[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by Truthiness

I don't care if people pray in school, but it should not be sanctioned by the teacher. I should not feel like I have to pretend I am Christian in a classroom.

I can undertsand that, but when they see a cross in the hallway or something, they always have to make a big deal about it. Zero religious tolerance

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by Truthiness

... I don't think we should have added "under god" to the pledge, but I usually do not say the pledge, because I think it's kind of ridiculous.

"added"?!?! what does that mean?

[Sankarihauta]

Originally Posted by RamboPreacher

"added"?!?! what does that mean?

The word's "under god" were added in 1954.

Edit: I think thats what you were asking.

From wikipedia:

Though the Knights of Columbus tried, they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became somewhat of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.


George MacPherson Docherty by Fred LangAs Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him; while President, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian. Docherty's sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, "A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed Atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the "American way of life". In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words mistakenly thought to be in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. (There is some dispute over the exact wording of the address. The copy Lincoln prepared before the address and one prepared shortly afterwards do not contain the words "under God". A copy made much later does.) According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation "under God". He took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:

Last Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.
Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954). The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Docherty’s sermon was published by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the fateful sermon. On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge.

[Cheap]

Creationism should be taught as a theory for how life came to be, just as evolution is taught (although nowadays it's not just a theory). Even though I'm a Christian and biased, I think all students should be exposed to both sides to make their own choice.

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by Cheap

Creationism should be taught as a theory for how life came to be, just as evolution is taught (although nowadays it's not just a theory). Even though I'm a Christian and biased, I think all students should be exposed to both sides to make their own choice.

But what scientifical evidence can you create that supports the Creationist theory. Most people wish for a seperation of religion and science.

[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

But what scientifical evidence can you create that supports the Creationist theory. Most people wish for a seperation of religion and science.

then why not separate atheism and science? There are evidences that add credibility to each side. I agree with him, If you teach one religion, you should teach all (or at least some general history about them)

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by Tippmann playa

then why not separate atheism and science? There are evidences that add credibility to each side. I agree with him, If you teach one religion, you should teach all (or at least some general history about them)

Atheism isn't a religion?

I learend the general history of religion in... History classes who would have known!!??!

[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

Atheism isn't a religion?

I learend the general history of religion in... History classes who would have known!!??!

its a religious belief so imo i classify it as one

[mynameisjonathon]

How is it a religious belief. You might as well suggest schools not teach biology.

[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

How is it a religious belief. You might as well suggest schools not teach biology.

How is it not? Its a belief that there is no God, no creator.

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by Tippmann playa

How is it not? Its a belief that there is no God, no creator.

If thats all it is then, I don't see evolution as a part of it, so they are seperated..

[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by mynameisjonathon

If thats all it is then, I don't see evolution as a part of it, so they are seperated..

Evolution has to be part of it. Because they dont believe God put us here, they have to believe we got here somehow else

[mynameisjonathon]

Originally Posted by Tippmann playa

Evolution has to be part of it. Because they dont believe God put us here, they have to believe we got here somehow else

Any non-christian belives that god didn't put us here. All their opnions are not represented because theres no scientifical basis for it....

[JcKa]

Originally Posted by Tippmann playa

Evolution has to be part of it. Because they dont believe God put us here, they have to believe we got here somehow else

They don't have to believe anything. It's not like Evolution is the only other scientific theory, and since they don't believe in a "god" they must believe in Evolution. In that line of thought, the millions of Christians that believe in Evolution are Atheists in disguise.

The one thing about Evolution is that it has been mildly consistent, atleast on principles, whereas Creationism's principles are based on isolated pockets throughout the country and the world. After meeting with a creationist preacher in Conn, you would think the people preaching creationism in the Deep South are from a completely different religion.

[Tippmann playa]

Originally Posted by JcKa

They don't have to believe anything. It's not like Evolution is the only other scientific theory, and since they don't believe in a "god" they must believe in Evolution. In that line of thought, the millions of Christians that believe in Evolution are Atheists in disguise.

ok, I guess there not Christians then, whats your point? Im sorry if I made you think hought that evolution was the only theory, it was merely an example

[bambi_slaughter]

evolution = science
creationism = religion

religion should be, and basically already is kept out of schools.

[RamboPreacher]

Originally Posted by bambi_slaughter

evolution = science
creationism = religion

religion should be, and basically already is kept out of schools.

note quite. evolution isn't a science, the study of evolution in various forms is. In my opinion (and has been said before, the dictionary definition includes), the believe in evolution is a religion as well.

[MVPaintballer]

Originally Posted by bambi_slaughter

evolution = science
creationism = religion

Not necessarily. Creationism is more of a philosophy.

[bambi_slaughter]

Originally Posted by MVPaintballer

Not necessarily. Creationism is more of a philosophy.

i disagree.

i have learned about evolution in science class, it mostly consist of science.

creationism is basically a christian belief (if talking from a christian perspective which the majority of the people would be), so i think it would fall under religion.

[GoldEaglev2]

Originally Posted by bambi_slaughter

creationism is basically a christian belief (if talking from a christian perspective which the majority of the people would be), so i think it would fall under religion.

Christian, Jewish, and Islamic to be exact.

[atocckrpb12]

i dont think it will be because all of the people that get pissed when it is done

personally idc, but i think they should make a public religios school and if you want your kids to learn about jesus send em there