News Should the Pledge of Allegiance Include Under God?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

Let's take your example a step further: would it be ok for a teacher to lead a reading of teh Bible in class, so long as it wasn't mandatory for kids to participate? And why should students have to choose whether or not to participate? Wouldn't it just be better to leave the religious speech in church, where it belongs?

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

So, now, parents can't raise their children in religious matters without the schools interfering? And, of course, it does really seem that your religious views are the driving force behind your push for teh Constitution to be ignored and subverted.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
In our school we don't have to participate in the pledge if we do not wish, but in the morning there is a time for those who wish to say it.

And those who do not risk scapegoating, and the indoctrination of the nation's youth is in full effect...

I don't think it should be forced, forced patriotism isn't patriotism, it won't do the country any good, but I don't think it should be changed to suit people, just as it shouldn't have been changed in in 1954 to suit their needs. Two wrongs don't make a right, so I think we should leave it, personally.

Who said it's a wrong? Fixing a wrong is a right. The "two wrongs don't make a right" is generally used when referring to retaliation and similar measures. For example, if someone kills your son, it doesn't make it right or fix anything to kill his son. You have completely misused the phrase.

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?
------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

I would say that it is more common, percentage-wise, than a religious person allowing that. When you force children to go to church and recite religious pledges in school, then those children are severely lacking in choice. Nice try to turn it around.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)



Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5! and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely!

Let's sum this up. You say we should continue to deny consititutional rights and full american status to (at least) 1% of the minority because:
1. It was always like this. (It isn't, and this isn't a proper reason)
2. You somehow "know" the other 99% of the population think without even taking a referendum.
3. Atheists are too small a minority.(so you are banking on the irrational mob belief of the rest of the population)

Let's put this in perspective. 1% sounds small, doesn't it? PF has current about 860 members. Let's suppose Greg just arbitarily removed the right to make new posts from 9 of them. That's about 1%. Who cares? Those people don't post often anyways? What if you are one of the 8 people? Well, why should anyone care about you? Minority opinions don't matter, remember...

How many people are these 1%? At least 2.8 Million.
How much taxes do they pay? At least 18 Billion Dollars.
How much do they contribute to national GDP? At least 99 Billion Dollars.
So these people, these millions of people, they are paying billions of dollars into our little theocracy here and in return they are not even considered real citizens? Hell, could we please all go to our nearest government office and have our money back? What do they think we are? Suckers for punishment?

This thread does illustrate an increasing trend to make the convictions of minorities appear as the majority, and you will notice court rulings are making laws of minorities opinions. I say the downfall of democracy is catering to the minorities.

You don't seem to read history. The Downfall of Democracy was always letting the core values of society be overwritten by the whim of the mob. It was always forsaking long term fortunes to pander to momentary feelings. It was always turning the minority into scapegoats, to lose responsibility for your fellow man. It happened in Nazi Germany. It might happen in here.

Americans are a world minority, are they not?

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan

Originally posted by Nicool003_soule
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY. It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it they choose not to so they can be annoying and complain about it. The point is, people that most people want to do it and those that don't do not have to so they should stop trying to ruin something that has become a tradition and is important to many people (me being one of them)

To many people in the now-deceased Aztec civilization, human sacrifice was an important tradition. So that is no excuse.
It is trampling rights because it is divisive and is part of quashing religious freedom. It is not an outright ban on religious freedom, but it does infringe. Also, there is the issue of indoctrination that I have pointed out numerous times.

Hey bud, you could get the names right, it isn't Nicool003_soule

Let me take another position: I SAY CHANGE THE PLEDGE BACK TO ORIGINAL. After giving this thought, unrelated to what you all have said, as you are all insulting and unhelpful due to the slew of insults cast to anybody that has a different point of view, and realized this in fact should be taken back to the original. I decided this not because of the mention of God, that is just a pathetic attempt at an argument, but because, as someone said, it is outdated and doesn't apply anymore. It doesn't seem THAT hard to ignore and not say "under God" during the pledge.

What are you talking about? Court rulings tend to be based on the Constitution. Who is trying to say that the majority is not-christian or in other ways trying to misrepresent a majority?

I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

HUH?

When something is illegal, it is illegal!

Thanks, Zero?

Plus, the point is to be inclusive, isn't it? This is why the Constitution sets the government in a role of official neutrality. That way, we shouldn't even have to discuss this sort of thing.

So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat? What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge? Isn't it the role of the government to listen to the majority and act accordingly? I'm not saying they do, but if they did, the courts would still find it illegal due to a minority raising the issue, and then take it out of the pledge. This is all I was saying...simple enough.

 

[FZ+]

What if the majority wanted "under God" in the pledge?

Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by FZ+
Then the majority have chosen that the nation is no longer in reality "one country", but a nation of special cases. The pledge is hence apparently self-contradictory.

You are right! Wow...I didn't think of it that way, I apoligize to everyone for arguing when I was so wrong

 

[FZ+]

Wow... You mean I actually won an argument!? Thank you, thank you!

 

[kyleb]

odd how so many people forget the "minority rights" clause on our concept of majority rule.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule




So, you think any mention of anything that could possibly be religious should be removed? Wouldn't that also remove this country? Was it not founded on the idea of freedom and that also includes freedom of religion without threat?

Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by Nicool003
That is pitiful. They don't have to even DO IT LIKE I HAVE SAID ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION OR IGNORING EVERY WORD I SAY.

One more post. I'm a glutton for punishment, I guess.

I am paying attention. I'm not ignoring. Your argument doesn't hold water in the real world.

Why?

Here's why:

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/3568704.htm

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=10196

Here's why:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3047

Here's why:

http://www.geocities.com/forkidsake/walker.html

Need me to go on?

It isn't trampleing on their rights because they have the right not to do it

Not doing it opens yourself up to ridicule, discipline, and abuse. Think it doesn't happen? It does. I'm speaking from personal experience here.

Also, the atheist parent of a 5 year old child is the one that pressed these charges. For GOD'S sake she is 5!

First off, she was 8. Second off, it doesn't matter how old she was.

IT IS ILLEGAL

and I do feel bad for the children of strong atheist people because those children don't even have a CHOICE like it is their RIGHT to have one. If a kid decides he wants to habve a religion do you think their atheist parents would say "sure go ahead"? Not likely! [/B]

Most of them, yes, actually. Speaking for myself, I know I wouldn't forbid my child to learn about religion. Most atheists have gone through quite a bit of personal growth to come to their conclusions. I don't see how they could think that their children don't deserve the right to go through that same growth. Religion a personal choice, and not my choice to make. It isn't the government's either.

Nicool, I still like you, but you're looking at this issue through rose colored glasses. Standing out opens you up to ridicule. I feel sorry for Newdow's kid too... just for different reasons. I feel sorry for her because she's nine now and has already received death threats from True Christians^TM

 

[LogicalAtheist]

We're all just witnessing the sickness of current society.

Atheism is NOT a minority in any sense.

When one asks a poll "are you an atheist" the result is low.

But when one asks "are you religious" or "do you believe in a god" you get extremely high results.

Those people who say no to are you religious are indeed atheists.

An a-theist is a NOT THEIST.

The numbvers are very high, and much higher in european countries.

Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

Don't worry atheists, the resolution of an event is always the truth. And thus the world slowly becomes realistic, and thus atheist.

Everyday the atheist population grows. Breed atheists breed!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist


Nicool is a person who has emotionality as a mind. I don't see any realistic thought coming from Nicool.

Cut the personal comments, chum...

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist

Our country was founded by a group of men who were nearly ALL atheist. There were only 4 or less religious founding fathers.

They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.

It was founded on atheist views of a government. and slowly it slips into the slums again.

The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

I'm not making personal attacks. If one feels emotionally hurt by truth, I would only say learn to feel emotional about the truth, and you'll never feel hurt.

I didn't say anything about what the country was founded on. I said who it was founded by.

Originally posted by enigma
They were deists, not atheists.

Athiesm is a lack of a god-belief, not lack of a religion.



The country was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, which isn't atheistic any more than it is theistic. It is completely neutral with regards to the hereafter.

And I'll second Zero's comment. Personal attacks are totally unneccessary.

 

[enigma]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
No, it's like I said. They were atheists.

They claimed so in their own written testimonies.

Really? Which ones?

I'd be very interrested to read those testimonies...

 

[Zero]

It doesn't matter who had what religion. The only thing that matters is that officially, this country is neutral towards religion.

 

[kyle_soule]

Originally posted by Zero
Individuals have rights, the government doesn't. You have the right to your own private expressions of faith. The government has no right to express religious views, even one as simple as saying a higher power exists.

This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

It's like when a station says "the views expressed here are not necessarily the views of the station".

Any person can express their views (meaning under the law). But the organization cannot endorse a particular view over another, again this is under the law.

Bush is a methodist (damn him to hell). But the government isn't thus methodist because he is.

Did you guys know that, those "pamphlets" that were dropped to the people in Iraq we're actually bible quotes and such, written by the leader of the methodist church in USA.

And that bush worked with this leader to specifically design them.

People often don't realize how the present is like the past. Just as other dictators forced systems onto people, bush and this methodist leader attempted to force the methodist church onto the Iraqi people.

Also, the leader of the church took a great deal of his followers over to Iraq once the war was over and all was cleared, to try to conver them. And bush gave millions to build methodist churchs there.

Sick is it not?

Those who think we have a president and not a dictator, learn the past, and make the decisions that were then made to late, NOW, and not when it is again too late!

Either both bush and saddam or presidents, or they are both dictators.

They both were voted on, and more people %-wise wanted saddam than wanted bush.

It's Dictator Bush to you.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
This is where I get confused.

President Bush has the right to express religious views, correct? The Government as a whole of individuals has the right to express religious views. But "the Government" has no rights, correct?

Here's where it gets tricky. Bush is allowed to go to church whenever he likes, believe whatever he wants. However, in his official function as President, he does NOT have to right to claim that his personal views on religion represent the government, or this country.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
separation of religion and government is a fundamental principle of democracy, and for good reason. Organized religion can be very damaging to government, just ask Machivelli.

On the other hand, I believe there are certain people who would use the good intentions of people like Nicool, in order to try to undermine democracy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by kyle_soule
I didn't mention anything of religion. I don't believe "under God" is even religious. When someone exclames "OH MY GOD" are they really making a reference to their God, calling out to them? Same concept. Don't mistake me, I realize "under God" was intended to be a religious reference before, but I don't believe that holds true anymore.

I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I'm glad that you realize that it was added in in a religioius manner. I think (but I'm not sure) that it was Eisenhower who said something like "Now, every child will [something something] the Almighty."

But I find your saying that it is not religious a horrible argument. "Oh, my god" is an exclamation that just comes out. "under god" is not an exclamation. It has premeditation and meaning. If it is not religious, then please tell me what else it could possibly mean, and please convince me that most people take it that way.

If it doesn't mean anything religious, then why is there so much fervor to keep it around? No one has ever included 'by heck' in a patriotic pledge before, to my knowledge!

 

[Dissident Dan]

Good point.

 

[Zero]

So, either it is government-sponsored religious endorsement, which is illegal...or it is the semantic equivalent of 'darn tootin'!', in which case no one should care if it is removed!

 

[kat]

So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
So...how do those who support removing "God" from the pledge of allegiance..in schools, in particular, as well as other places..how do you propose enforcing this? After having said "under God" for centuries..I don't find myself saying it otherwise because someone else dictates I should do so.

Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
Kat, if you have been saying the Pledgfe with 'under God' in it for centuries(since it has only existed in that form for 50 years, and you don't look a single day over 150), you've got bigger problems, don't you?

And how does your personal inconvenience affect what the law says?

Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)


My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
Lol, sorry...now that I've had a cup o' coffee...make that decades! =)


My personal invonvenience is an aside, I doubt that MY anything has a great impact on national policy. However, how a law is implemented has a great impact, and I'm curious how you (and others) see this law enforced? Or is this just a feel good movement?

I say you implement it the way that you would anything else like this. You put out press releases, you hire a PR team, and then...you start throwing teachers out on their butts when they break the law.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Well, I wouldn't say to throw them out on their butts, unless they're belligerent repeat offenders. Otherwise, make the corrective measures something involving a fine and/or probation or suspension.

Well, ok..some leniency at first...like a 6 month probabtion or something.

 

[FZ+]

Er... I don't think you need to punish. Simply change it from all texts. If someone add the words "under God" when they say it themselves, then big deal. Just have whoever leads it or something miss it out. If they don't they are not saying it officially. The whole pledge is mostly symbolic anyways. I don't think they had much trouble when they added it in the first place, so I dare say there won't be too many rebel pledgers hiding out...

 

[Dissident Dan]

With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
With all the stink that people are making about the Newdow thing, many people will probably feel outraged if "under god" is taken out and resort illegalities.

Oh yeah...isn't it wonderful when 'patriots' act like slime for the sake of 'morals'?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

The supreme court ruled that it needed to be removed.

What is the current status of this, anyone know?

 

[kat]

What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Excuse me?
Let me explain something.
America is founded on documents which define this countries parameters.

When a statement (law, consititution) is broken, it defies the rules of our country.

When a person breaks these rules, there are punishments.

Having the phrase "under god" in our governments statement breaks rules set aside earlier.

Earlier rules preside over newer ones.

It needs to be fixed, otherwise our government is breaking the paramaters of our country.

It's not a should or shouldn't or right or wrong.

Surely I wish I could set the government on fire for what they do. Sure I know that it'd serve humanity better if they died.

But it's illogical to fight the under god debate because of what you say should happen, or what you say is right or wrong. That's BS and has no place in reality.

The proper argument is that it breaks the law.

If the government changes the law saw it doesn't break the law so be it. Then it's fine by me on those standards.

Right or wrong is for pansies. Those in power will defy those not in power, it's the nature of power.

lol, excuse me?
Irrelevent of what this country may be "found on" it is most certainly dependant upon case law. It's always good to do your due diligence and look at ramifications, irrelevant of good-bad, right-wrong. Also, legality is usually based upon good-bad, right-wrong, negative-positive, beneficial or detrimental to society bleah bleah etc.
so, save me the speach already and answer my question:

5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

You warranted the speech because of your attitude and lack of well speaking.

Furthermore, if you read your question, it makes no sense in the english language. Restate it so it's a REAL question.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kat
What's the "Newdow" thing?

Fine them? Probation? belligerent repeat offenders?
Lol, have you ever dealt with the teachers union?

so..5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what?

Then you tell those 5 year olds to shut up...you wouldn't allow them to use racial slurs, would you?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You warranted the speech because of your attitude and lack of well speaking.

Furthermore, if you read your question, it makes no sense in the english language. Restate it so it's a REAL question.

LA, you're done for the night...hit the bleachers, ok!

I don't agree with Kat, but it is still a good question, one that needs to be answered.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
LA, you're done for the night...hit the bleachers, ok!

I don't agree with Kat, but it is still a good question, one that needs to be answered.

I absolutely don't understand her question one bit.
Furthermore, it's my duty as a teacher to disallow people to spread falsities to others.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I absolutely don't understand her question one bit.
Furthermore, it's my duty as a teacher to disallow people to spread falsities to others.

You absolutely need to re-read the question...and it isn't a teacher's duty to do any more than teach! This is one good reason for the removal of religious speech from government workers, so no one has to interpret what their job is.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Zero
You absolutely need to re-read the question...and it isn't a teacher's duty to do any more than teach! This is one good reason for the removal of religious speech from government workers, so no one has to interpret what their job is.

Ha? I read it 3 times. It makes no sense.

Don't tell me to re-read it.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Ha? I read it 3 times. It makes no sense.

Don't tell me to re-read it.

Should I tell you to re-learn reading then? YOU ARE DONE HERE!

Go be belligerant somewhere else, ok? In other words, if you have nothing else to contribute here, stop posting here. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

*edited for being off-topic*

 

[LogicalAtheist]

*edited for being off-topic*

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I read it, it makes no sense. It's not a proper sentence...

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what? "

whose atheist child?
what do you mean then what?
then what for who?
Whose kids are these?

Answer these and I'll attempt to speak on your rewritten question.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I read it, it makes no sense. It's not a proper sentence...

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God" because mommy and daddy do..and it makes your atheist child uncomfortable..then what? "

whose atheist child?
what do you mean then what?
then what for who?
Whose kids are these?

Answer these and I'll attempt to speak on your rewritten question.

This isn't an English class, but I guess I can re-write it for you in proper sentences.

"5 year old Johnny and Suzy continue to say "under God", because their parents do. It makes an atheist child uncomfortable. What should the parents of the atheist child do? What should teh teacher and teh school do?"

Does that meet your approval?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

You aren't the one who asked the question. You aren't the one who I want to hear it from. I'll wait till Kat explains as I can see a few versions this question could take.