's "under God" was unconstitutional. </div> <div> </div> <div>Given the pressures young students face to
be popular, accepted, to conform to the dominant values of their peers and adult leaders, odds are many students will recite the pledge anyway, even if they object, or don't understand the meaning of the words they parrot. </div> <div> </div> <div>The pledge does amount to state sponsored promotion of a specific form or religion.</div> <div> </div> <div>Ted Moffett</div> <div> </div> <div> </div> <div><br> </div></blockquote></span></div></blockquote></div> =======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================</blockquote><br><p> 
<hr size=1><a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43257/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta"> All-new Yahoo! Mail </a>- Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.