BellaOnline Forums Religion and Spirituality Atheist Random Thoughts

'I can't wait to evolve and become as intelligent as a Grandma Elephant or a bird.'

Evolve into what? Human beings have freedom of choice, an Elephant is an elephant. We have brains in which to make this world a better place, yet the human has evolved into a war machine, killing its own species and everything else around it.

Where is the compassion and intelligence in that? Into what are we going to evolve?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS A VICTORY FOR COMMON SENSE?
I DON'T KNOW IF THOMAS PAINE WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH THAT CONCLUSION!


WASHINGTON, June 16, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. The decision ends a seven-year battle over the Pledge�s inclusion of the words �under God,� involving two separate cases, one originating in California and the other in New Hampshire.

The cases were brought forward by atheist Michael Newdow.

�Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has again rejected the argument that saying the Pledge of your own free will creates an official state religion,� said attorney Eric Rassbach, litigation director at the Becket Fund, which defended the Pledge in court as an intervener.

The Ninth Circuit in California upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in March 2010 and the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the California case in March 2011. The First Circuit then upheld the constitutionality of the Pledge in November 2011 and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case earlier this week.

Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson of the Knights of Columbus, which also played a role as �defendant intervener� in the cases, pointed out that his organization was �instrumental� in getting the words �under God� added to the pledge in 1954.

Those words �express a fundamental belief that we have held as a nation since our founding, that we �are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights,�� he said. �The notion that this somehow violates the First Amendment has now been soundly rejected by both the First and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court has now allowed both decisions to stand. It is a victory for common sense.�

Hi Linda,

I can't really answer for my friend (I am sorry that I did not use all the punctuation that I should have to separate her thoughts and so on) but if you have done any studies on the life of an Elephant and the hierachy of the herd, you will remember the role played by the grandma of the group. Her wisdom is legendary when it comes to elephant family matters. I think she was using this as a standard to live by. Can't say.

Perhaps my mate should've used devolve instead? I think one of the things she was trying to say was leave alone all the argy bargy about things you can't change, change the things you can and have the wisdom to know the difference. Was it Francis of Assisi (the saint of birds and animals who gave the world that prayer?) Can't remember. Instinct is clean and powerful, and not tweeny - her word for fence-sitting and having no basis to an argument. And animals and birds are instinctual sentient beings.

She is out of town as we speak so I will follow up with her when she gets back and see if I am right in what I have said about what she said. Thought I would get into trouble trying to summarise her thoughts and there, see I did! I shouldn't have done so, only I know she won't take the time or the trouble to post them and I also thought some may like what she said. Anyway. Lesson learnt.

Cheers

Les,

Do you see the words 'under God' as referring only to a Christian God? Re-reading the post I see that it was but can one not interpret it as one wishes?

What of the other interpretations/meanings/uses of the word God? Is a non-God also not a concept that can be used as an extended meaning of the word? Could that not be a way for other groups to use the word as they wish to, not necessarily seeing the use as an act of praying to a Christian God in whom they do not believe or serve or even think about. Just asking.

Cheers

Hi Lestie and all,

Lestie, glad that you asked about interpretations of "under God." Check out the information presented at Religious Tolerance.Org. While reading it, think about the intent of its inclusion in the pledge in 1954 and who initiated/supported the change and what was the world political climate at that time and what was the demographic composition of the U.S. then (compared to now). The info may be a little dated but some of the arguments are right on!



What does the phrase "under God" imply?

Considering that the phrase consists of only two words, it implies a lot:

* That a deity exists. Traditionally, God is viewed as at least omniscient (all knowing) and omnipotent (with infinite powers). Many religions add other attributes, such as all-loving.
* Maleness: "God" implies a male deity. There is no room in the Pledge for any female deity/deities who are normally called "Goddesses."
* Uniqueness: The phrase implies monotheism: that there is only a single deity who one who rules over America.
* Omnipresent: The phrase implies that God rules over all of America, and is present everywhere.
* Control: Most Americans probably believe that the phrase indicates a God who interferes with events on earth, guiding the U.S. in the direction that he wishes.

Agreement with, and opposition, to the phrase:

One would expect that most of the approximately 88% of adult Americans who identified themselves as Christians back in 1954 would have had no objection to the Pledge. The percentage of Christians has been dropping recently and by 2001 reached about 76%. However, it still represents a substantial percentage of Americans. There are other world religions who also believe in a single male deity, including: Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. However, all four of these monotheistic faiths attribute different names, attributes, and expectations to their concept of God; they do not worship the same deity. So, the exact attributes associated with "God" in the Pledge is unclear.

However, one would expect some opposition from religious minorities. For example:

* Atheists have no awareness of the existence of God; some actively deny the existence of any deity.
* Agnostics are undecided about the existence of God;
* Buddhists generally have no belief in a personal God;
* Deists believe that God exists, created the universe, wound it up, let it go, departed and hasn't been seen since. Thus, they believe that we are not "under God" because God isn't around any more.
* Humanists and Ethical Culturalists base their beliefs and practices on secular considerations;
* Many Jews, who because of centuries of Christian persecution, tend to oppose all government involvement in religion;
* Some Theists who object in principle to state-sponsored items with religious content, such as the Pledge of Allegiance, national motto, and prayers in public schools, because of the degree of compulsion which is inevitably present; and
* Many religious liberals, and others, who rigorously defend the principle of complete separation of church and state, and would oppose religious content in the Pledge on principle.

The stand taken by Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project: 1

* Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Jewish student. You have the choice of
1. Reciting a pledge that an Atheist -- a person who has no belief in the existence of a God -- wrote: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, without God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
2. Refusing to recite it, and leaving yourself open to being belittled, harassed, insulted, assaulted, etc.

As the Pledge of Allegiance Restoration Project writes: "Would you repeat all the words? Would you skip over the phrase "without God?" Would it make you feel comfortable about being an American?" Or, as one person posting to a forum said, would you recite "under all."
* Imagine that you are a Christian, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Muslim -- a person who believes in the existence of Allah: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under Allah, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
* Imagine that you are a Muslim, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Wiccan -- a person who follows an earth-centered religion, and believes in the existence of a God and a Goddess: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under the God and Goddess, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
* Imagine that you are a Wiccan, and you were forced to read a pledge written by an Christian: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

"That is the situation today for millions of Americans who do not believe they are 'under' God. Some find God within their own hearts. Others believe they are part of -- not under -- a sacred universe. Still others do not believe in God at all. Yet every day the religious beliefs of these patriotic Americans are violated by our government in schools, in public meetings...anywhere the Pledge Of Allegiance is led and spoken." 1

Actually, the second example is not a particularly good one, because "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic. Those Christians in the Middle East who speak Arabic generally pray to Allah, and would probably not have any objections to this wording. However, most Americans probably associate the name Allah with the concept of deity as understood by Muslims and would object.


Why does it all matter anyway?
There has been a lot of negative reaction to the Circuit Court's decision:

* Why was the valuable time of the court taken up over what is truly a trivial matter?
* If a person doesn't like the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, they can remain silent while the words are recited.
* If a person doesn't like the phrase "In God we Trust" on coins or bills, they can not look at it.
* It would cost the government a lot of money to pull all the bills and coins from circulation and replace them.
* The group sponsoring this web site has been criticized for giving so much attention to the subject.

These are very good points that should be carefully considered. Including "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the term "In God we trust" on coins and bills does not really have much impact of the public's religiosity and spirituality. Teddy Roosevelt expressed his opinion that putting the term on our money diminishes the idea of God. It does contribute to what is called "civil religion" (a.k.a. "civic religion") but that is a a washed-out version of real religion.

There are other considerations:

* The phrase is "under God." It is not "under Rama," "under Allah," "under "Ahura Mazda," "under Krishna," or "under the Goddess." This implies that the full weight of the government and school system is behind the concept of the deity of Jehovah and Jesus Christ.
* Consider the fate of children who do not believe in the existence of a personal God. These include children who are (or who are the sons and daughters of) Agnostics, Atheists, some Buddhists, Ethical Culturalists, Humanists, secularists, most Unitarian Universalists, etc.
* Consider also the fate of children who believe in a God who is different from the Judeo-Christian deity. The phrase is telling them that the government and school board thinks that their God does not exist.
* Consider what Christian and Jewish students will feel: that the government and school considers their God to be paramount. The result is to accentuate religious differences among students. The beliefs of Jewish and Christian students are given support; this promotes Christian triumphalism. The beliefs of other students are denigrated. This produces hurt feelings and anger.
* As Blaise Paschal once said: "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." The potential result of supporting the beliefs of Christian students and denigrating the beliefs of others is increased harassment and violence perpetrated towards religious minorities.
* It would cost money to remove "In God we trust" from coins and bills. But it would be minimal. As new coin and bill designs are created, the phrase could simply be left off. Old coins and bills would, over time, be replace with religiously-neutral versions.
* We don't feel that we have given excessive attention to the controversy. This section consists of one short menu and three essays on the topic. That represents only about 0.2% of our total web site's contents.

Recent attempts to expand the use of the motto:

* 2001-FEB: Virginia: Pledge bill defeated. State Senator Warren E. Barry introduced a bill making the recitation of the pledge of allegiance mandatory for every public school in Virginia. In doing this, Senator Barry violated his oath of office, in which he promised to uphold the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as implying that anyone has the right to refrain from reciting the Pledge. Under his bill, any student who refused to recite the pledge, without a valid philosophical or religious objection, would be suspended. Delegate Robert G. Marshall suggested that the bill be amended to require school buildings carry the national motto. The amendments were rejected by the Senate Education and Health Committee.


Copyright � 2002 to 2007 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 2002-JUN-26
Latest update: 2007-NOV-09
Author: B.A. Robinson

Lestie relaying the feelings of her friend: "She has been following the general conversation about A/A as well as some of the Random Thoughts and says you guys are mad to take on such subjects, you can never solve anything by your tweeny opinions. I was thrilled at being call a tweeny..."


ODE to a TWEENY

If I were a tweeny
Around and around I would go
Deciding the BiG Questions by playing eenie meanie

If I were a tweeny
Sainthood would not be a goal
As I would be perceived as a foresaken meanie

If I were a tweeny
Perhaps I'd settle for a mythical purgatory
As that is a place real in betweenie

If I were a tweeny
My mind and soul would be flat
Like an unrolled blini

If I were a tweeny
I would be as superficial
As an unthinking yet well-filled bikini

If I were a tweeny
I would certainly see no point
In wearing a symbolic beanie

Alas, I am not a tweeny
Though I am still "without knowledge"
I ain't no meatless weenie!

Author Unknowing 6/21/2011...

Lestie, last thing I want is to get you into trouble with your mate. She obviously knows what she means hehe! Thanks for responding anyway. Linda

Hey Les and Linda and all,

Tweeny Ode oh so funny but don't give up your day job Les! I am still smiling as I write. "Alas I'm not a tweeny"... the next time someone asks me for my life motto (like they often do in motivational circles) I shall say just that: ECCE! Inbetweeno ergo sum. Behold! I am an inbetweeny therefore I am. I can't think right now but somebody very famous like Elvis said 'Cogito ergo sum'; I think therefore I am ... so thanks to him who said it for my inbetweeno motto.

I am sitting here in the middle of the nightly morning for me 04h20 having been out with some friends to a new fancy pancy pub, had great fun for lots of reasons and most importantly solved the conundrum of the wars of the world. Just cross them off the list. Poof! Gone! See, it's simple. And wait there is more. You just have to er...I've forgotten. Seek peace inside, find some then go share it. Now there is a thing, sharing peace. I'll have a piece of peace for pudding thanks.

Unbelievable though it may seem I actually read all of the above and found it very interesting, v e r y interesting indeed. Thanks for posting it all Les, will take up the cudgels another time.

Linda, promise you won't upset Marlene, she is unupsettable (her word) when it comes to silly thinks like GOD and Non-GOD arguments. Her exact words. No fuss.

You do remember those words attributed to the Jesuits not so ... give me a child until s/he is 7 and I will give you a Catholic for life. I must check out that quote to see if I have it right.

Cheerszzzzzzzzzzzzz got the day off tomorrow today tomorrow,
tra la.

Hey Guys,

I give Lestie credit for at least reading Les' dissertation on religious/political science take on "under God". It took me twenty minutes -

Les, I get your point, but you are in Mexico, Lestie is in South Africa. It seems like you're just beating Lestie up because she's an atheist.

I AM an American citizen, and if given the opportunity, I will vote my conscience on the matter. The gov't may choose that for me, I don't know. I am a believer, and even if they took those words off of our money, I would still have the Lord in my heart.

I'm here for all you guys.

Post Script to my last post: Since you have been clear with your views, I'll be with mine. I believe in God the Father, who is Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, who died in my place. God the Father raised Him from the dead, and He is now seated at the right hand of the Father as judge over the earth. No one killed Jesus, He laid his life down in love for every man, woman and child. He defeated death, hell and the grave. Who would not want this kind of trade-off? I don't have the strength to live this life on my own. I need something to believe in that is much bigger and stronger than myself, because I've blown it way too many times. Just wanted to clear up what I mean't by "believer".