Bill Snedden

Secular: a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c : not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>.

How else does one guarantee religious liberty but through a secular society?!? Everyone say "cognitive dissonance."

Regards,

Bill Snedden

crazyfingers

The plesdge was perfectly fine without the god part. But adding the god part then elevated one-god believers above all others.

beekay

Oh, boy! It is time for me to warm up the fingers and get to typing. I am a weekly columnist (every Wednesday) for my local small town newspaper. I've tackled many superstitions and otherwise goofy beliefs in my articles, but have so far avoided messing with religion. This is a small Southern Baptist town and my wife attends the First Baptist Church here, so I generally avoid poking that hornets' nest. But now I think it is time to state an opinion about this particular issue. I think I will make the main point of my column about the wave of hate that has swept across the nation since the ruling went public. At least that seems to be a good place to start ...

Viti

Since I am a Nevadan and apparently one of my congresspeople is mouthing off stupid, I would like to send all of my congresspersons a letter or email. Maybe all of us who reside in the 9th circuit states should do this to show support for the decision.

Alas, I cannot write well, Baloo (I liked the snippet you provided) or any articulate others who are whipping something up, could you possibly provide the text of your letters and allow me to use it as sort of a form letter?

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

Atheist121

I haven't been following the thread, and I don't have time to read the current 190+ posts, so sorry if this has already been said (which I'm guessing it has). Regardless, my 2 cents:

I think this is going to hurt the atheist community more than it will help it. Obviously the religious right has already begun to flex its muscle, and I'm sure this ruling will get appealed. It's just going to cause resentment towards atheists, with people saying that we are cranky old men who have nothing better to do with our time. I had to listen to three ignorami discuss it today while biting my tongue. They all were totally unaware of how the constitution/bill of rights works and had no concept of what it meant to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The worst part is that these people are college educated (albeit in Alabama). It sickens me to think what perspective the average Joe has about things like this (random thoughts of "Jay Walking" coming into my head).

clark

As I type, Tom Leykis is talking about the ruling. It's VERY refreshing to hear a sane voice from someone in the media. If you're in the US in a city that carries Leykis, put on your radio .

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark Adams

bluefugue

Good point. A secular society is the only conceivable way to guarantee religious freedom. "Hands off" is the only approach a government should take to religion, though there will always be the occasional thorny detail.

Buffman

TPaine

I have reserved any personal comment on this latest development until now because I have said it all before, many times, in these forums. However, I found the posts by Clark and Bill Snedden to be particularly noteworthy. (Not that the others aren't, but I particularly liked their approach to this whole "emotionally" charged issue.)

Then I started reading your posts and those that responded to you. My first thought was, "He just doesn't get it." Then wondered if you were attempting to make a point that I "just didn't get?" Perhaps my comments beneath will give you an opportunity to amplify the reasoning behind your remarks.

Oh I know but I was just saying I would like to hear how atheist or non-religious students feel about other people saying the pledge including "under god".

Perhaps you should have asked that same query of the black Christian students who were segregated from those white Christian students not all that long ago. The white ones whose parents herded them off to those white Christian private academies when integration had the power of the federal government behind it. How did they feel about discrimination? "Under God" discriminates! So exactly why do you wish to know what the non-Christian or non-theistic students think about the current pledge? Do public school children write our laws? (Given this current issue, perhaps they do.) How many of these same school children used to believe in Santa Claus? Why did they believe in him? Because their parents said there was one. Well, when in a public school, the government is that parent. Do you disagree?

You know come to think of it I've always found the concept of pledging to a flag every morning pretty stupid anyways.

Perhaps you might pay closer attention to the words. "...and to the Republic for which it stands..." (If I wanted to add something, it might be "Federal" in front of "Republic.") Your pledge is to the U.S.Constitution which is the legal basis of our country and our current flag. I did not risk my life for a flag...a piece of colored cloth. I risked it to defend our constitutional principles.

The Dionysian

"So exactly why do you wish to know what the non-Christian or non-theistic students think about the current pledge?"

Just out of sheer curiousity to see if they truly do get a feeling of discrimination even though they aren't forced to say it the pledge.

The Dionysian

"Your pledge is to the U.S.Constitution which is the legal basis of our country and our current flag. I did not risk my life for a flag...a piece of colored cloth. I risked it to defend our constitutional principles."

The reason I found it stupid is because a lot of people just do it blindly without any regard for our constitutional principles and to think the only way of respecting these principles is to get up every morning and recite a pledge is insulting.(You didn't say it was the only way but I'm sure that's how a lot of people act.)