Toto

Are you trying to link faith healing with "under God" in the pledge? Interesting idea.

The "average" American views faith healing as an item of humor or entertainment. But with freedom of religion and free markets, there are some con artists who make a very tidy sum of money from those who want to believe.

ashibaka

There was an article in the Old Farmer's Almanac which took them for granted. To me, it seems they're a sort of "New Age" thing which most people assume to be true but haven't looked into.

If there was a reference to faith healing in the Pledge, you know they'd be up in arms about taking it out.

Hayden

To me, the whole thing sounds almost like a bad movie. I find it hard to believe that literalist creationists exist anywhere, let alone as the leader of a country as powerful as the USA!

Generally, people I've talked to here support the decision to remove "under God", but we're not really concerned, as you can imagine. Our national anthem is called "God Defend New Zealand", so that's something I might want to work on in the near future.

On another note, many people here give the USA no more than 50 years before it breaks up. I believe that these events will accelerate the process.

HR

Syphor

No not really, and I don't know how you could 'link' them anyway. I was just a bit curious that's all.

I do think though that God and faith healing are mutually exclusive in terms of validity, i.e. none.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Syphor ]</p>

BolshyFaker

This is an article from The Guardian (left leaning/liberal) newspaper editorial this morning about the Church/State issues raised by the Pledge ruling.

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,746254,00.html" target="_blank">Guardian - US lawyers make merry over the separation of church and state.</a>

The most interesting point for me is that the words "under God" were only added in the '50s to distinguish the (secular) USA from the (also secular) USSR. The article then suggest that not only is removing the phrase the correct interpretation of the constitution from a right-wing strict constructionist attitude (think the right to "bear arms") but that since America is involved in a war on religous fanatics that re-asserting the inherent secualr nature of America is perfect timing !

On a personal note GW's assertion that the rights guaranteed by the constitution stem from God is the most fundemental and delibrate mis-interpretation of the philosophical ideas underpinning the constitution. Peopl complain about revisionist histories (think Marxism, Conspiracy Theories etc) but blindly accept the ones pushed by their own leaders <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> Theres a whole new thread in here for anyone whos interested Id think.

David Bowden

Tell me about it.

This interests me. Is it along religious/secularist lines that America is thought to be most fragmented?

You know, thinking about it, the loudest, most contentious American scandals of recent years do in fact seem to be religious/"traditional-values"-versus-secularism related. Abortion, school-related issues (prayer, vouchers, creationism, 10 Commandments, etc), this Pledge nonsense, Clinton's private affairs, anything picked up by Focus on the Family - religious activists really are driving a wedge between Americans, where none is necessary.

That pisses me off.

Anyway, I'm still curious about how it's thought that America will crack up in just a few decades. Perhaps I'll renew my passport, or better yet, find some means of unfucking the system before it's too late.

-Wanderer

fleeming

Yeah, didn't raise much of an eyebrow here in Australia. However, I, for one think that is fantastic for all those in the States that the ball has got rolling.

I couldn't stomach getting married in a church or by a minister of any sort, so for Australia to put something like that into any official "Pledgae of Allegience" would be hard to bear.

Spazmatic

What is President Bush's definition of terrorism? I seem to remember lots of people being accused of terrorism for sending threatening letters and stuff... Is there then such a thing as terrorism against the Constitutional right to dissent? The definition of terrorism has been so twisted and turned since 9/11, I've lost track of what it means now.

DMB

There is a lot of derision of Bush concerning just about everything, not just this specifically.

I was born at the beginning of WW2 (before the Americans joined in ), and as a small child I got used to seeing American soldiers around the place. They seemed nice enough. Growing up in the post-war period, I learned about America through the medium of Hollywood fims. Later on, I got more interested in politics and remember vividly the despair and incredulity that most of us over here felt about McCarthyism. As a result of that bout of intolerance, you lost some very good people, who were our gain.

America has always seemed pretty exotic to me. When I first discovered the existence of the Pledge of Allegiance, I found it rather uncool and funny. But then I realised that, for a nation that had to absorb so many immigrants and turn them into Americans, it made some sort of sense.

I admire the American constitution. The UK doesn't have a written constitution, although it has a considerable body of constitutional law. My main home for the past 15 years has been in Switzerland, and when I compare the UK to Switzerland, I get frustrated at the UK's defective democracy. But in some ways, I think the US may have too much democracy. I don't like th wholesale change that occurs when you vote in a new administration. In most European countries, the country is administered by a civil service that ensures quite a lot of continuity, despite changes in political control. (The Blair Government is being heavily criticised at the moment for its apparent attempts to undermine the neutrality of the Civil Service.)

I have the distinct impression that the fundies are gaining too much poweer in the US, even though there seems to be an increase in the number of people who are willing to stand up for non-belief. The worst of them do seem rather like the Taleban.

It seems obvious to me that having "under god" in the PoA and "in god we trust" on the money is a violation of the constitution. But no country is ever run wholly rationally, so I'm not sure that this is the most important issue on which to fight. In any case, I wish all you embattled Yanks good luck and hope some of you will come and try your luck in Europe.

Spazmatic

If it was a war, with a general at the head, we wouldn't choose this to fight on. At least not now. But, it's not, as it we don't view it as a war (unlike most Fundies), and we are not an organized, hierarchical group. We just go with what happens, and throw our weight where we can.