|
Post by illicit on Feb 1, 2006 21:36:50 GMT -5
Would athiests be protected under the first amendment in freedom of religion? I dont think they should, as they dont have a religion, it is a classification of those without religion, plus they dont do worshiping, or anything like that.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Feb 1, 2006 21:40:01 GMT -5
Protected from what? You said it yourself... there's no worshipping involved in being an atheist, so what could they do that would fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment?
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Feb 1, 2006 21:42:44 GMT -5
Protected from what? You said it yourself... there's no worshipping involved in being an atheist, so what could they do that would fall under the jurisdiction of the first amendment? (who are you?) Yea, but like I was talking to Masta B once and he said that Under God inhibits him from worshiping nothing.
|
|
|
Post by darkhelmet on Feb 1, 2006 22:19:46 GMT -5
DH. ;D
Under God in what? I don't think "Under God" signifies the sponsorship or rejection of any religion, so I have no problem with it.
|
|
Twitchmonkey
Gallant
Dragonzord Hooker
I like hookers
Posts: 2,979
|
Post by Twitchmonkey on Feb 2, 2006 1:01:23 GMT -5
Freedom by is nature allows you to no enter into a certain thing. So, you have the right to exclude yourself from religion, and thus shouldn't be forced to say under god, which you aren't.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Feb 2, 2006 1:07:19 GMT -5
What yam refers to is an arguement we had over the words 'under god' in the pledge of alleigance. The government putting in the words under god suggests that the government supports a monotheistic religion, and that all those who believe differently are false. That clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment which states that the government shall support no religion.
It may be argued that removing the words under god violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment, but that only says that the government can not stop somone from practicing their religion. You can practice Christianity perfectly without having it imposed on others. In fact, millions of Christians practiced their religion before the words under god were added in the 1800's.
Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god.
Also, Atheists are protected by the first amendment, or rather by a clause of it, the establishment clause which I have aleady explained.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Feb 2, 2006 3:26:09 GMT -5
Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god. Lets face it - the purpose of religion is to brainwash people into living in a society and working crappy jobs so that they support the fat cats. Seriously, where in the bible does it tell you not to work and to become a corporate monster(or rather, a merchant or equivilent to bible times). No it tells us to accept working for the man and to work as hard as possible to please god. Other religions may say something different and hinder the workin man. Using god to make money... its beautiful in its simplicity. A dictionary.com definition for the people who think what I said is insane: govern v. v. tr. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game. Grammar. To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words.
|
|
Muad'dib
Squire
Kwizatz Haderach
There exists no separation between gods and men; one blends softly casual into the other.
Posts: 1,638
|
Post by Muad'dib on Feb 2, 2006 10:36:11 GMT -5
How about we look at this another way? Swearing on the bible in court.... Atheists do it. And if they lie on the stand, they get the punishment of lying under oath, right?
The unsaid thing here being that its disrespect for ones God, but if the atheist obviously doesn't have that, they shouldn't get that punishment, as it becomes a punishment of insulting another person's God.
A battle which I find a tad.... Pathetic.
Oh, yeah, and lying under oath, forgot the term. Perjury.
|
|
Mumble
Squire
Forum Skull Avatar Guy
Posts: 1,645
|
Post by Mumble on Feb 2, 2006 13:44:32 GMT -5
Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god. Lets face it - the purpose of religion is to brainwash people into living in a society and working crappy jobs so that they support the fat cats. Seriously, where in the bible does it tell you not to work and to become a corporate monster(or rather, a merchant or equivilent to bible times). No it tells us to accept working for the man and to work as hard as possible to please god. Other religions may say something different and hinder the workin man. Using god to make money... its beautiful in its simplicity. A dictionary.com definition for the people who think what I said is insane: govern v. v. tr. To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in. To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake. To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people. To keep under control; restrain: a student who could not govern his impulses. To exercise a deciding or determining influence on: Chance usually governs the outcome of the game. Grammar. To require (a specific morphological form) of accompanying words. Have you read much of the bible? I'm not really in suport of organized religion, but that is certainly not the only or main message of the bible. It does often suggest forsaking material goods and wealth, which doesn't do much for the established society we have now. However, I do agree that religion is abused by authority to control people in unfair ways. It plays on people's belief in something more powerful and greater than themselves and twists it against them. Not cool. As to Atheists and how this ammendment should apply, I don't really see how it would anyway. The only way to really infringe on an atheist is to force them to beileve in a religion, which is not done directly. Christianity is, however, a more dominant and socially influencial religion, especially in the united states. That, is anything, needs to be ammended.
|
|
|
Post by morty14 on Feb 2, 2006 19:13:08 GMT -5
Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god. *Applause* That's what I've always thought too. One time in 5th I didn't recite it, and the teacher got all up in my face and was yelling about how I was disrespecting all the people that have died for our country and whatnot. I didn't say anything at the time, but had it been a few years later, I would have said something to the effect of what you posted.
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Feb 2, 2006 19:59:19 GMT -5
What yam refers to is an arguement we had over the words 'under god' in the pledge of alleigance. The government putting in the words under god suggests that the government supports a monotheistic religion, and that all those who believe differently are false. That clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment which states that the government shall support no religion. It may be argued that removing the words under god violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment, but that only says that the government can not stop somone from practicing their religion. You can practice Christianity perfectly without having it imposed on others. In fact, millions of Christians practiced their religion before the words under god were added in the 1800's. Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god. Also, Atheists are protected by the first amendment, or rather by a clause of it, the establishment clause which I have aleady explained. I do agree with the brainwashing part to a certain extent, I dont recite the pledge myself, dont want to, dont have to, dont need to. However the constitution says, quote "Shall respect any ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" that means it cannot make a law that funds, or even acknowledges any church. So implying the government supports monotheism means nothing in the establishment clause.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Feb 2, 2006 21:31:30 GMT -5
Have you read much of the bible? I'm not really in suport of organized religion, but that is certainly not the only or main message of the bible. It does often suggest forsaking material goods and wealth, which doesn't do much for the established society we have now. Yes I have read the bible 2 times, I was a catholic for 60% of my life. Your not looking at it on a big enough scale. Its not about material wealth, its about loving and working to support your family, rather than being greedy. In otherwords, work for us and dont be more powerfull than us. If you had everyone trying to become corperate giants, than society would collapse, we need people who care about their family more than the size of their bank account so they can work for the man. God keeps them small and keeps them working in crappy jobs. That way the buisnessmen have all the power they need.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Feb 2, 2006 23:54:13 GMT -5
What yam refers to is an arguement we had over the words 'under god' in the pledge of alleigance. The government putting in the words under god suggests that the government supports a monotheistic religion, and that all those who believe differently are false. That clearly violates the establishment clause of the first amendment which states that the government shall support no religion. It may be argued that removing the words under god violates the free exercise clause of the first amendment, but that only says that the government can not stop somone from practicing their religion. You can practice Christianity perfectly without having it imposed on others. In fact, millions of Christians practiced their religion before the words under god were added in the 1800's. Let's face it - the purpose of the pledge of alleigance is to brainwash childeren. That's why only the public schools for younger childeren recite it. IT brainwashes in patriotism with all the one nation indivisable BS, and Christianity with the under god. Also, Atheists are protected by the first amendment, or rather by a clause of it, the establishment clause which I have aleady explained. I do agree with the brainwashing part to a certain extent, I dont recite the pledge myself, dont want to, dont have to, dont need to. However the constitution says, quote "Shall respect any ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" that means it cannot make a law that funds, or even acknowledges any church. So implying the government supports monotheism means nothing in the establishment clause. Sorry, but how is removing under god respecting an establishment of religion? Keeping it there is doing that.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Feb 3, 2006 10:23:44 GMT -5
No, athiesm isn't inhibited by the first amendment, that's why public schools can have athiesm in them. Anyways, Athiests are protected under the first Amendment from being forced to worship a god.
That being said, I really don't think that the pledge needs to be changed. Two little words are big enough to make me go out and cry about it.
|
|
PrettyBurn
Squire
CAMELOT!
can't stop the signal
Posts: 1,338
|
Post by PrettyBurn on Feb 3, 2006 14:20:48 GMT -5
Seperation of church and state is an incredibly important issue that needs to be addressed.
The words "under god" were added at some point (the 1940s, am I making that up?) and aren't a historical part of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The government has no right to force any religion into the schools, etc of the country through the pledge, public statues in government buildings, etc.
|
|
|
Post by WitchBoy on Feb 3, 2006 16:22:07 GMT -5
The pledge was developed in late 1800's-early 1900's by a socialist if I am not mistaken, it was put in a socialist youth magazine and was meant to dictate blind loyalty to government. It managed to get picked up, within the first few years it was nationally put into schools Christians went to court to make sure they didn't have to say it, because many didn't want to pledge allegiance to anything but God. The "under God" was added during the communist scare, because communism is opposed to religion it was one more way of anti-communizing the culture of America.
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Feb 4, 2006 13:59:14 GMT -5
I do agree with the brainwashing part to a certain extent, I dont recite the pledge myself, dont want to, dont have to, dont need to. However the constitution says, quote "Shall respect any ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION" that means it cannot make a law that funds, or even acknowledges any church. So implying the government supports monotheism means nothing in the establishment clause. Sorry, but how is removing under god respecting an establishment of religion? Keeping it there is doing that. It isnt though, because god is not an establishment of religion Removing it there would say that the government does not support the christian community and rather supports more the athiest community, which is truly horrible for everything(Christians make up 95-98% of the country), why respect the minority when you outrage the majority?
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Feb 4, 2006 14:42:54 GMT -5
I've already desribed how under god supports monotheistic religions, namely Christianity. Removing it in NO way supports atheism. It would not say 'under evolution' or anything like that, it would just be some more patriotic crap. Christians do not make up 98% of the country, show a statistic that says that.
|
|
Ratwar
Squire
Horkers Rule!
Posts: 1,981
|
Post by Ratwar on Feb 4, 2006 18:34:56 GMT -5
The government has no right to force any religion into the schools, etc of the country through the pledge, public statues in government buildings, etc. Does the government really force it onto people if people that don't believe in one god just stay silent during those lines of the pledge?
|
|
|
Post by thaddius on Feb 4, 2006 21:54:26 GMT -5
Removing it there would say that the government does not support the christian community and rather supports more the athiest community, which is truly horrible for everything(Christians make up 95-98% of the country), why respect the minority when you outrage the majority? Wait a second, where did you get the figure that 95-98% of this country is christian? The reason for respecting the minority is simple, one of the principles of this country is protecting the minority, first seen with the equal representation in the senate to see that no small states are over run, seen again with the civil rights movement guaranteeing the rights of another minority group.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Feb 4, 2006 22:53:00 GMT -5
The government has no right to force any religion into the schools, etc of the country through the pledge, public statues in government buildings, etc. Does the government really force it onto people if people that don't believe in one god just stay silent during those lines of the pledge? Yes, actually. They still have to listen to everyone else saying it. And it does not matter if it doesn't harm anyone. The constitution says the government cannot do it. Let's say I break a law, but do not hurt anyone in anyway in doing so. Should I be heald guilty? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Feb 5, 2006 1:48:48 GMT -5
Removing it there would say that the government does not support the christian community and rather supports more the athiest community, which is truly horrible for everything(Christians make up 95-98% of the country), why respect the minority when you outrage the majority? Wait a second, where did you get the figure that 95-98% of this country is christian? The reason for respecting the minority is simple, one of the principles of this country is protecting the minority, first seen with the equal representation in the senate to see that no small states are over run, seen again with the civil rights movement guaranteeing the rights of another minority group. It was from one of my geography books, thats the statistics, dont argue with the book.
|
|
mastab
Gallant
Orgasmic Flooding
Free hugs!
Posts: 2,781
|
Post by mastab on Feb 5, 2006 1:53:52 GMT -5
Don't beleive everything you read. Prove you got it from that source. Don't tell people not to argue.
|
|
|
Post by ExtraCheeZ on Feb 5, 2006 1:59:33 GMT -5
Don't beleive everything you read. Prove you got it from that source. Don't tell people not to argue. Thats far too logical for the debate board!
|
|
|
Post by illicit on Feb 5, 2006 2:02:02 GMT -5
Don't beleive everything you read. Prove you got it from that source. Don't tell people not to argue. I was joking, anyways, I dont have the books right now, but I remember reading from at least 2 books that 95-98% of the US population is christian. Either way over 90% of people(I dont know who would try and argue that) are christian in the USA, why outrage 280 million people to support like a 20 million.
|
|