Gephardt: God reference in pledge is "appropriate."

[BurtWorm]

Shockingly bold stand!


ttp://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_politics_gephardt1103.htm


Chattanooga, Tenn.: What is your stance on the Pledge of allegiance phrase, "One nation under God?"

-- Concerned Christian

Rep. Richard A Gephardt : I favor the retention of the words "under God." In the House of Representatives we have the words over the Speakers desk "In God We Trust." I think that is an appropriate reference in our Pledge of Allegiance.

[flamingyouth]

1. Gephardt as Dem nominee: "Inappropriate"

n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. You probably wont find a presidental candidate who agrees with you on this

[Snow]

2. While I disagree with the stance strongly,

I would still take the man any day over Bush if he gets the nominations.

[BurtWorm]

3. I would too.

I just wish Dems would stand up for what's right rather than what's politically expedient. (Though I do recognize that some campaign positions are necessarily expedient.)

[Racenut20]

4. Since 1954?

It has been this way. Why the big deal now?

[Walt Starr]

6. Because if you raised the issue in 1954

You went to prison for being a communist.

[Bandit]

7. We got along just fine for two hundred years without it but for last fifty

we have had nothing but problems with it. Why not go back to the way our creators had in mind? Why keep the divisivness in place? Why are conservatives so divisive?

[kath]

39. Ummm, I don't think the Pledge was even written until the 1880's or so.

And I doubt that the Founders would approve of coercing children and others to take a loyalty oath, which is really what the pledge is. Saying the pledge at all creeps me out, but with the "under God" in there it's *really* an abomination...

11. Because

it wasn't that way before.

Because some individual has had the perseverance to take a challenge to court.

[Rose Siding]

5. That's more consistent with his distant past

than with the last decade (til his Bush support on the war)

I had heard about some of his previous right wing positions but just read this article yesterday:

The evolution of Richard Gephardt

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/special/gephardt.nsf/0/DA1ED8BF2C9D33C486256D5A0005DD3C?OpenDocument

[ussliberty]

8. The ACLU is behind this campaign to elimate references to God

This is just one case of many that the ACLU is making in the courts about references to God in our public dialogue. In 2000, the State of Ohio had to sandblast the slogan "With God all things are possible" from state courthouses. Check out the ACLU website for more information.

[ryharrin]

10. And that's why I'm glad I'm a member!

Thanks ACLU! Always standing up for what's right, even when its not popular.

[trotsky]

14. Yes, thanks ACLU!

As a religious minority (atheist) I appreciate their efforts to detangle church and state. We protect EVERYONE'S religious freedoms better when the government is strictly neutral.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. On that note...

can you answer THIS? Pleeeeeease?

How is it that every morning the House of Representatives and the Senate start their sessions with PRAYER? I have asked 4 different people and they all said...."I don't know." Do you know? With separation of church and state, how can they, why do they pray on the floors of congress?

Just curious. Do you or ANYONE know?

[Ficus]

24. from what I understand

(at least this was the way it was when I've worked in our statehouse) I got the impression that almost all legislators believe in God - and do not object to bowing their heads for a minute to start the day.

I'd say that these people are believers and these people ARE actually asking God for guidance in making wise decisions that day - not just pandering for non-atheist votes. I just usually organized my desk during that time.

The US Congress may be different, but I suspect most believe in God, in some form or another.

[BurtWorm]

27. Whether they object or not is not the point!

The point is that the state should not be sanctioning belief in god. It makes it appear as though the state is legitimizing belief in god, and it certainly delegitimizes lack of belief when the state sponsors public prayer and injecting the deity into its mottos and slogans. Why do all legislators have to wait out the daily prayer? Will they ever be given equal time to make a statement about rationalism or humanism or whatever else they need to invoke to do their job?

[Ficus]

42. I agree with you

I was just saying that's why it goes on. No one objects.

Why do all legislators have to wait out the daily prayer? Will they ever be given equal time to make a statement about rationalism or humanism or whatever else they need to invoke to do their job?

Well, every legislator gets the opportunity to have their "prayer of the day." Many invite their local pastor to do this prayer. Most are Christian, some not. Most don't say a "Christian" prayer, but a few do. Some legislators say their own. If someone wanted to take their time to say their thoughts on rationalism or humanism they do have the time. Those who I know don't like the prayer just skip it rather than make a big issue out of it.

The one day I actually enjoyed the "prayer of the day" was when a pastor from my hometown, who was a nader voter too (grrr all you nader haters), got up there and said a prayer that was basically a rebuke of the garbage that the republicans were putting out for legislation this year.

:dem: :dem:

[mumon]

74. Quite simply because religiosity

is REALLY the last refuge of scoundrels.

[jsw_81]

80. Supreme Court said it was okay

In Marsh v. Chambers (1983) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that chaplain-led prayers in legislative bodies were acceptable as long as they weren't mandatory.

[in_cog_ni_to]

148. Thank You...

Now, I know. :) If anyone ever asks me, I can say jsw told me. Thanks again.

I think the ruling sucks! They can pray at their desk. They can pray in the hall. They can pray anywhere they wish. WHY the hell does it have to be on the floor of congress? That is ridiculous.

[elfwitch]

16. another minority member here

Despite the claims of many that the Jews are taking over the world (18 million worldwide less than 1% of the world's population), I have to say that I am glad the ACLU is sticking up for all of us non-Christians. There is no place for religion in government. They need to cut it out entirely.

[Atman]

13. Are you listening to WhattaRush Limbaugh?

That is the line I heard his stand-in spouting last Friday...that the ACLU is now behind every evil in America. That they are decidedly pro-government, and want government in every aspect of American's lives. If the ACLU is "behind" this, I am "behind" the ACLU.

The GOP maligned the word "liberal" to make it dirty, and they've been doing it with the ACLU for years. But lately, I've heard a lot of people spouting a very suspiciously similar message about them being "behind" all sorts of dastardly schemes to actually deprive Americans of their civil rights.

Me smells a GOP talking point.

[mumon]

76. Nah, it's us Buddhists...

The United States was, after all, founded on the Dharma.

Right?

No?

If you disagree, check out the bad karma we're piling up.

[BurtWorm]

123. ...one nation...revolving endlessly among the six realms...

with liberation and dharma for all.

[bread_and_roses]

9. Damn, I hate

having to oppose a guy who'se been a friend to unions, but he is such a panderer.
on edit: was supposed to be a response to original post; though I agree wholeheartedly with #5.

[cavebat2000]

12. That ticks me off

But like many others have said, i'd vote for him over bush anyday!

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. That sucks! n/t

[Larkspur]

19. As a Celtic Pagan, who doesn't believe in Geppy's god,

he just gave me another reason to not vote for him.

I guess I'll have to resume crossing out "In God We Trust" from all my bills with perm black ink.

[elfwitch]

21. Do you really do that?

If so, that is kinda keen.
Small protest, but still cool.

[ErasureAcer]

36. i do it too...

As an agnostic I don't believe or disbelieve in god(s).

So I sure the hell don't "trust god".

Gotta love black markers.

[Book Lover]

55. I do the same, plus

I write in "Atheist Citizen" which will also someday be the name of my punk band. But I do it in pencil, FWIW.

[Az]

61. Been doing it for years

Sometimes when the creative mood strikes we substitute alternate gods, with a favorite being "In Cthulhu We Trust".

[Larkspur]

151. Yes, I've done it in the past

but got kind of busy with the Dean campaign to keep it up.

[robsul82]

20. Dick Gephardt says...

..."A pledge of allegiance without the words 'under God' is a MISERABLE failure. A miserable failure. A MISERABLE FAILURE!"

Later.

RJS

[ForestsBeatBushes]

22. Shockingly bold Gephardt is a pander-bear

but, yeah, it's still ABB

[Scott Lee]

23. And some of you give shit to Howard Dean

What, exactly, is democrat and progressive about Dickless Gephardt?

Someone? Anyone?

[Forkboy]

25. I'm shocked

he always showed such a conviction of beliefs before :eyes:

[quinnox]

26. What's Dean's position on this?

I haven't heard Dean say he would take this off the money. Just curious...

[Forkboy]

28. I get the feeling no candidate has the guts

to touch this with a ten foot pole.Maybe DK....maybe.

[BurtWorm]

30. I think Gephardt had a choice in whether or not to answer the question.

Why would anyone choose to answer the question unless they thought it was important (to pander)?

[Forkboy]

31. I agree

I should have stated that I meant no one will come out against it.

[liberalcapitalist]

29. booooooo

at least he opposes the ten commandments being publicly displayed, though

[KG]

32. anyone expect anything different from

one of the defenders of the status quo?

[livinontheedge]

33. Good for you Dick!!

This issue is making us look like anti-God whackos. I wish ALL democratic candidates would stand up and support God in the pledge of allegiance. Our kids could use a little more God in their life.

[elfwitch]

34. Whose God?

That is the big problem with this whole issue. Whose God do kids need? Do the children of athiests/agnostics need God too? Why do you or anyone else get to decide that? What about my child? The Jewish concept of God is quite different than the Christian concept. A great many Christians mean Jesus when they say God. My child doesn't mean Jesus, he means Adonai or Eloheinu or Ashem, all names for the many aspects of the one god of the Jews. What about Muslim children or Buddhist children, or even Wiccan kids?

It is best to leave this crap out of places where the majority can force such a personal and private issue on the minority.

[Forkboy]

40. Damn that Constitution!

[Scott Lee]

46. Name the "God" he's supporting please

Don't feel bad if you can't or won't, because none of your friends on the right can, either. And that inability frames the best argument against "God" in the pledge.


Gephardt - a democrat that walks and talks like a republican.

[Book Lover]

56. Your kids, maybe

You are not allowed to make that decision for my kids.

[elfwitch]

64. Exactly!

That is all I've been saying.

[Book Lover]

68. And I don't want to force my conculsions on the believers, either

I just wanted to make that point.

Unless we are in science class, of course. No one is allowed to have their own facts.

But I am sure that's another thread...

[Az]

70. You mean the same god that

Killed 42 kids for calling a guy baldy? (2 Kings 23-24)

Or how bout the god that ordered his warriors to disembowel the pregnant women of their enemies? (Hosea 13:16)

Look, sorry to be so harsh but this god that some claim to trust is not all sunshine and rainbows. Remember the rainbow is a sign that he won't slaughter every living thing on the planet again. Think that through for a second.

We The People includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Wiccans, Buddhists, Taoist, Atheists, Humanists, and Jedi. Not all of them trust this god notion. If the We means anything then it better mean We as in We The People. Not we as in we Christians tolerating you nonchristians in our country.

Do not think that we fight god. We fight for We The People. All The People. Not just those we think measure up to some standard we appoint. Its not easy but it is necissary for equality.

[elfwitch]

78. we Christians tolerating you nonchristians

Amen to that! That is about the best put version I have ever heard. It is like every time I hear the America is a Christian nation thing. It makes me angry.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

When does it end?

[Freddie Stubbs]

132. Even Kucinich supports "Under God"

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=77

[Forkboy]

138. And I dont agree with DK on this either

and he's my pick.

[jsw_81]

83. Barf

You've got to be kidding.

[liberalcapitalist]

124. wrong party

I believe the Repugs have the market on theocracy.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. I guarantee you that EVERY ONE OF THE NINE will say so if pressed

The Senate already voted a non-binding resolution in favor of it by a vote of 99-0 right after the Ninth Circuit's ruling.

I hate this, and I am disgusted at my fellow countrymen for their spiritual tyranny, but the fact remains that every one of the 535 members of Congress professes a religion. I don't believe all of them, but I sincerely believe that none would be elected otherwise.

Meanwhile, I hate this language; it's unconstitutional for governmental usage, and it will be used as precedent for further encroachment.

Much as it's primitive, selfish, ugly, and cowing to oppression, we should suck it up--like the issue of gun control, for the moment--and concentrate on fighting the common enemy. (No, that isn't the Judean People's Front, that's the Republican Party.)

[jsw_81]

85. Not true

There are a handful of representatives, including Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) who aren't religious and actually support strict church/state separation. Sadly, they're vastly outnumbered by religionists who seem intent on forcing their brand of mythology/superstition on the rest of us.

[PurityOfEssence]

135. I stand corrected

According to what I could find, there are 7 members of the 535 who profess no affiliation. I couldn't find any more details than that, but would love to find details.

I don't believe there are any who profess atheism or agnosticism, though, which was what I was getting at.

I couldn't find any mention of affiliation on Blumenauer's site, but I do know that some sidestep the issue (or perhaps are sincere in this) by describing themselves as Unitarians.

Yes, there are some in the House who are willing to stand fast on issues of this sort, but none of them is among the nine Democrats running for President. Truly, there's no statewide office (Senator) that could be held without sucking up to the common folly; mercifully, there are districts sprinkled around the country that can support such people.

Do we know for a fact that any of these seven professes a lack of belief, or are they just claiming "non-affiliation"?

Yes, perhaps I am quibbling, but I do so in good faith, having admitted my incorrectness at the top of this post, but this is important.

[Freddie Stubbs]

136. Blumenauer didn't even have the balls to vote against "under God"

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=77

You certainly aren't going to get a serious candidate for President who will take that position.

[Freddie Stubbs]

134. The House has passes a similar measure

Gephardt was absent (big surprise) and Kucinich voted for it.

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=77

[LizW]

145. Well said

Separation of church and state is an extremely important issue, but we have to fight the battle later. If we don't put it aside for now and win the larger fight of defeating Bush*, we won't even get to fight the battle of separation of church & state, it will be lost before it starts. If Bush* should win a second term and pack the SC and other courts with his right-wing nominees, it won't matter. Game over. Same with gun control.

[kath]

I'm so sick of Gephardt and his goddammed pink tutu!

[kath]

37. I'm so sick of Gephardt and his goddammed pink tutu!

[jiacinto]

38. Gephardt respects American values

I don't understand why some people have to be anti-God. It's people like you who make the GOP think that our party is hostile to mainstream values.

[BurtWorm]

41. People like who?

Me? You want we should all be pretending to look the other way when Christians and theists sneak God into official speech?

[jiacinto]

44. Yeah people like you

You focus on the pledge of allegiance and clearly stirve to offend the vast majority of Americans who respect the values of this country.

[BurtWorm]

45. I offend Americans who "respect the values of this country"?!!

If they respect the values of this country, why do they shit all over the First Amendment?!

[jiacinto]

47. The vast majority of the American public supports

the pledge of allegiance. Yet you expect the Democratic Party to alienate them to appease a small minority of athiests and people hostile to religion.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jiacinto]

51. No I won't switch

nt

[Forkboy]

58. oh well...more's the pity.

[jiacinto]

63. Do you want to be the 40% party

Because if you alienate people like me that's what the Democratic Party will be.

[Iverson]

65. Do you want to be the 40% party?

If you leave behind all those who insist upon separation of church and state, then you'll be there for keeps.

[Forkboy]

66. hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I didn't think you had comedic talent as well.

and on edit-as always you toss out any conviction in favor of political expediency.Is there no level you wont stoop to to get a Dem elected?

[BurtWorm]

67. You're alienated if a few Dem atheists point out that inserting God

into an allegiance pledge is a violation of the First Amendment? That would send you over to the Repubs? Do you want prayer in the schools, too? Do you agree with Bush I that atheists can't be good Americans? (I think our defense of the First Amendment suggests we're better at being Ameircans than the average Christian!)

[jiacinto]

69. No I am against forced prayer in school

I just think focusing on the pledge is taking the issue to the extreme and again giving the preception to swing and moderate voters that our party is "hostile" to their values.

[BurtWorm]

71. If a principled stance on the pledge alienates them that much

who the fuck needs 'em?

[jiacinto]

77. We do

Without then we will be only 40% of the vote. The vast majority of voters don't hate religion.

[Forkboy]

82. again with the bs

we dont hate religion.Why is this so difficult for an educated person such as yourself to understand?

Should we conduct a poll to see how the "vast majority" of Dems feel about the seperation of church and state?

If you're not going to swith then stop defending and parroting every damn right-wing talking point that comes down the pike.

[jiacinto]

84. Why do you insist on dragging the issue to the extreme

Why do you insist on running on a platform that insults the vast majority of Americans who aren't athiests?

[Iverson]

88. other way around

Why do you insist that religious neutrality or failure to include it equates to hostility, hatred, etc. when you know that's false?

edited typo

[jiacinto]

91. Because that is how it is perceived

nt

[Iverson]

95. Pandering to a popular lie doesn't make it true.

You must know this.

[jiacinto]

105. Sadly

people aren't interested in the "truth".

[Forkboy]

107. Especially when people like yourself

keep pandering to whats false.

[Iverson]

146. non sequitur

Even if a majority of people are uninterested in truth, that does not relieve the responsibility in us.

[BurtWorm]

112. I'm really curious about what makes you an authority on how the vast

majority of Americans perceive things.

[jiacinto]

115. Look at what happened to Michael Dukakis in 1988

nt

[Forkboy]

117. That's not an answer

[BurtWorm]

119. Yeah? So?

What? What does that have to do with anything? If the Bushists want to demonize an opponent, they don't need any excuse to. They'll do it just because that's what they do. They can demonize love of one's children if they want to. The only way to escape their power of demonization is to be true to one's own principles.

[Forkboy]

120. "be true to one's own principles. "

now dont go confusing the young man Burt.

[jsw_81]

92. Why

Why do you keep trying to ram your silly, primitive myths down the throats of millions of non-religious Americans?

[BurtWorm]

96. Who's talking about running a platform?!

Why are you so intolerant of atheists and agnostics? Why do youwant to make this God in the pledge platform a Democratic issue? Just to fool a mythical 8% of swing-voting religionists into staying put in the Democratic fold?

[Forkboy]

97. Why do you insist on endless pandering

on so many issues?

[BurtWorm]

86. Where are you pulling this 40% figure out of?

And why do you insist that anyone--let alone I--would make this a front-row-center issue? My objection is that Gephardt went out of his way to say something about religion that pissed me off. Now if Gephardt magically won the nomination, do you think he'd have to worry about someone like me who is offended by the stance he did take?

[jiacinto]

89. Because that is roughly what the losers of the 1970s and

the 1980s polled.

[BurtWorm]

98. You mean when atheists like the Revs. McGovern and Carter

were running?

[BurtWorm]

99. Delete

dupe

[BurtWorm]

53. I haven't said a word about how this issue should be dealt with

I think it's interesting that Gephardt chose to answer this question, out of all that were asked him--including mine on why a pro-labor candidate is not considered viable when pro-business candidates are--that he didn't answer. Is this pledge issue worth Gephardt's time? Then why isn't it worth mine?

[Iverson]

57. other way around

You expect the Democratic Party to sacrifice atheists and others who don't want the forcible inclusion of religion into the practice of government in order to appease a voting bloc of fundamentalists.

Also, a graduate education should eliminate any impulse toward discovering truth based upon popular notions. Good grief!

[Forkboy]

60. I tell ya

he doesn't exactly fill me with confidence about our education system.

[elfwitch]

62. not hostility

I am in no way hostile to religion. I AM hostile to anyone who tries directly or passively impose their belief on me. As I said in an earlier post, when most of these pledge types argue for keeping the "God" part in, they are talking about Jesus. I don't worship Jesus. I don't dislike the guy either. Nice Jewish Carpenter got nailed to a tree for saying play nice to everybody is A-OK in my book as a fella to look up to for being a role model and fighter for the weak. But I surely do not believe he is the son of God and that is my right. That is the right of any non-Christian. So when you say God haters, I'm imagining to some degree you mean Jesus. Keep Jesus out of government.

[Book Lover]

103. Ah, the vast majority....

I understood the Founders thought there would be times when the minority would need protection from the majority; thus the first 10 amendments to the Constitution.

Yes, I personally harbor low-level feelings of hostility to organized religions. I freely admit it. Making the European Middle Ages and the modern occult a subject of college-level study did it to me. But in no way do I ever want to suppress your prayers, or your practice, even though I find it distasteful on a personal level. However what is wrong with me saying, in the public sphere, let's not put any of the gods where everyone is forced to participate?

As I have posted elsewhere, I do not expect modern US politicians to take a stand based on principles, as much as I would like them to do so. I do, however, expect their public behavior, conduct, and speech to conform to the US Constitution. That document says that the federal government (and by extention, all state governments) shall not establish a public religion. Establishing as a schoolday practice the chanting of a loyalty oath that includes the statement that our country is under the dominion of the Christain God violates that document. Pray any- and everywhere you want to, please. Just don't do it under the rubric of the government.

[Scott Lee]

50. Federally iconifying YHWH is a "virtue"?

You have some bizarre virtues then. In my country, we draw a line between church and state, and governmentally revere no particular "god" or religion above another.

What country do you live in?

[Iverson]

54. ridiculous

The failure to indoctrinate everyone with the mainstream religious choice is ... brace yourself ... not actual hostility to it! Thus, rather than "striving to offend," those of us who take the Establishment Clause seriously prefer neutrality.

Approve of pandering to intolerance if you must, but at least see it clearly for what it is.

Meanwhile, I will wait for mean old secular fundamentalists to pressure lawmakers for the insertion of math and English instruction into all religious practices.

[elfwitch]

52. nothing to do with God

It has everything to do with force. I could care less if someone believes that Cartman from South Park is God and sacrifices Cheetos to him every day. That is fine. Do whatever you like. The problem is was and always will be that the majority (Christians, or people who believe in a God) are always trying to force their beliefs on others in areas of life it has no business being in. I am Jewish. I am proud of it. I believe in God. If I were working for the federal government or held a public office, my beliefs should have nothing to do with my job. Just because you feel that God should be left out of a secular government doesn't mean you HATE God.

Why do you get to decide what version of God, if any gets to be represented?

[Az]

75. Um, if you could just

Point out where in the constitution that trusting god is deliniated as qualification for being an American Citizen. Or are you in agreement with George H W Bush in that atheists do not deserve to be citizens? Just curious as to who you think We The People are.

[jiacinto]

79. I don't hate athiests

But I do think that dragging out the pledge issue and alienating voters is not the best course of policy.

[Iverson]

81. Do atheists deserve equal rights under the law?

Or do we remove official legal neutrality and encode religious faith into the law of the land?

[jiacinto]

87. Why do you insist on dragging it to the extreme?

I never said athiests didn't have rights. But then again I guess that you would rather lose every election and alienate 75% or more of the electorate to "be right on principle"?

[Iverson]

90. not extreme: just logical

The question wasn't whether atheists have rights, but whether they should have the same rights.

Don't try to change the subject, please.

[jiacinto]

93. You like to play word games

I am not changing the subject, as much as I am showing you what the consequences of adopting an anti-pledge position would be.

Again you go wrong in that you split hairs and focus on whether "something is right or not". Unfortunately, when it comes to the public, you can't reduce it to that.

[Iverson]

100. wrong again

The question of equality of citizenship is germane. Your repeated running away form my question and repeated desire to refocus on me personally is more nearly a game than anything else.

Confront the real issue: should atheists have the same rights under the law as people of religious faith or no?

You still dodge something so basic!

[jiacinto]

102. I do think athiests should have equal rights

I've never said that I didn't believe that.

[Forkboy]

109. Then if you believe that

why dont you have the guts to stand up for it?

[Forkboy]

118. ?

?

This may be a tough question Carlos,but if you can't answer me I hope you can at least answer yourself should you choose to look within instead of out.

[Iverson]

147. next step

If you believe that atheists should be equal in the eyes of the law, then you should probably also believe that encoding religion in the nation's flag is also exclusionary.

The tolerant position is silence on the issue. The intolerant positions encode a set of religious beliefs into the national symbols.

[Forkboy]

106. LMFAO

focus on whether "something is right or not".

It's looking more and more as if "right and wrong" is a foriegn concept to you.

Onwards to victory!!!!

[Az]

108. Dem candidates are often seen as having no principles

So maybe they could do with standing on a few principles for effect.

[Az]

94. So how long should we sit here in the back of the bus?

When something is wrong it is wrong. Agreed we have to keep a sense of tactics but I suspect you will find that the single issue that costs the Dems more elections is the very fact that they can't take their eyes off the polls. They don't stand up for anything.

* and his crew are a bunch of theives and yet they have consistant ratings because they stay on message. They stick to their guns. If the Dems could find the spine to stick to what is right then perhaps they could pull some of those undecided voters who are looking for something to believe in as well as getting the disenfranchised left back in the game.

Why take a stand on the "god" issue? Because its the right thing for this country. Its one of many right things for this country. And if the voters don't see a candidate leading they will see them as a pandering vote chaser which is what they have become.

[DrFunkenstein]

43. You Really Don't Want This To Be An Issue

In the general elections. We have enought to deal with as pro-abortion/pro-gay marriage. I'm willing to let this one slide.

[tlb]

48. I expect Gephardt will be the nominee

His position on the pledge is I am sure sincere, but it is also politically necessary. No serious contender will speak out against God in the pledge.

Imagine the republican commercials. So cut him some slack.

[BurtWorm]

59. As I said elsewhere

he didn't have to asnwer the question. That he chose to answer it says something about him. To some it might say "Defender of the faith." To me it says "panderer."

[JVS]

73. Pandering is what democracy is all about

[Az]

101. And yet leaders are what people vote for

You don't lead by following. This is why the Dems are getting pasted. They don't lead anymore. They have been so cowed by the right they can't even stand up for themself unless there is a crowd all yammering the same thing. Pandering disenchants more voters than anything. It tells them that the candidate has got nothing but his/her carreer on their mind. They want someone to step up and tell them what they are going to do. Not simper and wait for the polls.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

152. I have to say I don't want to be led, I want to be pandered to

I don't look to politicians for leadership. I want politicians to pander to me and do exactly what I want. The less they interject their own feelings, the better.

I want representatives, not rulers.

[jsw_81]

72. I'm not surprised

Gephardt is just pandering to the religious majority in this country because he thinks it will help his floundering campaign. I'd be shocked if *any* presidential candidate didn't support the invisible sky daddy.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

104. This is my 43,321st most important issue

I'd take Gephardt as president over half the field right now.

[Forkboy]

110. whats the first 43,320 issues

:evilgrin:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

116. everything else!

[Forkboy]

121. That's 2 issues short

:D

[Wednesdays]

111. Personally,

I would rather the "under God" phrase be left out. But I would not press the issue. There are far more important things to fight for than two words in a saying that kids under 3rd grade don't even understand, anyway.

[BurtWorm]

113. No doubt. But why did Gephardt think it was important to answer

this question, out of all that were asked him?

[Az]

114. Acknowledging its wrong does not mean fighting to rectify it

There are a host of ills in this country. You fight the fights you can win. But you do not close your eyes to the wrongs that exist. Ghep could have avoided the question or acknowledged that it was wrong but not worth pursuing at this juncture. Instead he sought to move his image even further in line with the right. He actively courted the right. Kinda makes me sick.

[Selwynn]

122. I don't think the founders would have cared at all about the phrase...

..even though it was added to the pledge much later, I don't think the fathers would care about it at all.

The establishment clause was ALWAYS intended to guarantee that the state could not establish one national religion or pass laws against other kinds of religious expression. However, at this time in our history, it really wouldn't have occurred to anyone that a great many people might be "atheists" nor what religion seen by so many as a negative or silly thing as it is today. I don't believe the founders would have found anything wrong with "In God We Trust" or other vestiges of the state that refer to "God"

"Nineteenth-century Americans understood the Constitution to require a separation of church and state only at the institutional level. This meant that constitutionally prohibited establishments of religion were created when the government coerced funding of or participation in a particular denomination or sect. However, it did not require that government or politics be secular. On the contrary, nineteenth-century Americans generally believed that Protestant values formed an important part of the foundation on which society was built."

Now, we may have come a long way since then, or not. But the real issues of the establishment clause are things like Bush's "faith-based" initiative, which is almost guaranteed to support "Christian" faith over other faiths and could not possibly be done fairly -- not whether or not a court build says "God Bless America" or money says "In God we Trust."

The issue of separation of church and state is a complicated thing, but it is clear that the primary intention of the founding fathers was not to expressly make it clear that they were non-religious, or that politics should not be influenced by men and woman with spiritual values - the vast majority of the founding fathers were religious men of some kind. However, the first amendment was designed to protect the rights of individuals to free expression of their religious beliefs without interference of the state. In order words, it main point of the establishment class was to forbid the government from passing laws that would establish one "national religion" over another.

The later interpretations of the wall of separation of church and state have been interpretations that have reflected our increasingly modern and increasingly secular times -- for right or wrong. We interpreted the "wall of separation between church and state" described by Thomas Jefferson in a way that it would not have been understood by the founders according to their own explanations of the establishment clause. But that's not necessarily wrong, times change. But right wing Christian fundamentalists are wrong when they say that it was the founders intentions to exclusively establish Christian religion above all others. At the same time, many who are strongly in favor of church state separation get it wrong when the try to rewrite history to act as though the founding fathers were a bunch of secular atheists who had no intention of letting religious morality affect the political state. That just isn't so. There was a basic assumption of religion at that time in history.

I can't say that I agree with the sentiment of all the quotes I am about to list, but seeing as how they come from some of our greatest national figures of history, I'm going to quote them anyway, to point out that the claim that the founding fathers or great leaders of American history were anti-religious or attempting to establish a state independent of religious principle are just plain wrong..

The first President, George Washington, knew the decision to call for independence from England was momentous. Washington was known as a Christian man. On June 1, 1774, as the colonies were seeking God's will as to whether they should rebel against certain English laws, he wrote in his diary, ". . . went to church and fasted all day." We have today Washington's personal prayer book, 24 pages in his own handwriting. In it he wrote, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." John

Adams was the second President and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. On June 28, 1813, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he said, "The general principles, on which the Fathers (the founders of America) achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite. . . And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects (denominations) were united. . ."
Source for the above: "Donald Lutz, in his book The Origins of the Constitution, says that in analyzing the public writings from 1760 to 1805 of those who founded this country, the Bible was the most often quoted book. "

Justice David Brewer said this:
"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation . . . We find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth . . . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. (1892)

As recently as 1952 Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
"We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."

Even liberal Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, wrote in 1954:
"I believe no one can read the history of our country without realizing that the Good Book and the spirit of the Savior have from the beginning been our guiding geniuses . . . Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia . . . or to the Charter of New England . . . or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay . . . or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut . . . the same objective is present . . . a Christian land governed by Christian principles. I believe the entire Bill of Rights came into being because of the knowledge our forefathers had of the Bible and their belief in it: freedom of belief, of expression, of assembly, of petition, the dignity of the individual, the sanctity of the home, equal justice under law, and the reservation of powers to the people . . . I like to believe we are living today in the spirit of the Christian religion. I like also to believe that as long as we do so, no great harm can come to our country."

Supreme Court justices were certainly not the only political figures who wrote such things either. George Washington wrote a prayer addressed to "O most glorious God, in Jesus Christ" and ended it like this:
. . . "Let me live according to those holy rules which Thou hast this day prescribed in Thy holy word . . . Direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life. Bless, O Lord, all the people of this land."

Washington also said:
"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

John Adams wrote:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with passions unbridled by morality and religion."

"Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

Thomas Jefferson, the man "blamed" for the wall of separation between church and state said:
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
letter objecting to the use of government land for churches, 1803

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?"

"No power over the freedom of religion delegated to the United States by the Constitution."

James Madison:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not on the power of government. . . upon the capacity of each and every one of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

John Quincy Adams:
"The greatest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

"No book in the world deserves to be so unceasingly studied, and so profoundly meditated upon as the Bible."

"Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the Foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first
precepts of Christianity?"

Abraham Lincoln:
"Unless the great God who assisted , shall be with me and aid me, I must fail. But if the same omniscient mind, and Almighty arm, that directed and protected him, shall guide and support me, I shall not fail . . . Let us pray that the God of our fathers may not forsake us now."

Grover Cleveland:
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship."

Teddy Roosevelt:
"In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down-grade."

Woodrow Wilson:
"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture."

Calvin Coolidge, speaking of the founding fathers:
"They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government. They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness . . . Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?"

John F. Kennedy:
"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

Gerald Ford, quoted a speech made by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955:
"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be."


In conclusion - the establishment clause was designed to protect the rights of individuals to free expression of religion, in other words to protect the place of religion. It was not designed to do away with or marginalize the place of religious morality and principles in society. It seems clear that the founding fathers believed that religious principles and morality were essential to a just society, however they did not believe that the state should be given the power or authority of the church, to set up one "national" way of worshiping - they desired and anticipated a religious nation, but they desired that each individual have the protection and freedom to worship in his /her own way.

I think whether the secluar society of today is better or worse, I think that the founders would be extremely mortifed and dissapointed at the attempt to "secluarize" America. Again, I'm not saying its right or wrong, but the founding fathers certainly wouldn't have been for it. I think they would have considered suits to take the world "God" off buildings or even to remove the word "God" that was added to the pledge as pretty silly and possibly bad things.

Sel

[Fleshdancer]

125. Pledge trivia for anyone who's interested...

The pledge was written in 1892 by a man named Francis Bellamy.

Here's the original version:

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

IMO, if we want to honor this tradition, we should use the original version.


edit: spelling

[Selwynn]

126. Frankly I don't think we should be "pleding allegiance" at all, but...

if so I personally prefer this authentic version too.

[elfwitch]

127. I always refused to say it.

But I can tell you that I caught a lot of crap for it. I had quite a few people say really mean stuff to me for abstaining. That kind of pressure is hard to resist.

[dolstein]

128. Damn -- Gephardt just lost the critical atheist vote

Well, I guess you can add a few hundred more votes to Howard Dean's column.

[Forkboy]

129. Somehow your posts suprises me not in the slightest

you sure do like to piss on potential voters.

[Az]

130. Ten Percent

Using the religious count of 90% believing in god (other polls suggest the numbers of atheists are closer to 14% to 20%) that means that 10% of America is atheist. 1 in 10 people are an atheist. Wanna get rid of all the atheists then rip 5 stars off the flag. Cut five States loose. Five States worth of atheists in the United States. Think you can ignore them? Go ahead.

[Forkboy]

131. I'm getting very used to the idea

that most centrist have zero principles and are a cowardly lot in general.Two posters in this thread prove that very well over and over.

[Freddie Stubbs]

137. Even liberals in Congress support "under God"

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=77

Dennis Kucinich, Shelia Jackson-Lee, and Henry Waxman are liberals, not centrists. Are they cowardly? Or are they just representing their constituents?

[Forkboy]

139. Cowardly

on edit-a clarification;On THIS issue those mentioned are being cowardly.I like all three but feel they are dead wrong by not standing up for what is right."Representing their constituents" has become a nice way of saying "playing it safe".

[Freddie Stubbs]

140. Why is it cowardly to support issues that their constituents support?

They are called Representatives for a reason.

[Forkboy]

142. uhhh...because it's wrong

if the people wanted fascism should we have representitives supporting it?

[Freddie Stubbs]

143. That is your opinion

But it is an opinion that is not shared by many Americans, or by the people that they have elected to represent them.

[Forkboy]

144. I'm now approaching

43 hours without sleep.I'm off to rectify that for a few hours before picking up my wife.If you have any responses or questions I'll be glad to pick this up later tonight (after the Patriots game naturally).Just dont want you to think I'm dodging anything.

peace

[BurtWorm]

153. If their constituents supported rounding up Arabs and throwing

them in internment camps, would it be wrong of a representative to vote against it?

If the majority of one's constituents support something unconstitutional, in other words, should the representative support something unconstitutional?

[Forkboy]

154. I'd have to guess the answer would be yes

:shrug:

[elfwitch]

133. percents of who believes what

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm
This site does a rough breakdown of worldwide percentages on how many people follow what faith.

Hopefully the 211 million (4%) figure worldwide will make American athiests feel a little better. At least you are not as lonely as my group (Judaism 18 million <1%)

[markus]

141. Ignorant Majoritarianism is not an American Value

It is a Republican value.

The greatest monument to Ignorant Majoritarianism and to Respecting Other People's Maintream Opinions is in the constitution, where it cites slaves as 3/5s of a person.

The people who are making an issue of the Pledge and In God We Trust wish--in their deepest, darkest hearts--to estalish a state religion in the United States, of their own morbid version of Christianity.

I would see this nation destroyed or torn assunder permanently into the Blue and the Red before I would see them succeed. I think most of the founding fathers of this country would agree.

[Southsideirish]

149. Most cynical and calculating of the bunch. (dup, sorry)

This guy really turns me off and it by some fluke he got the nomination I would really have a terrifically hard time voting for him. I would really have to hold my beak and offer a "mea culpa"
There is nothing that is sacred to him - certainly not his family whom he dredges up for political gain whenever he can - living and dead. Ugh!

[Southsideirish]

150. Most cynical and calculating of the bunch.

This guy really turns me off and it by some fluke he got the nomination I would really have a terrifically hard time voting for him. I would really have to hold my beak and offer a "mea culpa"
There is nothing that is sacred to him - certainly not his family whom he dredges up for political gain whenever he can - living and dead. Ugh!