Jamie_L

I just read the "In God We Trust" portion of a CNN Crossfire transcript here:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/cf.00.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/04/cf.00.html</a>

The portion I'm referring to is burried 2/3 of the way down or so, but it's an interesting read. It's a debate on posting "In God We Trust" in schools.

What struck me, however, was a brief exchange in which the pro-"In God We Trust" guy puts the church-state separation guy on the spot by asking if it was a mistake to put "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. And the other guy waffles around clearly not wanting to say "Yes, it was a mistake."

Why not just say it? Clearly he thinks it is so. It's a logical outgrowth of his argument, and it weakens that arguement for him to be all wishy-washy and evasive. Is it so damaging in the public eye to oppose "under God" in the pledge when you are already opposing IGWT?

Jamie

atheist_in_foxhole

Because he's afraid of being called atheist or anti-religion. And in the American political arena it's the kiss of death to be called atheist on anti-religion.

I hope that someday we will have public officials who have the guts to come out and oppose this "In God we trust" garbage that the religionists are spreading, but I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime.

I recall watching Crossfire a few months ago during the stem-cell debate, and when Novak (the same guy from your link) tried to inject all of this god nonsense into a debate about stem-cells, one of the scientists just came out and said that he didn't believe in any gods and thought that religion was completely irrelevant to the discussion. Novak looked stunned. He was like: "You don't believe in Gawd?!?"

So at least *some* are willing to publicly oppose this religious insanity, but like I said I think it will be a long, long time before politicians have that kind of courage.

One other thing...the same Xian group that successfully got "under god" into the pledge is now campaigning to get "born and unborn" added to the end (after "liberty and justice for all"). I was watching C-Span recently and one of the state legislatures they were showing started with the pledge complete with the "born and unborn" crap. If we don't stand up to these religious zealots we're going to lose that battle as well.

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: atheist_in_foxhole ]</p>

Writer@Large

Just once I'd like someone to not only say "Yes!" in a public forum like that, but to explain to everyone *why* it was put there--to Smoke Out Them Godless Commies in one of the most intolerant periods of the 20th century. Sigh.

--W@L

Arrowman

I'll bet they wouldn't go for "saved and unsaved" though.

Secular Elation

I hope that someday we will have public officials who have the guts to come out and oppose this "In God we trust" garbage that the religionists are spreading, but I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime.

Well, I am developing an ever increasing interest in politics and I am thinking highly of possibly become a public official myself. Granted, it may be something as little as being on the city council, but it would still be interesting.

And If I was elected, you can bet that I would have the guts to come out.