OT: The words "under God" will remain in the Pledg

[pk500]

Zeppo:

I agree. I'm not sure of the context of that statement by the Archbishop, whether he was asked about it or just volunteered that information, but you're right: I wonder if he gives Holy Communion to those in his parish who support the death penalty.

Yet another example of why church and state should stay far, far apart. You're right on, man.

Take care,
PK

[JRod]

Badgun,

Common Sense...

Common Sense is reading the whole freaking article and understanding it.

Let's get this out of the way first, there is no decision on "Under God". The supreme court basically played their got of a jam for free card. This is a technicality.

So all they did was say that the father did not have the right to sue for his child because he does not have legal custody or have guardianship for his child.

So guess what, this debate is just delayed for another day. The supreme court didn't have to rule and the country can still say Under God.

To be continued...

[skidmark]

The problem I have, is when something like creationism is taught in public schools. Beyond absurd, I find this kind of thing actively insulting.

Do you have the same problem with evolution being taught in schools? Science of orgin is indeed science and can teach us about ourselves even though both paths are technicially theory.

[Brando70]

The problem I have, is when something like creationism is taught in public schools. Beyond absurd, I find this kind of thing actively insulting.

Do you have the same problem with evolution being taught in schools? Science of orgin is indeed science and can teach us about ourselves even though both paths are technicially theory.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief. Evolution may be wrong, and I have no problem with attacking it scientifically. But creationism doesn't hold up under impartial scientific scrutiny. The world is not 6,000 years old, dinosaurs and men didn't walk together, and there is no way, even if that thing up on the mountain in Turkey is Noah's Ark, that every species of animal and plant could fit into one boat.

[FatPitcher]

There is no Constitutional "separation of church and state." The term comes from one of Thomas Jefferson's letters. It's just one person's opinion on the way things should be, and it is not "the law of the land." (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html)

The text of the first amendment (which is the law of the land) is as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Of course, this has since been turned on its head in many ways, because it's not practical and because it encourages people to use religion as a way of getting around the law.

I don't think there's any need for the pledge of allegiance, and I think that religion throughout history has been corrupted when it has secular power. Not jsut that, but religious entities have historically done a lousy job of governing (both in internal and external terms, see: indulgences, Popes, clergy abuse, Crusades, Iran, Taliban, and so on).

At the same time, I despise those who are on a "crusade" of their own to ridicule, stereotype, and incite hatred against individuals and organizations involved with religion.

Also, I don't think the "religious right" is any more wrong-headed in its voting than the populace as a whole. It's far more unreasonable to vote for, say, Jesse Jackson because you are black and he is black.

[Badgun]

Badgun,

Common Sense...

Common Sense is reading the whole freaking article and understanding it.

Let's get this out of the way first, there is no decision on "Under God". The supreme court basically played their got of a jam for free card. This is a technicality.

So all they did was say that the father did not have the right to sue for his child because he does not have legal custody or have guardianship for his child.

So guess what, this debate is just delayed for another day. The supreme court didn't have to rule and the country can still say Under God.

To be continued...

Call it what you will and maybe they did use a technicality, but even then I think this is still a victory based on common sense. The Pledge of Allegiance is just as important in this country as your morning coffee, maybe even more so. Each morning, hundreds of thousands of kids join together in saying those few words...those few words that make them proud of who they are, where they live, and what it stands for.

To let some worthless prick change the very wording of that important passage would be a mockery of society. Thank God these justices did use a technicality. I think you only have to look as far as the 99-0 vote the senate made condemning the lower court for striking down those two words in the pledge to see that, yes it was good common sense that we not allow this prick to alter history because he is an atheist.

Don't you think that if this was a real issue that at least some of the liberals would have sided with this brainless wonder?

IT IS COMMON SENSE, because those two words do not affect anyone who might say them.

This is kind of like the guy who refused to pay income tax because he didn't think it was right.

[Badgun]

Badgun,

What if you were the only Christian kid in a class full of Jews? How would you feel if you were the one going to the library? Our democracy is partly founded on the principle of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

I'm not against kids studying religion in public school, as long as it's study and not witnessing. You want your kids to learn your religion in school? Send them to a private religious school (which is what my parents did), or teach them in their own time.

Brando,
I have always been in favor of pleasing and accommodating the masses. I have been that one kid that sat something out due to my beliefs. You know how it made me feel? It made me feel great to know that the other 15 kids could go on with what they were doing and I didn't have to feel like a sh*theel for shutting them down.

As far as religion being taught in school, well it was mainly just basic stuff and nothing was forced on you. We were like 7 years old so most of it was coloring biblical pictures, singing familiar hymns, or playing games. I would have no problem if this was being taught to my kids today.

Believing in God or not, I don't want to force my views on anyone, but I was taught at an early age that God sees everything you do and there are consequences if you do wrong. I still believe that today and I am a morally better person because of it. Some people claim that God was a mythical character created long ago to try and keep people morally and legally in check. If that's the case, it's not working anymore. This country and this world are more morally and legally corrupt today than at any other time in history. Maybe we could use a dose of moral fiber.

[BuckeyeBengal]

Where are all the kids in this? I never hear them coming out and complaining that they have to recite this everyday before school. In fact, its not even required for them to do so. So they can skip it if they want. Let's face it, It sounds like parents are the real problem behind this. Yes, they have the right to instill in their children their beliefs,but to take it publically and say" our kids shold not be influenced" is taking it to far. Just another prime example of the pettiness that is taking over our common sense. Did we ever as children say to ourselves"You know what, I think I'm being influenced by this pledge." Come on, we never even gave it a thought. So why now? That is the question that really should be looked into.

[skidmark]

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief. Evolution may be wrong, and I have no problem with attacking it scientifically. But creationism doesn't hold up under impartial scientific scrutiny.

Evolution is every bit as much of a belief at its core as creation... both have scientific "views" that support them. Taking a look at how each theory measures up to those views is what scientific study of our orgin is all about.

The world is not 6,000 years old...

The earth is not "billions and billions" of years old...

...dinosaurs and men didn't walk together, and there is no way, even if that thing up on the mountain in Turkey is Noah's Ark, that every species of animal and plant could fit into one boat.

When you cover an entire planet with water you have phenomenal changes in structure, atmosphere, etc... There is no telling what this world could have been like prior to a worldwide flood. The fossil record has shown no significant evidence as to the timing of anything.

"Noah's Ark" found on a mountain in Turkey is a proven hoax... in fact the same man supposedly found the Ark of the Covenant and Sodom and Gomorrah's ruins.

[pk500]

>>>The Pledge of Allegiance is just as important in this country as your morning coffee, maybe even more so.<<<

Huh?

Let's see: Prayer is frowned upon in public school, but isn't the Pledge of Allegiance just a prayer to America in disguise?

Saying the Pledge of Allegiance has zero bearing on whether you're a good American or not. It's just another simple ritual that has been politicized into something that's supposed to be really important, especially in this post 9/11 world where when you question any American ritual or any American in power you're automatically called unpatriotic.

In my opinion, brushing your teeth or getting a hug or kiss from Mom and Dad is a hell of a lot more important for a kid than saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Brushing your teeth keeps your mouth healthy; getting a hug from Mom and Dad reinforces the family unit and reinforces that the kid is loved.

The Pledge does neither. I hope my kids learn the Pledge in school, but it's not going to make them better people or better Americans to recite it every day.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

Where are all the kids in this? I never hear them coming out and complaining that they have to recite this everyday before school.

From CNN's Talkbalk Live show (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/)

Neville: At what point did your daughter come home to you and say she was ostracized for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance?

Newdow: My daughter is in the lawsuit because you need that for standing. I brought this case because I am an atheist and this offends me, and I have the right to bring up my daughter without God being imposed into her life by her schoolteachers. So she did not come and say she was ostracized.

[RiverRat]

Believing in God or not, I don't want to force my views on anyone, but I was taught at an early age that God sees everything you do and there are consequences if you do wrong. I still believe that today and I am a morally better person because of it.

That doesn't prove you're morally better. It just proves your rational. Avoiding doing bad things because you're afraid of the consequences of getting caught is a rational act, not a moral act.

A moral person helps an injured man on the roadside because he loves humanity and believes it to be right. A rational man helps the injured man on the roadside because some big guy is standing behind him ready to knock his block off if he doesn't. What you described is the second, not the first.

And as for times being more corrupt today that at any other time in history? More corrupt than when Romans were feeding Christians to the lions before thousands of amused spectators? More corrupt than when we had the Slave Trade? Apartheid? Holocaust? Polygamy in Utah? Never at any time I can think of has a larger percentage of the world had the ability to vote for their national leadership and have enjoyed relative economic freedom and property rights as they do today. But of course, when people have freedom, they tend to do things their own way, which isn’t how the folks in charge necessarily believe it should be done. And that makes people morally corrupt. Just ask the Taliban.

[skidmark]

That doesn't prove you're morally better. It just proves your rational. Avoiding doing bad things because you're afraid of the consequences of getting caught is a rational act, not a moral act.

The act of avoiding because of a the consequences is a rational act, but morals can be built under that guidance. Look at the results of a properly-disciplined child compared to a child whose parents could care less about them... When the child grows up and starts a life of his own is he still afraid he'll get spanked when he does wrong?

And as for times being more corrupt today that at any other time in history? More corrupt than when Romans were feeding Christians to the lions before thousands of amused spectators? More corrupt than when we had the Slave Trade? Apartheid? Holocaust? Polygamy in Utah?

I agree here, it is difficult to measure the world at any specific time for its level of evil. The atrocities that mankind is capable of dipping to are a disturbing thing that should be a wake-up call to us though.

Never at any time I can think of has a larger percentage of the world had the ability to vote for their national leadership and have enjoyed relative economic freedom and property rights as they do today. But of course, when people have freedom, they tend to do things their own way, which isn’t how the folks in charge necessarily believe it should be done. And that makes people morally corrupt.

The "folks in charge"? I'm not sure I get what you are saying here... Government could care less whether or not I'm morally corrupt.

[Jared]

Evolution is every bit as much of a belief at its core as creation... both have scientific "views" that support them. Taking a look at how each theory measures up to those views is what scientific study of our orgin is all about.

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not. What is the theory of creationism? For it to be considered a theory (in scientific terms), it needs to be testable, falsifiable, and able to to make predictions about future evidence. Creationism doesn't do any of that.

Also, to clarify about theories. Many things that we consider to be "fact" are (in scientific terms) still theories. If there is ever evidence that disproves it, the theory must be altered or discarded. For instance, the Newtonian idea of gravity (though it works well with lots of stuff) was found that it couldn't explain certain events (that's when general relativity and Einstein came into play). And Einstein's theory of general relativity is just that...a theory. Theories can never be proven correct...they can only be proven to be incorrect.

The earth is not "billions and billions" of years old...

Most scientific evidence has the earth at about 4.5 billion years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

When you cover an entire planet with water you have phenomenal changes in structure, atmosphere, etc... There is no telling what this world could have been like prior to a worldwide flood. The fossil record has shown no significant evidence as to the timing of anything.

The fossil record shows a pretty gradual increase from less complex to more complex creatures as you move up (i.e. closer to our time) in the fossil record. If the flood caused the organization of the fossil record, then there should be one mass grave of all sorts of animals that are mixed (or maybe organized by size or density or something like that). But there's no evidence of this. Instead, the fossil record fits evolution much better than it does the Flood account.

[FatPitcher]

Hypothesis = ag uess
Theory = a guess that hasn't been disproved
Law = accepted as fact

And what's morally wrong with polygamy?

[bdoughty]

And what's morally wrong with polygamy?

Nothing as far as the bible is concerned in the Old Testament.

http://www.btinternet.com/~familyman/biblpoly.html

Of course you can find many sites that twist words in the bible (especially the New Testament) in attempt to show the polygamy was not accepted and (vise-versa) The site above takes the stance that if you believe in the bible you must believe in polygamy.

[skidmark]

Evolution is a theory. Creationism is not. What is the theory of creationism?

The "Theory of Creationism" is that our orgin is from a Creator.

For it to be considered a theory (in scientific terms), it needs to be testable, falsifiable, and able to to make predictions about future evidence. Creationism doesn't do any of that.

So when we study things and see evidence of an order and design to them that is not science? Look at how complex a blade of grass is... I think the study of that blade of grass and how its intricate design points to a Creator rather than a cataclismic accident is valid scientific study. Predictions toward future evidence? Creationism as a whole points to a world that is "winding down" (due to the fall of man), Evolution as a whole points to a world that is constantly evolving and progressing... Those are both predictions about future events.

Most scientific evidence has the earth at about 4.5 billion years old.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Here is an excerpt from the 3rd paragraph of that site:

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

Maybe you can help me here, but how do the official "radiometric" dating methods work. I have seen them actually explained in a very few instances, but nothing that really gives a definitive scientific answer to how they determine how they know a reading of "70" or whatever = 4 billion years.

The fossil record shows a pretty gradual increase from less complex to more complex creatures as you move up (i.e. closer to our time) in the fossil record.

No it doesn't. Evolutionary speculation shows this, not the fossil record. Paleontologists have found that major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time.

If the flood caused the organization of the fossil record, then there should be one mass grave of all sorts of animals that are mixed.

Nearly 78% of the earth is covered with water. That means 22% of the land that is left would be the place where a percentage of what died in a worldwide flood would settle. The oceans are vast and largely unexplored, but there has been evidence of the remains of sea creatures on land. In fact there is a hill just outside of my town which is known as "sharktooth hill" for all the shark teeth they've found.

[Teal]

"Separation of church and state has become an absolute joke in this country, especially under Bush."


PK, I'm surprised at that comment coming from you. What has Bush done to violate the establishment clause? Separation of Church and state became a joke years ago, when small minded ideologues decided that there was some constitutionality to removing anyone's expression of faith from the public discourse. How exactly is it wrong for Bush or any other public official to simply be who they are? You love the IRL- I don't have a problem with you talking about it, heck, it's who you are to a great degree. There's no constitutional crisis in all of this except one: These morons who can't live and let live, who think that everyone should bend and shape who they are and what they believe because the most irreligious among us don't like it. If a person is not religious, I don't whine and complain and demand that he/she keep quiet about it, that he not wear any insignia on his person denoting his atheistic views, or pull down any written document expressing his views. He has every right to voice his view in the public arena. It matters not if he's the president, a senator, or the mayor- it's his right- so long as he doesn't try to make it the state sponsored way to think, and require everyone to follow suit or be penalized. This idea that establishment of religion includes the President talking about his faith is ludicrous. It's who the man is, and I haven't seen one piece of legislation come from the oval office that attempts to establish his beliefs or the beliefs of millions of Americans as a state sponsored religion. Until that happens, there is no violation here, pure and simple...

[Parker]

Although I disagree about the significance of this case regardless of what type of parent the guy was, Bush regularly mixes politics with religion in his rhetoric. While this may not be an issue in a Christian dominated country, it's one reason why the rest of the world finds him offensive and a threat. The majority of politicians in the world no longer use references to God in a political speech with any type of broad audience. They don't think this is a joke, it is simply reflective of how society has evolved. Regardless of whether you think this is wrong or right, it's the way it is and our standing in the international community which I hold higher than some people here, is not being helped by Bush's speeches.

The only reason why Bush hasn't passed legislation that threatens the boundaries of church and state is because thankfully, the checks and balance system and liberals won't let him.

[Teal]

"Evolution is a theory. Creationism is a belief"

Zeppo, I have a theory: my theory is that there is an order and system to the world that can not be explained away by any tenet of evolutionary thought. What does that leave us with, then? I'm not sure, but there are definitely testable criteria to scientifically legitimize creationism. Did you know that the earth's tilt is so precise that were it to tilt just a couple of degrees one way, we'd burn up, and another way, we'd freeze? Do you really think "the Bang" could just so happen to get it right on the money? If so, you've got alot more faith than I do- I gotta believe Somebody did it. Evolution,BTW< came about because of Darwin's beliefs. Every theory begins as a belief. If he didn't believe in it, he never would have tested it. Evolution is not driven today by a set of proven hypotheses, it is driven by a belief system. There has been not one proven theory in the whole of evolution. It is driven by blind faith...sound familiar??

[Teal]

"The only reason why Bush hasn't passed legislation that threatens the boundaries of church and state is because thankfully, the checks and balance system and liberals won't let him."


Parker:
Bud, you get the prize for today's bonehead quote of the day. Did you pull that from your own a$$hole, or someone else's?

As for the "international community" give me a break. Why in Sam Hill should anyone here care what France and Germany think about anything? If it wasn't for the US, they'd still be goosestepping to the Hitler two step, so that they are being high horsed about us liberating yet another country from tyranny is as laughable as your concern over their opinion of us is. The latest news from the UN suggests that there are very few high grounders in the "international community" to which we owe an ear, much less a bended knee...

[Parker]

Since when is the international community France and Germany or the United Nations? Politicians avoid using religious language in all sorts of nations not limited to Europe, including Japan, Russia, Australia... Bush is offending far more than just the French and Germans with his speeches. But the entire world needs to bow down to us...whatever. No wonder why we are viewed as such with isolationists like you.

The allied forces invaded Normandy, but without the actions of the Soviet Union in WWII to grind the Nazi momentum to a halt, the mission may have turned out quite different if it was attempted at all. France owes an equal debt of gratitude to the Soviets who lost more soldiers and defeated more Nazi armies than any single country.

Bottom line- the US is in serious trouble if they don't gain back support from lost allies, and soon. You won't last long in a global economy without partnerships. This is not 1941.

It's all subjective of course, but Republicans in the past have tried to pass legislation that many have rejected for the very reason that it infringes upon the seperation between church and state. With Bush mixing his personal religious beliefs with his politics more than most other Republican presidents in recent memory, I see no reason he wouldn't have supported many of these bills.

[Leebo33]

Former President Bill Clinton said: "Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere. ... We will always remember his tremendous capacity to inspire and comfort us in times of tragedy. ... Now he, too, has slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God, and we can rest assured that, as joyous a place as Heaven is, his wit and sunny disposition are making it an even brighter place to be."

[pk500]

I couldn't agree more with Parker on both of his last posts.

And, oh, by the way: Parker and I are no less of an American than anyone who disagrees with us. I think my avatar says it all about my ideas on patriotism.

Take care,
PK

[skidmark]

Exactly how does Bush's mentioning of God in his speeches affect the international community negatively?


On a side note I am always cautious of a politicians mention of God... If they are going to personalize their relationship with God, then it better be because they live it, and not just a tool to swing some popularity. Reagan spoke of God in his speeches and I wouldn't discount him at all for it... but most politicians suddenly make a big deal about going to church when their lifestyle shows no interest in it.