Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 4:24:41 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

"Under God" was inserted during the Cold War as a buttress against those atheistic commies. Now that we're at war against holy warriors instead, maybe it's time to try something else. Separation of church and state isn't just the law, it seems to be a pretty good idea too, judging from the alternative.

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 4:37:03 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't think that they should have added that language to the Pledge as cavalierly as they did. It's been fifty years, though, and I, personally, wouldn't make an issue of it being there. Too destructive to raise the issue, IMO. Having said that, the folks that are pushing it in the schools need to exercise a little forbearance as well and not make an issue of it by insisting on it in schools. I don't understand how reference to a generic "God" would be incompatible with someone's "religious beliefs." The basic problem with making kids say the Pledge, as is, in schools is that it conveys the message from the government, the school district, that kids or teachers who cannot, in good conscience, wholeheartedly make that Pledge because they don't believe in God or in a deity called "God" cannot be good and loyal US citizens. If you cannot see what is wrong with that, I don't think there is any way I can explain it to you.

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 5:42:41 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I don't understand how reference to a generic "God" would be incompatible with someone's "religious beliefs." And if your religious beliefs are that there is no god?

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 11:22:01 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Frankly, response may take a back seat to retaliation on this one. What the heck does that mean? and How about "under Allah"? or "under Jahweh"? or "under Ahura Mazda"? or "under Goddess"? Would you be okay with any or all of those?

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 11:49:38 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

You know, there is a large and growing Hindu population in this country that believes in many gods, a Pantheon, a population of citizens which finds the assertion of monotheism inaccurate if not offensive. So how would you feel about "Under Gods"? How about "One nation, indivisible, under no one on earth",? That would be a sort of compromise. Those who read in it the implication that we are under someone, or more than one, who is in heaven, could be happy, and those who are glad we are a free an independent nation could be happy.

To: Michael M who wrote (15600)	6/26/2002 11:56:54 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

. Frankly, response may take a back seat to retaliation on this one... ... I believe many will be insist on saving what we have v. waiting to see what the 9th wants to give us. What's that, MM? A hint of a vigilante action, perhaps? Or what? A petition, maybe?