He wasn’t all that cryptic. The site is a Muslim site discussing Muslim religious principles, written by Muslims, in English, using the word God instead of the word Allah throughout.
Why must GOD even be mentioned !
"…that all Men are created equal.
Substitute the word born,
“…that all Men are born equal”.
The children of kings are no different than the children of commoners.The right to govern is not bestowed by “divine right” and passed from generation to generation.“Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
That they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable Rights.
That they are endowed with certain inalienable Rights.
Sounds just as powerful to my ears.Adding a creator isn’t necessary.
Since the DOI is addressed to a king who claimed HIS authority came from GOD. Maybe Jefferson felt a need to claim GOD was on his side too!
I have to admit I am just coming to this thread. I have not bothered to read it in it’s entirety. But here is a comment that may or may not be relevant.
I went to my kindergartner’s back to school night monday. The head of the Student Council lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Those of you who know me know that I am a political conservative and a liberal Christian. I had not recited the pledge in years.
I felt…silly…doing it.
This may prove interesting on a personal level. I live in the U.S but am not a U.S. citizen (although I am married to one). If I decided to take citizenship, would I need to recite the Pledge as it stands? The way it stands now, I could not, in good faith (pun intended) say it. Remove the “under god” and no problem, leave it there and no way.
While both make reference to God, the Pledge of Allegiance and the Oath of Allegiance are not the same thing. From the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services siteThe oath of allegiance is:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
In some cases, INS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:
“. . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . .”
The point had already been made by both Monty and me-- that Muslims speaking English often use God and not Allah. You, however, did not agree with that point. I suggested you do some research, and provided you with a cite.
Are you still going to insinst that Muslims do not use the word “God” when speaking English?
Who cares? This thread isn’t about whether or not God “must” be mentioned. I don’t think anyone would argue for that. This thread is about whether or not God “may” be mentioned. The case against that is weak, and the SCOTUS’s ruling are pretty clearly on the side of “yes, God may be mentioned”.
Actually, he went so far as to assert that, for Muslims, the word “God” actually does not apply to their deity. {I get the impression, he’s yet another fundamentalists for whom it’s of over-riding importance that the deity of Islam not be the deity of Christianity; but that’s another debate.}
Thanks, btw, for finding that rather nice commentary on Ramadan. I especially liked the English rendition of the Quranic verses.
My point really was, if Scalia really thought the establishment clause wasn’t being violated he wouldn’t need need to cite examples of CD. Souter’s opinion in McCreary County points this out,and exposes Scalia’s cherry picking.
If Scalia etc. stopped here, with the words,I don’t think I could disagree.
It’s not awkward to my ears,I find the phrase dismissive! Don’t be concerned it’s just a meaningless little thing we’re doing here. I don’t care if politicians feel a need to bring up their beliefs,but they have no place in official acts.We have a religious culture,but a secular government.God is not part of the job.
No your not wrong.It’s the slippery slope I’m bothered by. Throw in a couple of snowmen, and a menorah, and they’re free to do what they really want, officially worship Jesus.
I like the lemon test, secular laws etc. with secular purposes.
What’s the name of the congressional chaplains case. I’d like to read it first.
But, I’d say if congress wants strippers and a three ring circus they can have it, IF it’s paid for out of their pockets.
I meant making references to a creator in the DofI,
equality and inalienable rights ARE self-evident PERIOD ! 
I meant making references to a creator in the DofI,
equality and inalienable rights ARE self-evident, PERIOD !
First of all, thanks for taking the time to actually respond to my post point by point, which seems to happen depressingly rarely…
We may be talking in circles here, but, again, I ask, why is the history relevant? If we resurrected the founders and said to them “hey, you’ll be tickled pink to know that this little country you founded is still going strong 200+ years later, and the constitution you wrote is probably the most influential political document in the history of the world. High fives all around. Now, here’s the question: what’s more important, the principles of equality and freedom that you wrote down in the document, or the religious beliefs that you may or may not have had and the extent to which those religious beliefs may or may not have influenced those principles of equality and freedom?”, how do you think they would respond? What motivated the founders to write the constitution they wrote is interesting and all, but not nearly as important as the principles of freedom in the constitution itself.
If, 1000 years from now, religion has died out entirely and everyone is an atheist (unlikely) but the US still exists, the founders will still be (rightly) revered, and freedom and equality will still be loved. If, 1000 years from now, the US still exists, and is divided equally between Christians, Hindus, and Frog-Spirit-Cultists, the founders will still be (rightly) revered, freedom and equality will still be loved, and the Christians will be no more or less important, no more or less real Americans, and no more or less inheritors of the mantle of philosophical Americanness that descends from the founders, than the Hindus and Frog-Spirit-Cultists. The legacy of the founders should NOT be shackled to their religious beliefs. If they’d wanted it to be, it would be, and the US would be the poorer for it. But they didn’t do it. Why should you?
I’ve pretty much already responded to this above, but… there are some parts of their personal philosophy that they wrote into the constitution. Those parts are the parts on which our nation was built. There are other parts that they didn’t. Those parts are interesting historical footnotes, and might be relevant if we were discussing the design of a We-Honor-the-Founders statuary. But I’m sure that (for instance) very few of the founders were in favor of true equality between genders, or between sexual orientations. So? Who cares?
Also, you seem to think that as long as something isn’t mandatory, it has no coercive or normative power. Presumably there are things that could be put into a non-mandatory pledge that would strike you as unacceptable and unconstitutional, correct? So where do you draw the line?
I reject this. I’d say that if one were to ask “how did we get here?”, the proper response is “in what sense? biologically? philosophically? genetically? geneologically? cosmologically?”. It’s possible to believe in God and evolution, God and not evolution, evolution and not God, and not God and not Evolution. It’s possible to believe in God and evolution, and believe God aided evolution, or to believe in God and evolution but compartmentalize those into two separate parts of one’s brains and belief system, or a bewildering variety of other things.
What I don’t see is how you can claim that God is philosophical and not religious. The concept of God may or may not be a philosophical one, but it is (it seems to me) absolutely inarguably a religious one. Sure, it’s not one that is unique to only one religion (the way Jesus or Shiva or Gefilte Fish is) but it’s sure as heck a religious concept, one that people with some sets of religious beliefs believe in, and some don’t.
The USA is definitely NOT neutral about philosophy. If your philosophical belief is one of fascism, or hard core communism, or anarchism, then you will not be happy with the US constitution. But it IS neutral about religion.
I think that you’re conflating what I would call capital-R-religion and lowercase-R-religion. A Religion is a specific set of beliefs along with rituals, social structures, holy books, holidays, etc. Atheism is definitely not A Religion, and abstract Deism or Theism are arguably not Religions. But that doesn’t mean that someone being an Atheist, or someone else’s being a Deist, are not religious beliefs.
All I’m saying is, if you’re saying “it wouldn’t bother me if I were an atheist, so it probably won’t actually bother people”, you’re wrong, as it does bother people. Now, it bothering people is not prima facie evidence that it is unconstitutional, but it DOES bother people, so please don’t attempt to pretend it doesn’t.
What’s your point? Obviously the pledge is not the Biggest Crisis Facing The USA Today. If I had one wish with which I could change one thing about the US, the pledge wouldn’t be it. Heck, if I had ten wishes, the pledge wouldn’t be one of them. That doesn’t mean that the pledge is right. And it doesn’t mean that no one should ever argue about it on the SDMB. If nothing else, it’s worth arguing about because it’s actually adressable. Having “under God” in the pledge may only be problem #259 that the US is facing right now, but unlike the 258 more serious problems, it’s one that could be instantly and trivially resolved. Remove “under God”. Bam. Problem solved.
A mature and reasonable opinion. Note, however, that the context in which the pledge is actually said is the second grade classroom, an environment not generally noted for the maturity and reason of its inhabitants. What if you stood and said the pledge minus the phrase, or stood and remained silent, and a bunch of people who were bigger than you kept calling you names and taking your lunch money, and an Authority Figure of Near-Godlike Power (the teacher) always did it differently from you. Mightn’t that bother you?
John, what on EARTH are you talking about? I said I’d be happy to concede the point if I’m wrong. But I’m not going to converse with Monty if he’s going to be a jerk about it. Please read my posts again; you’ve really misunderstood me.
In fact, I’m even happy to take your word for it. It wasn’t even that important a point to begin with. In fact, I even phrased my original statement as a question, if you’d care to go back and look at it. O.K., so there are 3 religions for which “God” is an appropriate word, rather than 2. Nobody’s argument even hinges on that one way or the other. I just don’t understand why you can’t just make your point without being condescending. You could have just told me what the evidence showed, rather than behaving like a teacher telling a child to do his homework or something.
Are you waiting for me to say “I’m wrong”? O.K., I’m wrong. I told you I have no problem admitting when I’m wrong. It’s been known to happen a couple times in my life. 
I know religion is an emotional subject for a lot of people, but couldn’t we please remove the chips from our shoulders? You only have to make your point; you don’t have to do an endzone dance afterwards. :rolleyes:
You are in the wrong forum to be making personal insults, New Guy. Not to mention, I wasn’t talking to you. Keep your personal insults to yourself.
My post just above is just friendly advice; nothing more, nothing less.
Please tell me that, since I said I’m not conversing with you any more, that you aren’t going to continue to post falsehoods about me. Could you please leave me alone? It wasn’t even that important a point, can’t you just let it go now?
Oh, you have GOT to be kidding. :rolleyes:
You should read the forum rules. The one overriding rule is “don’t be a jerk”. Calling someone a jerk around here (as you did) is tantamount to saying “you should be banned from this message board”. E-mail a moderator if you don’t believe me. It’s up to the mods to determine who is and who isn’t being a jerk. If you think someone is, then report the post to a mod. That’s the way it’s done around here.
Nothing wrong with being “the new guy” as long as you take the time to learn the rules. Good luck.
Yes I suppose it might. I object to the judges use of the word coercion. School kids will always face certain social pressures and must learn either from their parents or from the teachers, the balance between social acceptance and expressing and asserting their individuality. Here’s an opportunity to start that process.
I totally support the seperation of church and state and have no problem with folks who choose to not say “Under God” but to be so offended by it’s presence that it seems nessecary to sue seems petty. It seems unrealistic to me to think that atheists or folks with alternative beliefs will never be exposed to the beliefs of their fellow citizens at any function. Shouldn’t the point be that different beliefs can coexist peacefully and respectfully? That seems a better alternative than a combative attitude that seems to seperate us as a culture.
OTOH I do find it offensive that certain Christian groups seem so determined to claim America as a Christian nation as if they somehow had dibbs on the country. They either knowingly or ignorantly distort history to support their beliefs.
I doubt that God cares about the pledge or what’s on our money but rather what’s in our hearts.
But keep in mind it’s not the “Under God” itself, it’s the implied linkage between belief in God and patriotism that causes the offense (at least, that’s how I feel).
Pash