Re: Controversial religious ruling -- It's Debateable

[ 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:
Astrid

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:38:53 06/28/02 Fri
In reply to: Bruja 's message, "Re: Controversial religious ruling" on 21:12:41 06/27/02 Thu

>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.

I am not American obviously, but I have been told that in many classrooms, there really is no choice. Additionally, it is asking a lot of small children to stand up to a teacher who is insisting on participation.

But besides, couldn't you make the same argument for reciting the Lord's Prayer in class? If you don't want to say it, just don't.

"IN GOD WE TRUST" was added to currency in 1864. The founding fathers came up with a far more secular phrase... "E PLURIBUS UNUM". The motivation for adding this phrase was again religious--to promote the Judeo-Christian god (is it a coincidence this happened at a time of increasing non-european immigration? I wonder.)

It isn't about eliminating reference to God in the public arena. It's about the state formally endorsing one belief system over another.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: Controversial religious ruling	Alan	08:37:27 06/29/02 Sat

Re: Controversial religious ruling	Siannach	14:21:29 07/01/02 Mon