Religion endorsed by government is also against the interest of religion. It soon becomes endorsement which is not to the liking of all particular religions and offensive to particular sects of religion. eg:Baptists are separationists , 'Christians' are not. Religion is divisive because it is contradictory in nature. By being both certain and uncertain of what is and is not at the same time. Religion divides and spearates those that do, - those that do in a certain way, - and those that don't. This was made nastily clear in the first part of this thread, by the antagonistic religious statement attempting the spread of cancerous segregation argument for the religious. The Founders were wise when they purposely constructed the First Amendment. No establishment, free exercise.
Then you think incorrectly. No, you think incorrectly. Do you really want to play this game? I asked you a question. I ask you questions all the time you don't answer. It is unmistakable what they wanted to convey in that sentence alive or dead, old or new. You are the expert in what they wanted to convey? If it is not please show where it is not. No, the responsibility is on you to show where the words "under God" are in fact an establishment of religion by the government. You have failed to show that yet. It is curious how the words of the dead are crystal clear to me whilst the words of the living Optional 777 offer naught but miscommunication misunderstanding and confusion. It is not curious to me how you interpret words to suit your agenda, most people do so. The word God is not unknown. It is a religious word. Religious endorsement by government is unconstitutional. The Constitution states that as so. If it does not ,show how. As shown previously, the word God can have multiple meanings. One thing quite clear, you certainly see the word God as religious. You have yet to show that the word God is an endorsement by government of religion. The unknown you refer to is a religious word. It is unconstitutional for government to endorse religion Endorsement of religion by using a religious word or words is unconstitutional. You are now just repeating yourself. Your opinion of endorsement, is but opinion. It sounds to me that the word God threatens you more than it does me. Such a defence of its use although it is unconstitutional , suggests the removal of it makes you feel threatened. The removal of it doesn't threaten me. I am not bothered by the word, I have not taken action to remove it. Those who want it removed are the ones feeling threatened. You are asking a question of your own question. Work it out for yourself. It is a simple question, please answer it. What rights of yours have been violated by the use of the word God in the pledge and money, rights granted to you by the United States Constitution? Unconstitutional law is a violation of everyone's rights. U.S. constitutional rights apply only to US citizens. Your argument is God is not a religious word. That is not correct. Therefore it is more of a contentious statement, until you can show how the word God is not a religious word (LOL you will continue to struggle with that one). An argument in support of God not being a religious endorsement, requires more than you just saying God is not a religious word. God is a word used by religions. Cross is a word used by Christians. So is blood. So what? Just because a word is used by a group, doesn't make that word necessarily representative of a particular group. God and religion are synonymous. Check it out for yourself. If you think they are not, show me how they are not. So far, all you have done, is simply repeat that incorrect statement of your own. So, God and religion are synonymous? Then when they said "Clapton is God" they were practicing a religion? The word God and religion are clearly not synonymous. Water and drinking are not synonymous either. Now, if you say "worshiping God" I can agree with you that "worshiping God" is synonymous with religion, but the word God itself alone is not synonymous. What are you talking about ? What don't you understand? Right here...."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." You will need a constitutional amendment to insert the word God in order for it not to be unconstitutional. That's why the insertion is unconstitutional. You have failed to prove that inserting the word God is the establishment of a religion. Tell me, where is this church of the religion that the United States of America has established? Where do the followers meet to worship the God established by the State, and what are the rules and regulations for practice of that God. What are the punishments for not worship this God of the religion they established. If you want to make the argument that there has been an establishment of religion, prove it. Show us how what the State has done parallels other establishment of religions historically. Now you are looking rattled. Just like the old Optional 777, ART, FoFum whatever and now zzzzzz. Why the big emphasis? You feel you are cornered so your reaction is to 'make it personal'? I guess just like the bigoted statement at the beginning of all this that tries to separate Americans from Americans, because one group of Americans thinks theirs are the only ideas that can be American. It is a simple question Stu, now you are looking like you are avoiding the question. My point is that if you are not an American citizen, then YOUR rights are not an issue. So assuming you are not an American citizen living in America who is protected by our Constitution, you can freely speak of the rights of Americans, and your opinion on those rights, or your opinion on the legal issues in general, but unless your personal rights are threatened, the issue is not personal. I think I have given a short personal antecedence somewhere since being a member of this board. So go look it up. Unlike you, I have no other alias and do not change identity every two minutes, through embarrassment or from getting banned. Fully inconsequential response, and ineffective I might add. You know if there is or is not embarrassment? You can read minds now? Or are you speaking of your own embarrassment at not being able to answer a simple direct question? I did not read the other threads you refer to, so please, a simple yes or no would do nicely to answer my question. So I do repeat, are you an American, living in America, protected by the US Constitution? Do you personally have rights granted to you by the US Constitution? By the way you never answered my question which, unlike yours, is to do with the thread's topic. The government is involving itself in religious endorsement. That is unconstitutional. If it is not, show me where - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." - is unclear. The words are clear. The proof that they have established a religion, as religions are understood, is lacking.
Endorsement of a particular religion is against the interest of religion. A general and non denominational use of the word God doesn't threaten religion at all, it threatens the atheists. However, until such time that the use of the word God threatens the rights of atheists to practice atheism, no rights are violated, no one is excluded, so all is well in the world. Nothing in the use of the word God alone keeps atheists from the free practice of their religion of...err....their belief in atheism. I suggest you remove the word God from all the writings of atheists, as it is offensive to the religious people who only want to see the word God used in a respectful and reverent way. It is the atheists who are persecuting the religious, not the other way around.
Then you think incorrectly. Then ,what does that word mean? do these words even mean anything yet? you, what does that word mean? do these words even mean anything yet? think, what does that mean? do these words even mean anything yet? incorrectly, what does that mean? do these words even mean anything yet? does the word even have a meaning of something? do those words, or those,or... Endorsement of a particular religion is against the interest of religion What does particular mean. Does it have any meaning until I give it some or you give it some If I give the words American Citizen any meaning I want , just like you say the word God has any meaning you want, does that mean I am an American citizen or I am not.
You have heard of the word denominational? What particular denomination of religion is the Government "endorsing?"
You have heard of the word denominational? Yes. I have heard of the word denominational and I have heard of the word God. But if there is not meaning for one then by the rule that makes it so, there is not meaning for the other. What particular denomination of religion is the Government "endorsing?" How can I possibly answer when those words have no meaning, or are misunderstood or are altered by the spirit of law, or the political climate is needed to be agreed so as to get clarification of them, as you say is the case. What do you mean by "endorsing" .Why do you have the word in quotation marks? Who said the government were endorsing a particular denomination of religion. The government are unconstitutionally endorsing religion. Particular denomination religion are within religion. Although , what does the word particular mean or religion....or even government for that matter. What do you mean by particular. Or should it be written as "particular",,but what will doing that communicate now,,, or in 200 years time
Atheists File Lawsuit To Stop President Bush From Saying "God Bless America." Thursday Jun 24, 2004 11:04 AM ET Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS (Page 1 of 2 Top News About 75 Die in Rebel Attacks in Five Iraq Cities Bombs Explode in Turkey Before Bush, NATO Summit Top Court Won't Make Cheney Energy Papers Public By Vito Corleone SAN FRANCICO (Royters) - An atheist's group today filed a lawsuit to enjoin the President of the United States, George Bush from using the phrase "God Bless America." Attorney Jack MeHoff, representing the atheist group filed the lawsuit in Federal Court this morning. "We see the President's use of the phrase "God Bless America" during working hours while acting as President as a direct violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution which clearly states that the Government shall not establish a religion. By suggesting that an imaginary God is blessing America, he is endorsing and establishing religion. The rights of atheists everywhere are being violated by Bush's constant use of the phrase "God Bless America." The President has a responsibility to speak for all Americans and is sworn to defend the Constitution, and he is not doing so. We plan to go all the way on this one, and expect to eventually make our case before the Supreme Court. Given that atheists are 100% rational in all their thought processes, there is no way we can lose this case." The White House was contacted for their response, but none was direcly given, although hysterical laughter was heard in the background by this reporter. Story developing.....
You introduced the term endorsing. I looked at the Frist Amendment, and I did not see the word endorsing. I saw the word establishment. Establishment of a religion, and endorsement of an existing religion are not the same. On that point alone, you are going to have a problem.
I did not introduce the word or term endorsing as part of the Amendment. You are incorrect. I introduced the word to describe what government were doing with religion, when passing religious words into law. âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Nothing to do with establishment of a religion, as you say. Perhaps that's where you are getting your denomninationals all in a bunch. (Are you An American living in America (lol). If so you should be ashamed of yourself not knowing the wording (let alone the meaning) of the First Amendment.) Congress made a law establishing religion when it passed "under God" as an add-in to the existing Pledge. Doing so is an endorsement of religion by government. "under Allah" is an endorsement of religion also. Your argument as far as I can make out goes...., as Allah can mean anything you want it to, then it is not a religious endorsement. I do not think it is very convincing to suggest God or Allah are meant to have anything but to do with religion, in the commonly understood meaning of the words If government passes a law which the constitution states should not be made, government acts unconstitutionally. ps. I had no problem with that.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" I don't see the word endorsement, do you? Can you endorse a religion, without establishment of it? Sure you can. Remember, the English language is precise. If your argument is that he pledge is an establishment of a new religion, good luck. If your argument is that the pledge is an establishment of an existing religion, you will have to show that the pledge belongs to a particular religion. You can do this easily, just show me some scriptures of an established religion, or a even a new religion, that uses the pledge as part of its rituals. You have yet to make a proof or offer a proof that the government has made a law respecting establishment of religion, because they have not. How do I know? I look to established religions. They all have lots of beliefs, creeds, dogmas, rules, punishments for not following the rules, commands, etc.....none of which which are present in the pledge. The pledge itself does not constitute religion in general, nor a specific denomination, nor a state sponsored religion, therefore no religion has been established by the Government by endorsing the use of the current pledge. A belief in God is not required to practice and recite the pledge, where a belief in God is the requirement for practicing a religion of which God is the object of worship. Any established religious leader will confirm this, as will any common man with common understanding of the words. Regarding the word Allah, that is a specific name used by a particular religion. The word God is a word that applies to many different forms and ideas of what God is. The name Allah is to the word God what sturgeon is to fish. Reciting fish is not fishing, reciting the word sturgeon is not fishing, because the practice of fishing goes beyond the saying of a word. Even most atheists have an opinion on the definition of the word God. From the definitions I've heard in this forum, they believe God to be an imagination of man. So when they hear the pledge, they actually hear: ....under "an imagined and mythical figure which non rational people worship." So, factually, as represented by polls, the vast majority of people believe in God...so an atheist could say based on atheist definition I provided above: "Most Americans are under the illusion of, the imagination of the existence of God." Is it false to say that most Americans are "under God" then? No, it is true. Most Americans are under God. Either they are under an existing God (their definition), or they are under influence of the illusion of a non existent God (the atheist definition), but in either case, they are under God. God either being real or illusion, makes no difference. Either they are under the influence of illusion, or truth. So, clearly the pledge doesn't establish either an existing God, a new God, or the God as defined by the atheists. The pledge is silent on which God it is under. It simply speaks the fact, that America (It is common to speak of a country by the majority behaviors and beliefs of a country) is under God.