The only gripe that I have with the "Under God" statement is the socialization aspect of it. For instance, if a young child is raised by either polytheistic or atheistic parents who fervently try to keep the concept of God out of their (young) child's life and the new concept of God is introduced at school, should the parents be forced to explain the concept of God to their child? The purpose of school is to teach, not spread the word of any religion or belief (monotheism). It could be argued that "they're going to have to learn about it one day", "they don't have to go to public school", or "that's the parent's responsibility" but why should parents be forced to explain the concept of God to their young children, why should these parents have to pay for another school when they're already paying for public school, and why should God even be introduced into a public facility where the fundamentals of mathematics and reading, not concepts of ultimate beings or different theologies (still assuming that these are young children), are expected to be taught? It is understandable that everybody needs to be introduced to the concept of God at one time or another, but the public school is not the place.

Going off on a semi-tangent, but in the same way that some parents don't want to explain sex to their 6 year olds, some don't want to explain God. I know, I find it bizarre that children don't know how Adam and Eve made Cabel and the brother he killed...

Bleh, I hope that came out right...sleep time!

The only gripe that I have with the "Under God" statement is the socialization aspect of it. For instance, if a young child is raised by either polytheistic or atheistic parents who fervently try to keep the concept of God out of their (young) child's life and the new concept of God is introduced at school, should the parents be forced to explain the concept of God to their child?

I understand what you are trying to say, however I you over look the high influence parents have on their child's beliefs. If a parent(s) want their child to believe in a cretin thing, then they will accomplish that simply by talking to them and telling them why they should believe something at an early age.

the new concept of God is introduced at school

Another thing, I went to public schools in my life time and currently in college. I cannot think of one time where any of my teachers forced me to believe in God or let alone talked about him. Along with that fact, if two parents that are atheists, I am pretty sure they will not enroll their kid in a religious private school. They will put their kid into a public school system where teaching of religions does not happen.

In addition, the child learning what God is will happen no matter what you do even if "Under God" is taken out of the Pledge. There is no "teaching" of any kind in those two words. In addition to that, because the quote is in the pledge does not mean the child will believe in Jesus Christ through hearing them said. Do I believe in aliens because people tell stories about being abducted by them? No. Same concept applies.

Ever heard of the Dark Ages? This space in time is the epitomy of Faith enforced Politics, and is the home to some of the most outrageously evil situations in history... Even though politics should never force any faiths or give one an advantage over another through financial aid, "seperation of church and state"does not mean protection from religion like atheists would have you believe, rather its an effective method to stop persecution of minority groups from bulky, top heavy, denominational religions.

Anyhow, thats my say on the subject,

From HigherDepth

Firstly then, which faith ?

Secondly, The State should rule unemotionally and a-personally
faith is very emotional and very personal

Faith is the foundation upon which the rock of the state is built....

A state is representative of its people and so ultimately becomes representative of the interfaiths that exist

It is the faith then of the individual that gives command to the direction of the state
Rather than the faith of the state giving command to the individual !

Excuse my ignorance, but is boyscouts and girl guides limited to Christians only ?

A legitimate question

there are several issues that appear to need clarification.

a. 'in public' is not the same as 'public school' or a 'public park'.  when you walk out of your door, you're 'in public' but perhaps not on public property.  the space on a public thoroughfare in front of your home isn't yours to rent or occupy exclusively (as you'll discover should you try to block others from parking there or if you yourself park there on the wrong day or at the wrong time).  while everyone has the right to express themselves individually in public (and nobody is arguing that isn't or shouldn't be the case), you are unlikely to be permitted to interfere with or block access to a public area such as a street.

if you own property that is open to the public--a mall or store--you have the right to express yourself or your opinions publicly in compliance with zoning regulations, commerce codes, etc.  if you engage in interstate commerce, other regulations also apply.  otherwise, if you wish to erect a creche, permit members of the hare krisna sect to solicit donations or chant to the solstice on your premises, you're free to do so. 

b. facilities, buildings, parks, parking lots, etc., owned in common by the taxpayers are subject to regulations by agencies operating or administering them on our behalf.   those regulations--and their application--must conform to local, state and federal laws.

c. permitting use government facilities or property owned in common by the public clearly benefits the user at the expense of taxpayers.  it also creates a  possibility--if not the probability--of situations requiring administrators of those facilities or properties to choose one potential user over another. clearly they are not to favor one group over the other on the basis of religion or their own spiritual beliefs.  madison claims that government should have no cognizance of religion. that may be too much to expect from humans who act as government proxies.  it is possible to provide no basis for such cognizance--thus eliminating any  possibility of administerial malfeasance or misfeasance--by merely prohibiting use by any group that requiring of its members any  profession of religiosity or lack thereof.

d. the constitution specifically forbids such a requirement of  government officials or representatives in article vi: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

note there is no mention of god or a higher power in  the oath of office mandated in article ii, section 2 of the  constitution: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

if the boy scouts of america, or any other organization, feels it necessary to require its members to take an oath invoking or asserting a belief in god, they disqualify themselves from use of publicly-owned facilities.  if parents wish their children to receive a religious education, they need only to enroll them in an accredited church-run school. 

as madison stated in his 'Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments' :  Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

Excuse my ignorance, but is boyscouts and girl guides limited to Christians only ?

i dunno bout girl scouts or guides butu bsa requires scouts to take this oath:

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight

according to usscouts.org:

Note that the Boy Scout Oath has traditionally been considered to have three promises.  Those three promises are delineated by the semicolons in the Oath, which divide it into three clauses.  The three promises of the Scout Oath are, therefore:

Duty to God and country,
Duty to other people, and
Duty to self
DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your FAMILY and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God.

Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points.

those 12 points are:

A Scout is:

Trustworthy,
Loyal,
Helpful,
Friendly,
Courteous,
Kind,
Obedient,
Cheerful,
Thrifty,
Brave,
Clean,
and Reverent.

as far as my religious backround/beliefs go, i was raised in a catholic home and attended 12 years of catholic school.  during our study of the history of america it seemed quite clear to me--a feeling reinforced during jfk's campaign for the presidency--that catholicism was not a mainstream american christian sect.  i eventually came to a point where i was able no longer to accept catholic or any other religious beliefs.  my position for strict separation of government from religion is based on my agreement with madison that any involvement of the two institutions eventually leads to tyranny.  

Excuse my ignorance, but is boyscouts and girl guides limited to Christians only ? A legitimate question

No, my Cub pack had a Jewish scout. In the cub scouts the only religious qualifications was a chapter in which the scout was asked to go to church, synagogue or temple at least once.

Reply #32 By: kingbee - 1/5/2005 6:04:00 AM if the boy scouts of america, or any other organization, feels it necessary to require its members to take an oath invoking or asserting a belief in god, they disqualify themselves from use of publicly-owned facilities. if parents wish their children to receive a religious education, they need only to enroll them in an accredited church-run school.

This is BS! Don't their parents pay taxes? Taxes that help those public sites in question? How about if they *stopped* paying those same taxes?
And BTW, where in the BSA oath does it mention a *christian * or any other specific god ?

This is BS! Don't their parents pay taxes? Taxes that help those public sites in question? How about if they *stopped* paying those same taxes?

reread reply #32 part c. 

where in the BSA oath does it mention a *christian * or any other specific god ?

where does it mention baal or zeus?  a requirement to believe in god is sufficient to make them ineligble.  if the constitution prohibits elected officials from having to submit to such an oath, why impose it on a boy scout? see reply 32 section d.

Reply #37 By: kingbee - 1/5/2005 2:06:12 PM This is BS! Don't their parents pay taxes? Taxes that help those public sites in question? How about if they *stopped* paying those same taxes? reread reply #32 part c. where in the BSA oath does it mention a *christian * or any other specific god ? where does it mention baal or zeus? a requirement to believe in god is sufficient to make them ineligble. if the constitution prohibits elected officials from having to submit to such an oath, why impose it on a boy scout? see reply 32 section d.

I still think this whole thing is a big pile of crap. If everything you say is true (which I don't believe) then *why* wasn't this a problem back in the 60's-70's? Why? Because this whole thing is PC smoke and mirrors

I still think this whole thing is a big pile of crap

your objection is duly noted. 

Reply #39 By: kingbee - 1/5/2005 2:28:45 PM I still think this whole thing is a big pile of crap your objection is duly noted.

As is yours.

Circling back around on the Scouts issue, I take exception to Kingbee's reasoning (and that of the ACLU - or Americans without a CLUE) in this area.

Again, the "so called" separation clause requires NON FAVORITISM of any specific religion, not complete ignorance of any and all religions.

The use by the Scouts of public facilities -- as long as the use isn't through favoritism that excludes use by similar secular organizations -- isn't favoring the scouts or disfavoring anyone else.

As an example, if I am the facilities manager/administrator for a public facility - say a school, fire department/rescue squad hall, etc., and my methodology for determining who gets to use the public facilities I manage doesn't allow the scouts to use the facility for free while requiring user fees from the local Corvette Club that wants to use the same facilities. If I'm not setting different fee structures, if I'm not automatically granting the scouts the best times or best dates, etc., then I'm not favoring them and I'm not in any way acknowledging a religion in allowing them to use the facility. I'm simply managing a public area for use by a recognized organization -- as in I can make a distinction between allowing use of the facility for an ad hoc group that decides they will call themselves the We Hate America First group, which has no charter, is not officially recognized, and is no other way recognized as a group versus allowing the use of the facilities for a recognized group such as A.A., the Scouts, or whomever.

I see a very flawed argument which the ACLU has applied to keep the scouts from using public facilities, which should have been tossed out on it's rear end to begin with. Unfortunately, some judge, somewhere, bought the argument, established precedent, and ever since we've been stuck with it -- at least until the original decision is revisited and over-turned in favor of some common sense.

If I'm not setting different fee structures, if I'm not automatically granting the scouts the best times or best dates, etc., then I'm not favoring them and I'm not in any way acknowledging a religion in allowing them to use the facility. I'm simply managing a public area for use by a recognized organization -- as in I can make a distinction between allowing use of the facility for an ad hoc group that decides they will call themselves the We Hate America First group, which has no charter, is not officially recognized, and is no other way recognized as a group versus allowing the use of the facilities for a recognized group such as A.A., the Scouts, or whomever

while you may be the most competent and unbiased of managers, there's no guarantee others in similar positions will possess your wisdom or objectivity should (for sake of argument) a recognized local group such as 'the friends of the aclu want use of a facility at the same time a local scout troop planned to meet. 

as an aside, wouldnt it be equally inappropriate to permit use of taxpayer-owned facilities to groups that discriminate on the basis of ethinicity or gender?

as an aside, wouldnt it be equally inappropriate to permit use of taxpayer-owned facilities to groups that discriminate on the basis of ethinicity or gender?

Can you, or the ACLU in general prove that the Scouts discriminate?

The words in the scout pledge have to be said, but don't have to be believed. The scouts are not known for frequently (or at all that I can really tell) booting Atheists from their membership.

If you could really show me such discrimination exists, then I might be more inclined to side with you, but instead I see arguments that they "might" or statements of fact that they do, when in fact it's not been shown at all, or at least hasn't been shown to be a pattern.

Meanwhile, I know plenty of cases where groups like "the Black Student Union" are permitted use of public facilities, when they very obviously are designed to serve a specifc group of individuals, and favor those inviduals. Would you have them booted? How about groups that may be created for "advancement and equality for women"? Or other similar groups that have narrow focuses.

I know it's not easy to tell which of these type groups deserve use of the facilities, but in the end most of these people are paying -- mandatorily -- into the school system and into state and local tax pools. They should be permitted to benefit from their payments, even if additional user fees may have to be charged to help cover the use of the facilities.

The words in the scout pledge have to be said, but don't have to be believed. The scouts are not known for frequently (or at all that I can really tell) booting Atheists from their membership. If you could really show me such discrimination exists, then I might be more inclined to side with you, but instead I see arguments that they "might" or statements of fact that they do, when in fact it's not been shown at all, or at least hasn't been shown to be a pattern.

youre not seriously advocating that anyone teach kids its right or moral to take an oath to which they have no intention of abiding?  in fact, anyone who refuses to take the pledge on the basis of non-belief will be drummed outta the scouts. 

this is from the bsalegal's website.   clearly they take it the commitment and the belieft part very seriously.

In the Scout Oath, a Scout promises to do his “duty to God,” and in the Scout Law, he promises to be “reverent.”

The Boy Scout Handbook (11th ed.) explains a Scouts’ “duty to God” as “Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve.  You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.”

The Handbook explains “reverent” as “A Scout is reverent toward God.  He is faithful in his religious duties.  He respects the beliefs of others.”

All levels of advancement in the Scouting program have requirements recognizing “duty to God”:

●  Bobcat Cub Scout
A boy is required to promise to do his best to do his “duty to God,” which means “Put God first.  Do what you know God wants you to do.” 

●  Wolf Cub Scout
A boy is required to “[t]alk with your folks about what they believe is their duty to God,” “[g]ive some ideas on how you can practice or demonstrate your religious beliefs,” and “[f]ind out how you can help your church, synagogue, or religious fellowship.”

●  Bear Cub Scout
A boy is required to “[p]ractice your religion as you are taught in your home, church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious community” or “[e]arn the religious emblem of your faith.”

●  Webelos Scout
A boy is required to either “[e]arn the religious emblem of your faith” or do two of the following:

“Attend the church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious organization of your choice, talk with your religious leader about your beliefs, and tell your family and Webelos den leader about what you learned.”;

“Tell how your religious beliefs fit in with the Scout Oath and Scout Law, Discuss this with your family and Webelos den leader: What character-building traits do your beliefs and the Scout Oath and Scout Law have in common?”;

“With your religious leader, discuss and write down two things you think will help you draw nearer to God. Do these things.”;

“Pray to God or meditate reverently each day as taught by your family, and by your church, synagogue, or religious group. Do this for at least one month.”;

“Under the direction of your religious leader, do an act of service for someone else. Talk about your service with your family and Webelos den leader. Tell them how it made you feel.”; or

“List at least two ways you believe you have lived according to your religious beliefs.”

●  First Class Boy Scout
A boy is required to “[l]ead your patrol in saying grace at the meals . . . .”

●  Declaration of Religious Principle, Bylaws of Boy Scouts of America, art. IX, § 1, cl. 1
 “The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members. No matter what the religious faith of the members may be, this fundamental need of  the members should be kept before them. The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. Its policy is that the home and the organization with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life."

 

My view on this matter is simple. People working in government may let their beliefs guide them. It's a matter of personal beliefs.

I wouldn't allow those to happen:

ANY laws related to control or limitation of any religion, other than fairness and prevention of certain religion being biased against.
ANY state or government-sponsored religion event, endorse, and even approval.
Protection of religion activity in expense of any other religion. If conflict happens, no laws is created and they gonna have to tough it out.

BR>Reply #44 By: kingbee - 1/6/2005 2:40:50 AM Bear Cub Scout A boy is required to “[” or “[e]arn the religious emblem of your faith.p]ractice your religion as you are taught in your home, church, synagogue, mosque, or other religious community

Did you happen to read this line? Your arguement falls apart right here! Because according to that line they are NOT advocating one religion over another.

I have two things to say about this thread

1. Islamist republics.
2. The Holy Roman Empire.

There's a couple of reasons for seperation of church and state.

If people in the government let their beliefs influince their decisions...I have no problem with it. But a lot of the time when you infuse religion with politics, You're gonna have problems.

And big ones at that.

Because according to that line they are NOT advocating one religion over another.

that isnt the problem.

that isnt the problem.

Then I'm guessing it must be a personal problem.

Then I'm guessing it must be a personal problem.

?

Reply #48 By: kingbee - 1/7/2005 1:18:49 AM Because according to that line they are NOT advocating one religion over another. that isnt the problem.

So in essence you can't prove they descriminate.