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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (162917)	3/4/2003 4:31:54 PM
From: overhols	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574070

Having the word God in a song, or pledge, doesn't exercise control by a specific religion over gov. as the word God is used generically. God can mean many things, and how one interprets it, is up to the individual. Yes, and while my knowledge of the law is weak and I recognize "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing", I cannot, for the life of me, understand why that isn't sufficient for any court in the land. I think the answer is simple. It is because an atheist or an agnostic sees the word God as implying his existence, which is contrary to their religion. This is not a separation of church and state, because while you are implying that the word God encompasses all religions, it does not encompass any religion that would replace "under God" with "above Satan" or "under taxes" or "surrounded by misery" or "with the maximization of utility for all" or "under a Godless sky". One could make the argument similar to the one you are making, that Satan is a religiously universal idea, and so we could mention him in the pledge of allegiance as well. But could you imagine the outcry if that was done, i.e. "above Satan"? I think that the fact of the matter is that in the times of the founding fathers, being agnostic or atheist was much less common, less publicized, and less accepted than it is today. They saw separation of church and state in all facets as a way to stay away from government sponsored religion, in a world where being an atheist was not a recognized religion. I think that the world has fundamentally changed, and that today putting the word God on money, in the pledge of allegiance, or anywhere else is in direct opposition of what the founding fathers originally meant, because by using the word God, the government is giving preference to religions that believe in one. I also believe that if the current pledge is found to be constitutional, it will be because the vast majority of Americans believe in a God, and not because it is what the founding fathers, the intent of the constitution or the ideals of a nation protecting free speech and decrying government propaganda would have done. Kyle