Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

Should a person be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance in a public school or does it violate the separation of church and state?

By Iplayoboe (Iplayoboe) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:21 am: Edit

no, we should not be forced to say the pledge. A state law was passed in Pennsylvania after the Sept 11 "patriotism extravaganza" which required that all students say the pledge in school and that if a student refused the school was required to notify their parents. The law was in effect for almost three years before being declared unconstitutional byt he Pennsylvania Supreme Court. I don't think it is right to force anybody to feel that they need to say the pledge.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:07 am: Edit

I agree that you shouldn't be forced to say it (or anything really. Heck, I don't want people forcing me to see "Sniggly Wigglies") but I don't understand the huge outrage with the pledge. Those that established this nation believed in a creator and the country was built around such a belief (I realize the "under God" phrase was added much later in post-WWII times). The fact, however, is that under God does not adopt any sort of stance on any particular religion. It doesn't say "under the Christian God," "under Jesus," "under Shiva," "under Zeus" or anything along those lines. As per the constitutional aspects of it, I have to agree with my Gov't/Econ teacher and his statement that "the constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:30 am: Edit

If someone has such a problem with the "under God" part, why make such a big deal out of it? Why not just leave that part out when you say the pledge, and everyone can go on about their merry way!.....geez, you pointyheads have to make such a big deal out of everything (I kid, I kid!)

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I post. You decide.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:35 pm: Edit

No one should be forced to say anything they don't want to say...Just don't waste the courts' time and taxpayers' money by suing over it.

By Candi1657 (Candi1657) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:36 pm: Edit

"I have to agree with my Gov't/Econ teacher and his statement that 'the constitution guarantees you freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.'"

I love your Gov't/Econ teacher, Welshie.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:43 pm: Edit

Welshie's teacher was quoting Lizzie Dole.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 01:09 pm: Edit

He wasn't quoting Liz Dole (I had the class last year as a senior) but I'm sure he was quoting someone else as she did in her RNC speech.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:49 pm: Edit

I stand corrected.

By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 02:51 pm: Edit

Just googled:

Apparently Joe Lieberman said it at Fellowship Chapel, Detroit, Aug. 27, 2000 as well.

Maybe he got it there?

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 04:47 pm: Edit

So, if we are guaranteed freedom of religion but not from religion, then does that mean that those who are atheist or agnostic are not protected? Separation of church and state is meant to both protect religion from the government and government from religion. People have a right to beleive whatever they want in this country but religious beliefs have no place in politics or government.
I agree that the Pledge of Allegiance issue really isn't worth wasting money and time on (though no one should be forced to say it). However, people have a real misconception about our forefathers and their religious beliefs or lack thereof. There is a great book by Susan Jacoby called "Freethinkers". It explains, backed by much evidence and fact, that our forefathers truly did believe in separation of church and state and the true context of their belief in a creator. The likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison beleived that the affairs of humans were controlled by humans and should be in the hands of humans despite a deity or not.
I believe in our right to practice any religion we want, OR not practice religion at all. But, I believe that the lines originally drawn between church and state have become eroded and that is dangerous for our country.

By Welshie (Welshie) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 05:37 pm: Edit

Noodleman, thinking back, I think you are right. If I recall correctly, I believe he said Lieberman said it.

Squiddd, even atheism and agnosticism(?) is a religious faith (in at least in a weird abstract sense). Anywho, I believe TJ was characterized as being a Deist (God is a clockmaker, yadda yadda).

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 07:27 pm: Edit

Yes, that is correct, Jefferson was a Deist. He believed that God is a creator, but in no way controls the human world. I don't think he would like a president who thinks it is his divine appointment to be president and do the things he's done. My point is that some (not all) right wing Christians are trying to claim that our forefathers beleived that God did have a place in our government and that is just not true.

Also, I agree with you that being atheist or agnostic is, in a way, a religion and therefore is also protected. That is why the statement that we are guaranteed freedom of religion, not from, bothers me. To trust that our government is truly representing all the people, it must not bring any one religion, or even all religions that believe in a God, into its decisions.

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

when i was in high school, every morning as i said the pledge i said "under whatever you belive in" in place of "under God" every single day. at the same time, i had a friend who never said the pledge because he was a jehovah's witness and it was against his religion.

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:24 pm: Edit

The problem is that the phrase "under god" is even in there. It wasn't orginally, and now it should be removed because it implies a religous tone to our goverment, which we supposedly don't have. It's doubtful that it will ever happen under the current president.
I don't believe that I live underneath anything, so "under whatever you believe in" isn't working for me either. I think it's a little ridiculous if anyone thinks that saying "under god" every morning in public schools isn't unconstitutional.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:41 pm: Edit

Why don't we just say "under Canada?". Sure, if you look at map, our country is under Canada!

By Eyesclozedtight (Eyesclozedtight) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:42 pm: Edit

well i started out saying "under whoever you believe in," but i then realized that that still wasn't quite PC enough. so i changed it to "whatever you believe in." i suppose you can believe in nothing.

By Iplayoboe (Iplayoboe) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 09:52 pm: Edit

northwestlover ... awesome.. i like that. we should propose it to congress.

By Peacefulchaos (Peacefulchaos) on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 11:34 pm: Edit

they put under god because of communism....its part of culture

By Bumblebee83 (Bumblebee83) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:50 am: Edit

does that mean it's ok? Just because it's tradition or it's been ingrained into our heads since infancy, is it right?

By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 04:11 am: Edit

Okay, first let me say that I don't say it.
Why?
Well every one has covered the under god part, that's only part of why I don't. I Believe it is self righteous for man to proclaim anything is god's decree(show me where god said, "and one day there will be a nation under me called America").

I also don't like the "one nation" part. I think it's wrong to declare we are the one nation under god. It reminds my of Germany's old pre WWII pledge "one nation above all others."

The last reason, I don't belive in praying to a false idol. The flag is a symbol, or idol, to pledge your allegiance to an false idol is wrong in my book. "you can serve only one master"-some where in the new testament. I forget where.

By Jekyllnhyde10 (Jekyllnhyde10) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 07:29 am: Edit

Consider that this subject has already reached our supreme court by an agnostic father that argued that his daughter shouldn't have to say "under God" in the pledge. The case was dismissed because the courts ruled saying that the father couldn't speak for his child.

Exerpt mentioned prviously

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Because the case was relesed on a technicality and there is no one to stop other students,perhaps from high school, there would really be nothing able to stop the courts if they did come forth.

I personally feel that is dissapointing. Yes, I'm a republican, but unless we make some changes, I believe we'll lose this one

By Originaloog (Originaloog) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 12:11 pm: Edit

I do not recite the Pledge out of religious conviction. I take my pledges very seriously and cannot promise unconditional allegiance to any human institution or action. I do stand and remove my hat out of respet for others however.

By Yackityack (Yackityack) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:27 pm: Edit

"Why don't we just say "under Canada?". Sure, if you look at map, our country is under Canada!"


hahahaha

By Aim78 (Aim78) on Thursday, September 16, 2004 - 06:34 pm: Edit

The idea of it is kinda stupid, unless it's just for elementary school like it was for me. I never knew WHAT I was saying, I just said it. It was a routine, and meant nothing.

By Sixsixty (Sixsixty) on Friday, September 17, 2004 - 06:45 am: Edit

You know I read somewhere there was a court ruling decreeing "so help me God" and "under God" as being merely patriotic phrases, instead of referring to a particular God. You could search for the site by Googling "so help me God".

The problem I have with this is that it is now offensive to the theists, especially to the Christians who're not supposed to call on God's name in vain...

By R_Crumb (R_Crumb) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 12:26 am: Edit

"(show me where god said, "and one day there will be a nation under me called America")."

America was named for Amerigo Vespucci, a Florentine navagator who journeyed to South America and the West Indies, but never anywhere on the North American continent.
The name "America" originally refered to the southern part of the South American continent.
America most accurately describes the Western Hemisphere. http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/immigration0527.php

I don't care for the usage of "under God" and find it a bit tasteless. However, I dont care for the "one nation, indivisible" parts either,
I think this country is too big and full of ideological groups that cant get along enough to live under one roof. If no racism is involved, this country would be best to balkanize into one country for the religious right, one country for people who are opposed to religion etc.
After all, this country started out as an experiment.
And let's leave involvement in the affairs of other countries to the UN.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 02:15 am: Edit

I beleive that the "under god" part of the pledge was made to inspire hope in people. Under god was meant to mean what ever you beleive in. Everyone beleives in something from science to christian science. If it specified any god by name sutch as budda jeasus or shiba i would be outraged. i am definitally not the most religous person, but i am patriotic and i beleive in some triditon. there is one contry that always tries to get rid of religon and it never works(not mentioning name). religon is part of most of our culture and theres no reason to completly demolish it from our country. religon inspires hope in most people and to others it gives them something to complain about. also if u look up the definition for god one definition is "a handsome man". also god could be anything that drives someone to do something. Theres one thing im not shure about though is if the pledge says "under God" or "under god". In my mind it would make a big difference because God implies a supernatural being while god could be anything.

Some of you may think im a religous freak but im not, i dont go to temple, i pro choice, and i dont think religon should play a part in our active government. I just merly beleive that some things in america are triditional and shouldnt be changed, but i also beleive it is american's right to not say it while their reciteing the pledge. Also takeing it out of the pledge would mean we would have to take "In God We Trust" off the money, costing americans millions and millions of dollars to reprint and redistribute the money.

By Taffy (Taffy) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:10 pm: Edit

oh please, dont gimme that bs. we all know what god its refering to. and its meant to say that god is on our side because we are always right. would it break your heart if your money didnt have religion on it? we are already reprinting the money. look at your new pennies, they dont all read "1965" on them. its pretty inexpensive to change a few words on a metal press. im guessing your against the spending and ADVERTISING of the peach-colored $20 bills?

By Squiddd (Squiddd) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Nice Taffy! Good call.

By Northwestlover (Northwestlover) on Friday, September 24, 2004 - 08:49 pm: Edit

hey, wouldn't that be cool if we had our personal god? Everytime we pledge that "under god" statement, that refers to our personal god. And at the same time, you're patriotic too!

It can be anything! Christian god? Excellent! Science God? Sounds cool! The god of heavy metal? rock on! Comedy Central God? very acceptable! Strong Bad? I dunno

Note: I'm not expecting any serious comments that has averse idea of this. Why? Because I'm not serious either!

PS: I still think "under canada" is a clever idea.

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Taffy, what makes you so arrogant as to think you know exactly what they intended when adding "under god" into the pledge?

Also, "one nation, under God" is not intended (IMO) to say we are the nation that God favors and all other nation are under us. It is meant to imply that we as a nation strive to be successful and strong, following whatever beliefs we have.

Whoever said we shouldn't call ourselves "one nation" because we are all very different...that is perhaps the worst thing I have ever heard. What should we say? "A nation divided by unimportant details that make us disagree and will eventually evolve into a weak country"? After Sept11, we all came together no matter what political, racial, religious, ethnic, etc. affiliation we had...that shows that we are truly one nation. I can understand people believing it is unconstitutional to have "under God" in the pledge, but whoever believes we are not one nation is coming across as a derranged radical who is very much a divider and not a uniter...

By Pkpat2000 (Pkpat2000) on Saturday, September 25, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

Benjamin, the unity of the nation doesn't depend on god. In fact, god divides the nation and the world rather than unites. That is why I am an a***ist. Personally, I am offended by the statement "under god" because it goes against my beliefs.

By Baggins (Baggins) on Sunday, September 26, 2004 - 11:56 pm: Edit

I don't think that the people who put "under God" right after "one nation" really thought about it. If you look at the original " the United States of America,one nation, indivisible" There is a totally different meaning. "one nation,indivisible" is defining "the United States of America", and that is what is meant by "under God". It is just one other thing that defines "the United States of America". It is one nation, it is under God, and it is indivisible.

I won't comment on whether it is right to describe the nation in that way.

By Justice (Justice) on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 12:17 am: Edit

"A nation divided by unimportant details that make us disagree and will eventually evolve into a weak country"

LOL. those details most be pretty unimportant to make us into a weak country....

By Benjamin (Benjamin) on Monday, September 27, 2004 - 11:25 am: Edit

Don't you love it when people have nothing better to do than to pick apart every word you say on an internet message board? Wow, congratulations on having no life.

Anyway, since you cannot read correctly, it wasn't the unimportant details that will make us evolve into a weak country, it's our disagreements over them...duh. Get your facts straight if you want to correct someone.

By Justice (Justice) on Tuesday, September 28, 2004 - 05:35 pm: Edit

How can you say that we are not a divided nation when we have two parties nearly 50-50, numerous ideological viewpoints, thousands of special interest groups, tens of thousands of PACs. How can you say we are not divided when 300,000 people protest a political convention. How can you say we are not divided when sectionalist voting has compromised democracy. How can you say that we are not divided when people are spending entire lives to fight for their own vision of America? How can you say that we are not divided when the deeply rooted and marked divisions since our conception still remain--race, class, power, etc?

I pointed out one thing so you would get a sense of your incompetence and I wouldn't have to spend time doing this, but since you insisted: "Under God" is important not because if directly damages people but because it destroys the principles of our country. One could argue that nobody is killed and nobody's hurt from adding "Under God" to the pledge, but that's not relevant: it's about the PRINCIPLE. If we don't fight for principle, what do we fight for? Suing for it might seem like a waste of money, but consider what would happen if more and more religion seeped into our system. Why not just leave that part out when you say the pledge, and everyone can go on about their merry way!..... That's the dumbest statement I've ever seen. By your logic, If I passed a law that added the suffix "WHORE" to your mom's name, well, she could simply cross it out everytime she saw it.

Oh, and to get you back for insulting my reading comprehension...let's just say that most people I know use Vanderbilt as a safety school.

By Socalnick (Socalnick) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 02:03 am: Edit

We are not a devided nation, its not like a republican would ever not allow a democrat into their restaraunt or vice versa. The only time in our nations history we were devided was during the civil war. Justice your problem is is that your a pessimist. You fail to see the the similarities between the two parties which are even more important. For one thing both beleive in the democratic system of gov. and dont want to change it (except for the election system). Also most of our nation beleives that helping others is a good thing to do. Point being is that even though the usa may seem split in two because of party differences, all americans are united behind our dislike of france... I mean love of freedom.

By Jl87d (Jl87d) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 02:27 am: Edit

THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO GOD DAM PARTIES! I WISH PEOPLE WOULD GET THAT THREW THEIR THICK HEADS!

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 03:53 am: Edit

First off, saying that Atheism is a "type of religion" is absurd in the extreme. Religion is by definition, a belief system predicated upon the worship of a supernatural deity or dieties. Arguing that Atheism is a type of religion is like arguing that going nude is, "the wearing of a certain type of clothing". It's like saying darkness is a "type of light".

Also, by Justice's definition, EVERY nation on the planet can be said to be, "divided". However, despite the fact that we in the United States don't come anywhere near approximating the hive mind of "The Borg", we've not been in danger of civil war for well over a century.

"...consider what would happen if more and more religion seeped into our system."

If you were any student of history, Justice, you would see that our nation has never been in LESS danger of "more religion seeping into our system", for it is due to the efforts of people such as yourself, people offended by the mere concept of religion, that "god", in all of His/Her/Its manifestations will be expunged of any mention in any public context. For surly, by intervention through the courts (mandated by the superior logic and intellect of Atheists) we will be all be ushered into a New Age of Enlightenment, if we will but let it!

By Justice (Justice) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 09:41 am: Edit

What are you talking about Valpal? We have a president who wants to institute an unprecedented gay marriage ban amendment for the sake of protecting the sanctity of marriage. The religious right has seen the biggest revival through southern evangelism since the 1800s. Do your own research idiot. What else do I need to say.

Gosh...divided is a relative term. Most countries are divided yes, but the US is more so than most. It's obvious you've never lived in another country so please don't argue this pt. I'm simply saying that we are not united as a people and the perception comes from media indoctrination. What do you know about the American people? You go out on the street and see everyone walking around. You come home and watch politicians talk about the unity of America. You believe it despite what your eyes tell you. Letting people into restaurants is a sign of CIVILITY, not of UNITY. It's clear we're operating with different definitions of unity and I respect that, so ok.

You guys can keep on throwing bad insults, but I have a 5 on US History, US Gov, and Comparative Gov APs and an 800 on the US History SAT II. Maybe my analysis is faulty--you're welcome to say that, but I'm 100% sure that I know more about this than you do.

Nice job imitating my rhetoric style Valpal. Too bad you butcher every single polysyllabic word.

By Valpal (Valpal) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 01:30 pm: Edit

Chill, Justice! Don't let your penchant for hyperole interfere with sound thinking. Presidents, particularly, our current one, can and do talk a lot of smack. The possibility that there will be a constitutional amendment, banning gay marriage, is about as good as the proverbial snowball's chance in hell. Most Americans, even people who have grave reservations about the "morality" of gay marriage (and their numbers are growing smaller and smaller by the minute!), are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of banning it by constitution amendment. But, since you are such a stellar AP Gov scholar, surely, you must already know that it will take far more than a Southern Methodist in the White Hourse to bring such a thing to pass. And as far as the "alarming rise in southern evangelism", what you fail to understand, is that many of it's moral assumptions are the same as those which were held by the majority of Americans for most of America's history. I was born in the stifling fifties (though some would call them, "the idyllic fifties") when Ward, June, Wally, and "The Beave" were the standard bearers of the American Family, when Pre-marital sex, particularly that which resulted in an unwanted pregancy, was considered scandalous, and Homosexuality was assumed in ALL QUARTERS to be a psychological illness, if not an indication of outright moral depravity, when the concept of pluralism in American Society was as repugnant as communism (Am I slaughtering enough polysyllabic words for you here?. What you fail to realize, is that never has America been LESS religious, so much less, in fact, that the "moral" tenets of the religious right, are now widely viewed to be those of the "fringe".

By the way, I would thank you not to call me an idiot. Insults are, last I checked, patently against CC rules. Also, if you would read back through my numerous postings of the past year, you would see that my "rhetoric style" (rhetorical, actually) has never needed the use of your template.

It's strange to me that you would boast about your 5s on the AP Gov and U.S. History exams, Justice (congratulations, by the way!), while ignoring the fact that the Civil Rights and Anti-Vietnam War movements of the sixties, were exponentially more politically polarizing than anything we are experiencing today. I won't even begin to address the incendiary zeitgheist of the American Civil War/Anti-slavery era. But if you want to believe that America is dangerously divided today, be my guest. I'm curious, however: Which countries make your significantly-less-divided-than-America list? And if indeed, we are in grave national peril as a result of our current "divisions", what would you suggest as a possible solution that might pull us back from the brink?

By Michuncle (Michuncle) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 05:25 pm: Edit

After reading this thread, it seems that no one has ever gone back to the original Pledge of Allegiance (1892) for any insight into its meaning.

Francis Bellamy was a Baptist minister in Boston who authored the Pledge. He was also the Chairman of the State Superintendents of Education for the NEA (National Education Association). In 1892, he wrote the Pledge in preparation for the Columbus Day celebration in the public schools. It was this Pledge that was to be recited during a flag raising ceremony.

The Pledge reads as follows:

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'

The (to*) was added in October, 1892 perhaps for stylistic reasons...

For what reason would a Baptist minister fail to mention God in a patriotic pledge? Perhaps for the same reason he was forced to leave his ministry in Boston.

Francis Bellamy was a Christian Socialist, like his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, the writer, who considered himself a Utopian Socialist. Edward Bellamy was the author of Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897). Both cousins believed in a planned economy controlled by the middle classes that would promote political, social and economic equality for all. Edward promoted these ideas through his books and Francis through his sermons. Indeed, Francis originally planned to add the word "equality" to the pledge since he was in favor of women suffrage and rights for the freedmen (slaves). The state superintendents objected to using the word "equality" in the pledge feeling that it was too controversial for the times... And, apparently, Francis was "too controversial" for his flock.

Both cousins believed firmly in the separation of Church and State. Francis, both a Baptist minister and a Freemason, was greatly influenced by the struggle against tax support for Catholic sponsored parochial schools. Each man felt that the State should not mettle in the affairs of religion and that no single religion should have a particular hold over government. Indeed, in 1954, when the Knights of Columbus petitioned Congress to add the words "Under God" to the pledge, the family of Francis Bellamy urged Congress not to do so in keeping with the wishes of the author, their father. The family failed and "Under God" was added to the Pledge, perhaps in keeping with the McCarthy witch hunts against Godless Communists spies and fellow travelers in the government. It's ironic that the author of the Pledge of Allegiance considered himself a Christian Socialist which for Senator McCarthy would have made him a damn Commie...

The word "indivisible" seems to stir up emotions as well. When Francis Bellamy used that word, he was referring to the Civil War. It was a pointed reminder to the Southern States that broke away from the Union...that we were "one nation". Had the pledge been written earlier and made a stipulation for Southern office holders and school children to recite in public ceremonies (as a condition for re-entry into the Union), the near-universal support for the Pledge would be much less... given that the Pledge was the work of a Yankee Abolitionist and Socialist!

When Southern lawmakers stood on the steps of the Capital last year to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, not one understood what the word "indivisible" really meant. Ignorance is truly bliss... After all, "We don't need no stinking state's rights!"

Of course, all of this will prove vexing for the Supreme Court and the Strict Constructionist on the bench. If the words and meanings of the "Founding Fathers" are sacrosanct, how will Francis Bellamy fare?

See the following references:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://pledgeqanda.com/

By Justice (Justice) on Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 06:07 pm: Edit

YES exactly michuncle. Thank you. Indivisible wasn't meant to say that we were or are united as a people. I do believe that the US is quite divided. I'm not making a comparative reference--I'm simply saying that anyone who thinks the US is united since 9/11 needs to open their eyes. I do not think it is that extremely dangerous--in fact, division can be a healthy sign of pluralism, as you mentioned--I just I think to say we are united is to be very wrong about what America is. Every East Asian and Southeast Asian country is less divided than the US. I'm sure there are more but I have not lived in those places.

I'm not qualified to compare the polarization during Vietnam and the polarization now, but I don't see why it's relevant to compare. When millions of people protest the war in Iraq, that looks pretty polarized to me.

Sry for calling you idiot and thanks for the congratulations.

By Whowasthursday (Whowasthursday) on Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Actually, what has been interpreted as "seperation of church and state" was MEANT by the founders to PROTECT church FROM state. I don't have the time and memory to prove it, but it's the truth.

I'm not trying to use this for either side, just throwing it out for what it's worth. And I think some of the things people are trying to do with seperation of church and state definitely amount to an abuse, especially considering the above.

By R_Crumb (R_Crumb) on Sunday, October 03, 2004 - 11:35 pm: Edit

The secession of the Confederate States circa 1860 was wrong because racism and the oppression of a group of people was involved.

Quite frankly, I believe that we should not only split the USA into multiple countries (see earlier message), but in front of that, I believe the real influence should fall under a single worldwide government,
think the EU spread globally, and/or the UN taking over all the Earth's governments.

That way, if a country starts to oppress one or more groups of people or neglect responsible environmental sustainability, the worldwide government can step in.

P.S.
The land that would later become the USA was stolen, most of it during the 19th century.

"America", which means not the USA (Hawaii is in Polynesia) but the Western Hemisphere,
rightfully belongs to the descendents of those who came across the Bering Strait all those thousands of years ago.
(Inventing America)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/invent.html
("What Came to be Called America")
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/1492/america.html
In that regard, the most "American" countries in the world are places like Guatemala, El Salvador, Bolivia, and Peru.

I wouldn't mind seeing the USA go the way of the Roman Empire. I have little of the jingoistic patriotism that characterizes both the right and the left in this country.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sdAgi5lIQLoJ:www.workers.org/ww/2004/immigration0527.php+%22america+is+not+synonymous+with+the+united%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:GcZa_hrSdvcJ:crossroads.georgetown.edu/interroads/mintz1.html+%22america+is+not+synonymous+with+the+united%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

By Melissamelissa (Melissamelissa) on Monday, October 04, 2004 - 05:51 pm: Edit

whoever posted this...what school do u go to?