<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
If it's trivial and not important, then why don't we change it to
"under the gods" for a while, just in fairness? Or how about "under
Allah"? <br>
<br>
I agree that there are more important issues on the docket right now,
not the least of which is trying to get our President to respect the
Geneva Convention, but it still matters. It seems obvious to me that
it should be removed if fairness is a goal at any level. If it really
is trivial, then it should be no problem to just remove it, right?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
Donovan Arnold wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid20060915152503.51365.qmail@web38114.mail.mud.yahoo.com"
type="cite">Ted,<br>
<br>
There is nothing unconstitutional about the state promoting religion.
The state can promote religion all it wants. It is forbidden from
establishing a religion, like King James did in England. Western Kings
and other monarchies demanded that people worship a particular God or
face a government punishment. That is what the founding fathers were
talking about. The writers of the same Constitution, the one you keep
bringing up, publicly funded and handed out Bibles. They heavily
promoted religion. <br>
<br>
Atheism is not a religion. It might be a spiritual belief, but it is
not a religion. <br>
<br>
Allowing people to freely say the Pledge of Allegiance, or not, is not
violating free speech, or establishing a religion. People are not hung,
fined, burned, jailed, excluded, or punished in anyway for not saying
the Pledge. The law does not force ANYONE to say the pledge. So it is
not State Establishment of a Religion anymore then printing of school
textbooks in English is an establishment of a Language. Which we don't
have either. <br>
<br>
You are right it is offensive to Atheist. But you know what, it is also
offensive to non-atheists to take it out. So you going to offend, 95%
of the population, or 5% of the population?<br>
<br>
Atheist have to deal with the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Leprechauns,
and the Tooth Fairy. They can deal with another character they consider
fictitious. <br>
<br>
As for harassment from their peers for not saying the pledge, or parts
of it, the law ought to just come down on all bullying. Anyone can
stand, say the pledge, and pause during the second the words "under
God" are stated. Nobody would notice. <br>
<br>
This is just silly. There is so many other more important issues and
violations of human rights out there. Truly, what next, the elimination
of Ground Hog Day because the idea that a ground hog can mythical
predict the weather is a violation of my religious believes?<br>
<br>
Is catching a leprechaun for a pot of Gold a violation of my spiritual
beliefs because a Rainbow was put their as God's Promise to the World
he would never flood the world again?<br>
<br>
Some people need to get a better perspective on life then to be
offended about such mundane irrelevant things. <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
_DJA<br>
<br>
<b><i>Ted Moffett <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"><starbliss@gmail.com></a></i></b> wrote:
<blockquote class="replbq"
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;">
<div>Donovan et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Answers to some of your comments included below:</div>
<div> </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></div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>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. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>You know that putting an "s" on "God" just changes the
religious perspective being promoted by an institution of the State.
The pledge would have to be worded to include all religions (and no
religion) to not be promotion of some religious beliefs to the
exclusion of others, or other points of view. </div>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>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. </div>
<div><span class="q"><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>
</span></div>
<div>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? </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>We can disagree on what a firm stand on separation of church
and State is. I think having the State by law word a pledge for all
students in public schools (or almost all) to recite, that promotes one
religious perspective, leaving others out, is not taking a firm stand. </div>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>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. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>We can assume that crosses, stars of david, and buddhas are
placed in cemeteries based on the preferences of the dead. No one is
coerced in these cases. And military priests and priests in public
hospitals are there to serve those of that faith. Indeed, "free
exercise." However, their work should not include coercing those of
differing religious viewpoints take a pledge to serve another religious
orientation. </div>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><span class="q">"<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>
</span></div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><span class="q"><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>
</span></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? </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>You are wrong. Those who have a differing religious
orientation than what the pledge states are having their rights
violated because the State, in mandating by law the wording of the
pledge to promote one religious orientation over another, is making a
"law respecting an establishment of religion," which is
unconstitutional. In effect, the State is saying it is going to
promote a certain religious perspective, and not include others, in a
pledge that is worded a certain way by law, meant to be recited by all
(or almost all) in State institutions devoted to forming the minds of
youth. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The pressures on children, who generally are expected to obey
their teachers and adult leaders, to recite the pledge with everyone
else, are so great, that the wording of the pledge amounts to State
coercion to comply with a specific religious perspective, excluding
other perspectives, despite the technicality that the student can
refuse. Why should those of differing religious perspectives have to
remain silent or leave the room during the pledge? Why not allow the
pledge sometimes to be worded to include other religious perspectives,
sometimes worded "one nation under Allah, or Buddha, or the Goddess,"
for students who more follow these religious orientations? The fact
these alternatives are not allowed in the reciting of the pledge speaks
volumes. By allowing the pledge to be the "free exercise" of a certain
religious perspective via a State sanctioned wording and recitation in
public schools, other religious perspectives are being denied their
"free exercise" in this State sanctioned recitation, unless the pledge
allows the wording to include "under Allah, or Buddha, or the Goddess,
etc." </div>
<div> </div>
<div>No one is blocked from private prayer in public school. I
think all major religions and any religion of any student in a public
school should be studied in depth in the school, academically, but not
from the point of view of taking pledges that state the State sanctions
one religious perspective leaving others out. <br>
<span class="q">------</span></div>
<span class="q"></span></div>
<div><span class="q">Ted Moffett</span></div>
<div><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:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<blockquote
style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div align="left">Donovan et. al.</div>
<div> </div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><span class="q">
<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 onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062602a.htm"
target="_blank">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>
</span></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><span class="e" id="q_10da52b5797da532_11">
<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
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">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><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>
</span></div>
<div><span class="q">=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank"> http://www.fsr.net</a> <br>
mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
======================================================= </span></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="ad"><br>
<div> </div>
<hr size="1"> <a
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43257/*http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta"
target="_blank">All-new Yahoo! Mail </a>- Fire up a more powerful
email and get things done faster. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p> __________________________________________________<br>
Do You Yahoo!?<br>
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a> </p>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>