Quote from Optional 777
"Atheists are outside of the American community at large, that is a fact"
..then you next say...
" No one is putting them outside of the community at large,..."
In fact...
you have contradicted yourself.
In fact I have not. No one put them there but themselves, they put themselves there by virtue of their decision not to be part of the mainstream.
No one from the majority make them outsiders when they have a choice of inclusion.
quote from Optional 777
Under God was added in 1950, fact
not fact.
fact:
Under God was added in 1954.
I quotes someone else who said 1950 was the date. Thanks fo the date correction
There is a clear distinction in practicing differences of opinion and the declaring of opinion over others' opinions, in a public and institutionalized declaration.
Atheists are trying to declare their opinion over the theists' opinion by virtue of attempting to change the status quo.
I was not talking of the right to practice differences of opinion. I was talking of the right not to have other's opinions affirmed over anyone else's by public declaration.
Just exactly how is the pledge affirming the opinons of others over another group of opinions?
There are those who do not favor the opinion of how we spend the tax revenue on military, should we stop affirming the military because a minority is against it?
All are equal under that distinction and that is how it should be.
All are equal to their opinion. No one is forced to recite the pledge, nor are they forced to think of God in the way that others do. It is just a word, that has meaning according to what you give to it. The word God does not belong to any church or institution, and the word God can mean many things to many people. Show me where it is writting in any of legal documents what the word God means, or should mean, to those who recite the pledge.
The Pledge is good for everyone when no one's religious opinions are declared within it, whether the religious opinion is that of the majority or minority.
That is your opinion, you are entitled to it, but it is not a fact. Others will argue that the country needs more of God in our declarations.
A free democratic secular society enables the freedom to practice religion and beliefs, not the freedom to include religion and beliefs in the Pledge. That was abuse of the system. The Pledge was fine enough as it stood, before being interfered with by opportunist political religionists.
The word God is secular. People can use the word God with no specific religion in mind.
On the subway walls in London in the 60's you could find the following:
"Clapton is God."
Hardly an affirmation that Clapton was the Creator of the Universe.
If the pledge said "under Natural Law" rather than God, you would not find that offensive, but if people think of natual law when they say God, what is the difference?
You have a hangup on the word God, I don't.
I say again, I would also rail against the words "under no God" if that were to replace the now existing "under God".
Rail away.
I have a suspicion you would too.
Your suspicion is incorrect.
p.s. Thanks for an intelligent debate....they are difficult to come by.
