of Allegiance. As you may have heard a court ruled today that it is unconsitutional to have the words "under God" in the pledge as they represent state sponsored religious support and maybe religious cohersion of children. Perhaps a lawyer in the "house" might clarify this ruling.
However, this post is not to debate the decision. I have seen children in school recite the pledge of allegiance many times. I'm not sure there is any reaction to those words at all. The other night I was sitting in a hospital room with my ten year old who is very sick. It was sort of quiet on the unit. A pentecostal church group came for a lady down the hall. They all surrounded her bed and prayed. They screamed, fell out on the floor , cried, spoke in tongues, and everything else you can imagine. Sorry, no snakes. As you may know, that is not exactly the religious tradition I come from. And yet, I've got to give it up to these people for knowing what prayer is. For them it is not some stale cracker of diluted thought lowered to the least offensive idea so as to placate everyone.
MY wife said that she considered asking them to pray for our kid if they returned. My only hesitation was that the sheer volume might frighten her. Anyway, this whole experience got me to reflect on the nature prayer as perhaps the "ultimate conversation."
Anyway, I thank you for your prayers however you experience them.
Originally posted by kirksey957When did they rule this? I haven't heard about it. This is a different case from the Michael Newdow one, right?
of Allegiance. As you may have heard a court ruled today that it is unconsitutional to have the words "under God" in the pledge as they represent state sponsored religious support and maybe religious cohersion of children. Perhaps a lawyer in the "house" might clarify this ruling.
However, this post is not to debate the decision. I have seen ch ...[text shortened]... "ultimate conversation."
Anyway, I thank you for your prayers however you experience them.
"Under God" was only added to the Pledge of Allegence during the red scare to seperate us from those "godless commies". It wasn't originally in there to begin with. This is something most of the people supporting keeping it in seem to forget when argueing that we can't change the pledge. Good call by the courts.
Originally posted by rwingettCheck out any news website. Newdow is involved, but he's not representing his child this time. Instead, he is representing three families. Basically, because of the 9th district court of appeal's previous decision (which SCOTUS chose not to decide on its merits), the judge's hands were tied in this case. We'll see how things progress through the appeals. I expect this will get back to SCOTUS pretty quickly. Only this time, SCOTUS will be even less favorable.
When did they rule this? I haven't heard about it. This is a different case from the Michael Newdow one, right?
I respect and believe in what Newdow is doing, but I wish this were not becoming big news again just as Bush is selecting another justice. It just gives him more justification in the eyes of a lot of xtian Americans to nominate a very conservative justice.
Originally posted by kirksey957Amen.
This is something that I think atheist and even some Christian groups can agree on is that prayer is best left to those who have an interest in praying and not to government.
Your sentence is so clear and so simple, and yet so many others just don't get it. Or they do get it, but they choose to ignore it in their attempts to impose their religious veiws upon the rest of us.
