VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]
Subject: Re: Controversial religious ruling


Author:
Bruja
 		[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 21:12:41 06/27/02 Thu
In reply to: Astrid 's message, "Controversial religious ruling" on 16:11:03 06/26/02 Wed
 I think that at a certain point, eliminating all references to God from the public arena becomes absurb and almost parodic. Do people REALLY care that our currency says "In God We Trust", for example? Is that REALLY fostering an inappropriate relationship between church and state? I'm just not buying it.

That's particularly so in this case, where I don't see the damage to non-deists. No one has to say the pledge, in whole or in part. One doesn't even have to stand out as a "protest" -- if you don't want to say "under God", just DON'T DO IT. When I was a grade-schooler, most of us were mumbling God-knows-what mangling of the pledge, anyway -- it's not like people are listening to verify that the pledge is being actually and accurately recited.

As a side note, the only person I've ever known to have a pledge issue was a classmate of mine who was a Jehovah's Witness -- apparently saying the pledge was considered idolatry, and he wasn't permitted to do it. It had nothing to do with the "under God" part -- it was the reverence shown to *the flag*. So, should the pledge itself be banned, even if the God-reference is out?

The one thing that gives me pause is the the "under God" was ADDED so recently (1954) as a pretty clear statement (anti-godless-Communist, I suppose) of religious intent. Still, though, I think it's much ado about nothing.
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
Re: Controversial religious rulingMaria11:42:03 06/28/02 Fri
Re: Controversial religious rulingAstrid17:38:53 06/28/02 Fri

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.