Eleven parents in the US state of Pennsylvania are taking their local school board to court in an attempt to protect the teaching of evolution.

BBC News

Hmm, that's weird. It only took one parent to have "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegance.

>Hmm, that's weird.
No, it's not only understandable, it's expected. Everybody is a hypersensitive weenie these days. The fall of the human race is entertaining to watch.

There never seems to be enough chlorine in the gene pool.

Hmm, that's weird. It only took one parent to have "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegance.

That person had the billions (dollars that is) of the ACLU behind him, if anyone supports people who are in favour of teaching evolution or keeping a phrase like that they're immediately branded religious fanatics which is bad press...

If the supreme court orders the phrase "under God" out of the pledge, what's next, the phrase "in God we trust"? Now where have I seen that phrase before? Oh yeah...on all of our currency! :eek:

If the supreme court orders the phrase "under God" out of the pledge, what's next, the phrase "in God we trust"? Now where have I seen that phrase before? Oh yeah...on all of our currency! :eek:

Well, the ten commandments were taken out of a court in Alabama(i think) because some guy believed people would be more lenient and moral before judging people.....Not that the ten commandments would suddenly convert someone, but wouldn't you want a moral and lenient person?

The USSC didn't remove the phrase "under God". It was a state court after the USSC had thrown out a similar case for being too idiotic for them to even consider and voided a lower court decision to that effect, telling them to do their homework again.

Actually, it's still being argued, but there is the possibility of some colateral damage if it does.

"Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"

This was taken from the following article.


Excuse me for interrupting this wonderful discussion, but do you mob realise just how silly it looks to the rest of the woeld that you have a 'First amendment' to your Constitution guaranteeing that people be allowed 'free exercise' of their religion, yet expect people to pay allegiance to a particular deity?

And do you realise how illogical it is that you argue and debate about it so much?

Last I checked, saying one thing and doing another was called hypocrisy.

I'd also add that it's really disappointing to see the legal system used to restrict what can be taught in schools. Education should be allowed to introduce people to all strains of understanding. People should be allowed to make their own choices about what to believe.

This is an excerpt fron the Weekly Standard.


The Ninth Circuit's decision was met by sharp criticism when it was announced last year. After all, there were few precedents for such a ruling. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that ceremonial references to God in public places and institutions do not represent an establishment of religion. The Court has never blinked, for example, at the use of Bibles in courtrooms or the phrase "In God We Trust" on our coins or even the singing of "God Bless America" in public places. Yet the Ninth Circuit's ruling, if upheld, would almost certainly be applied to these situations, too; indeed, the plaintiff in the case, Michael Newdow, has argued for precisely such an application.

The point here is that our constitution provides us with the right to take this kind of action, is he right to do this, does it need to be fixed, I honestly don't want to go there because either he hadn't thought this out to its entirety, or he did and doesn't care about the ramifications.

As for the "Scope II" trial, it's sad that in a school system with 3700 students, 11 parents can bring in the American Civil Liberties Union with enough legal talent to force a local court to make an unnecessary precedent that could effect schools nation wide.

Cat, no specific deity is mentioned. That's the crux of the entire argument. If it read "One nation under Jesus Christ", few would argue that such intrudes on separation of church and state.
But the word "God" is a religion-neutral one. While admitting there are deities it doesn't specify which those are supposed to be. So a Hindu can declare this and mean Vishnu, a Zen Budhist can refer it to mean Budha, a Muslim means Allah, and a Christian person whatever he believes in.

People also aren't required to use this wording (or take the pledge at all, it is entirely volluntary), therefore there is no forcing people into religion.

Instead it's an act by an extremely intollerant group intent on changing history to read the USA as being an atheist country ruled by the twin Gods of Marxism/Leninism (it's not surprising the leadership of the ACLU is largely made up of people from the US extreme left including the communist party).

the term "a god" is religion-neutral. The capitalised term "God" when attributed as a name is most certainly religion-specific, whether you lot want to accept the fact or not :D

So what's your point? The term "God" is used. So how does that imply the allegance to a certain diety? If that word is not allowed because people(all liberals like you) think you have to bow down to the framers God, then what makes you think it's right to teach evolution in school?

There were no problems with this stuff many years ago, but now it's just a bunch of liberals exploiting a system to scared to fight back. Liberals who will one day contribute to the fall of a ONCE great nation.

Oh but let's not discuss this. Cat thinks it's illogical(only his views are right).

That's rather petulant isn't it?

My point (the on-topic one) was made a bit further back when I suggested that it was a sad situation to allow courts to dictate educational content. Let's not forget that the topic is about a situation whereby a group of parents have to fight in court for the right to have their children taught about the current state of scientific thought.

My contention, in response to the other matter that's been raised in the topic, is that despite what particular US judges may have ruled the term "God" means, when capitalised and used as a proper noun it refers to the deity of the Old Testament.Correct me if I'm wrong but to my understanding followers of any faith which does not acknowledge the Old Testament do not use the term to refer to a deity. The fact that a judge has deemed that they can do so is irrelevent if it is not already their practice to do so. In that circumstance the ruling is simply another shoddy justification for compulsion. Thus it's not a generic term - it's a specific one. Compel a person to make affirmation in the name of that particular deity, and you are potentially infringing on their freedom of religion. You are potentially compelling them to attest belief in that deity.

If you are a Christian, for example, how would you like to be compelled to make affirmation "In the name of Allah"? You'd be quite offended, I'd imagine. It's not a great leap of intellect to comprehend that someone who is not a believer in the Old Testament "God" will be similarly offended if compelled to pay homage to that particular deity.

The USA was founded by people who followed the Christian faith. So was my own country. The language of documents, oaths and public institutions was originally riddled with terms which reflect that belief. The world is now a much more cosmopolitan place. We no longer live in the world of the 18th and 19th centuries. Where 'Freedom of Religion' once meant the freedom to follow various branches of Christianity it now must necessarily mean much more, and altering terminology to suit that is simply a commonsense thing to do.

Doing so doesn't mean you can no longer use old and valued songs for ceremony - it provides opportunity to add newer ones as well. Doing so doesn't somehow turn a nation into a 'Marxist/Leninist atheistic society'. Changing such terms doesn't compell anyone to change their faith in any way. It simply removes the contradictory meaning. You can't 'fix' the contradiction, as that judge has tried, by trying to retrospectively alter the meaning of words!

Here in Australia we use Bibles in courtrooms also. Anyone who is a believer in that religious work can swear on it. Anyone who does not, on the other hand, has the option of swearing their testimony in the name of the Queen, who happens to be our Head of State. In a country where true religious freedom exists, that choice has to be available. Is there any real NEED to have the words "In God we Trust" on coinage? It wouldn't be a problem to move away from that practice. Coinage gets replaced over a lengthy period of years, so it wouldn't be an expense, just a process of attrition.

No, I can't see that you're facing a 'problem' that threatens to "contribute to the fall of a ONCE great nation". Rather you're facing a conundrum that's holding a 'great Nation' back from moving forward.

The choice is available in the USA as well.
The problem is that communists and atheists want that choice taken away and force religious people to hide the fact that they are in fact religious people.

I had read both of those, and laughed and cried through both of them. If we are going to study inteligent design, should we also look at the possibilty of co-creation and our missing link, ie. aliens? I'm not a proponent of this belief, but it is thought provoking that genetically we have traced our ancestory back to a specific geographic location, but can't find anthropolgical evidence supporting the complete evolution.


That's rather petulant isn't it?

Your impudent comments deserved a rather petulant response.

Anyways, you said there's no real NEED to have "In God we Trust" on the coin, so is there really a NEED to teach evolution in school?

Personally, I think evolution should be taken out, but I don't stoop to the opposing's level of saying it really affects me and all this other crap. The stupid thing is if the coin said "in evolution we believe" there would be no complaining because all the complainers are those of that belief.