capsaicin67

"They seek to put these children at risk of what their peers may do -- what every adult knows children often do to each other -- so that they may coerce these children into accepting God. "

Exactamundo. For their own good, of course! And the best way to save their little souls is through bullying and abuse by their enlightened peers [gotta train the next generation of clergy somehow]. Seriously, yes, that's exactly what they're ok with. Tough enough to just say no to drugs, how the heck are you going to do it in school in the various formats in which they forcefeed you religion---- and when the teachers are pushers, too?

"It seems that not only atheists should be up in arms over the "under God" but also US citizens of other religions because the god is a christian one. Is this happening?"

I can only speak for my observations here in the "heartland", but I'm not seeing even a bit of that. Not a bit. I recall that post 9-11, even, the local Indian restaurant taped American flags [yes, more than one] in the window faster than you can say "mulligatawny". And the day of the Pledge ruling the media and various "opinion leaders", as well as the gov't., started a propaganda campaign of overwhelming proportions ON TOP OF THAT. A total blackout of the facts.
The only groups that would probably take exception to the words "under god" [even though we should ALL understand that this is simply referring to the xian god and no other----any monotheistic one could pass initially, but IMHO the xian right will not rest until we are a "xian nation under god"---- and future encroachments will likely reinforce that, too] are the minorities of the minorities. Opposing the disinformation campaign of the xian religious extremists is kinda intimidating even for whitebread, good ol' boy-appearing types right now [the issue has been turned inside out, very difficult to re-educate the public and the people-on-the-street on the many layers that they have wrong now]. I think that those minority groups you refer to are trying to lay low right now what with all the recent focus on them in other issues. Nobody wants to raise suspicion regarding their patriotism too badly. Hispanics and African Americans in this country tend to be very immersed in the mainstream religious sectors----that is, not well-represented as Buddhists, Hindus, Humanists, atheists etc. If they were pissed it would possibly put things in a different light, IMO. But the majority of them, it appears, are not. Maybe others have more encouraging observations on this issue.......?

[ July 22, 2002: Message edited by: capsaicin67 ]</p>

Jamie_L

Interesting. On acquiring citizenship, you are essentially required to inform the government whether you are overtly religious or not. I would find that a little disconcerting.

Jamie

Oresta

Having been sworn in with the rest of the jury pool several times in a Michigan county court, it never occurred to me that my request to "affirm" rather than "swear" could possibly be an important clue about me for the prosecution and defense attorneys. Hmmmm.

Clarice O'C

Toto:

The God is not explicity Christian. It could be the Judeo-Christian-Abrahamic God, or even the Deist god, and that covers the major religious groups.

* * * * *

capsaicin67:

The only groups that would probably take exception to the words "under god" [even though we should ALL understand that this is simply referring to the xian god and no other----any monotheistic one could pass initially, but IMHO the xian right will not rest until we are a "xian nation under god"---- and future encroachments will likely reinforce that, too] are the minorities of the minorities.

--------------

It has just been my assumption, then, that "under God" was voted in and added to the pledge by xians. I didn't think that other religions were represented in the decision.

Clarice

Toto

"Under God" was added because of a campaign led by the Catholic Kights of Columbus, but their motive was anti-communist rather than pro-Christian. It was the Eisenhower era, and Eisenhower said something like "everybody has to believe in something, I don't care what it is." So you could believe in any unprovable invisible force you liked, as long as you were not an atheistic communist. It's the equivalent of a "non-sectarian" prayer.

If it had been explicitly Christian, it would have referred to Jesus, or Lord Jesus, or No King but Jesus, as some of Bush and Ashcroft's current pronoucements read.

dannyk

I must admit , I hadnt really thought about this before. If I remember rightly , we informed the relevant people after we had been accepted but before the ceremony .

Philosoft

I have begun to wonder; the word "deist" has been thrown around quite a bit lately in conjunction with the pledge ruling, essentially to describe some "generic" God-concept. I had always thought deism to be a separate philosophical position, though I haven't interacted with any that I know of. In light of what I know of fundamental deism (admittedly little), the idea that a deist would thank, pray to, or publicly reference her 'god' at all seems rather absurd. I'd be willing to bet the number of fundamental deists who care if "under God" stays or goes is effectively zero.

Toto

You're right in theory, but a number of the founding fathers were Deist but still called on "divine providence".

I don't think there are many overt Deists left, although I think a lot of Christians are more Deist than Christian

Clarice O'C

Alrighty then, the "under God" thingy served the original purpose. Now, how to get rid of it. And while we're at it, of course, the g-o-d word off of money and oaths, and prayer out of official governmental gatherings. Yeah, right, we'll see the day. I cringe everytime Bush says the words "god" and "prayer."

Clarice

Clarice O'C

I think that the main tenants of deism are that their god created the world but, otherwise, they are anti-tradition with no anthropomorphism and so their god isn't a "he," etc. Deists pride themselves for thinking for themselves, outside of the box.

What else?

Clarice