It wouldn’t be much of a pledge of allegiance if you don’t really mean the words you are saying.

Are you suggesting that people shouldn’t care what they say in a pledge?

Some people have higher morals than that.

For an atheist it’s actually a moral issue. They don’t want to have to pledge to something they don’t genuinely believe, especially when there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State.

To imply that atheists don’t have morals or shouldn't be concerned with making empty pledges is a real insult to atheists.

I think you are arguing just to argue. yes they should be allowed to teach that theory as well. But one person in the entire world talking about a spagetti monster theory isn't a well known theory. You are just being ridiculous now and you have ignored me everytime I have said that a lot of schools don't even say the pledge and they teach as many "theories" as possible. having a vast view point of different things helps people to be more well rounded and gets them thinking

again....then don't say it. I would never ask my son to say it if he didn't believe it and I'm know they schools wouldn't fight me on it because they don't want a law suit

I was referring to "under God" not the pledge as a whole. If you are someone who doesn't care about your own country then I don't have much respect for you. My point was that he can still say the pledge and mean the whole pledge and not believe in God.

Ok I think I have been answering your post's well but I will make it more clear the. I have tried to Google and find a School that does not do the pledge. I have not found one yet. You say your son's dosn't then that is one in the whole nation. When all schools stop it then it will be good.

In the theory area I am trying to show you that science class is not just open to any theory. It is only open to science. It is not something that people take a popularity test on and then decide to put that in the text book. That may happen in history, that may happen in, political science, that may happen in philosophy and english class but not science. Science is hard fact only.

If it was just theroies that many people believed in then we would have to throw in the China one and The India one and the ..... so on and so on. The problem that people that want there own little theory never see is that if they ever succeeded in getting it in. Then every other theory would have to be given a chance.

I know a lot of schools that don't say it anymore. My point is that since we were kids...there have been court cases that give people a leg to stand on if they chose NOT to say it. We are given that freedom.

and no not every theory can be introduced but I think as many as possible should be. even science can't fully agree on things.

I think everyone should have the right to learn and believe what they want. No I don't think everything should be christian. if parents want that then send them to a christian school. but i think as much as possible about the theories from every country should be introduced

Yes now you get it!!!!!

All these ideas from Churchs belong in Religious History class.
Simple easy solution that everyone can agree on

Why don't you think people should pledge their allegiance to the country?
No that is not one. I don't think every school is gonna post online that they do or don't do the pledge. The last time I did the pledge at school was in elementary. They didn't do it in middle school or high school. I do do it in college at my senate meetings, but student government is all done by students so the school doesn't make us, we decide to ourselves.

NO it doesn't belong in only religious history. One of the 6 elements of civilization is Religion. I am currently taking a European history class. Its history until 1500. Religion has a big influence on society and if its not mentioned then you can't grasp what is going on in that society.

I disagree. The pledge is to serve a nation ‘under God’. That’s what the pledge says and if the person doesn’t believe in God then they are being asked to make a pledge they don’t support, and by the constitution they shouldn’t need to support that idea.

I actually believe in God and it still bothers me that it's in the pledge of allegiance? Why? Because I don’t believe that God aligns himself with nations. Clearly the biblical God does, but the God I believe in wouldn’t do that.

So even being a religious person I don’t like to see God used by the government in a pledge to their allegiance. It make it sound like they are assuming that God supports their agendas. I’d rather they just stick to their own business, and let God decide who to support.

When nations get into the business of supporting a God they risk becoming involved in Holy Wars.

Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's

I’m a religious person who believes in God and I still denounce any mention of God being in a pledge of allegiance toward a government. Let men be responsible for their own regimes, and leave religion out of it altogether lest the government becomes the God.

Moreover, if you want to speak of patriotism, I am a child of the universe first, a citizen of my country second. And that’s the way it should be for everyone who is a child of the universe, or a child of “God”.

So let's not have any mention of "God" in government affairs, thank you.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa062602a.htm

again....if you don't want to say the Pledge...then don't

I can't imagine any parent being ok with their children saying something they don't believe in without saying something

You are pledging to the flag and to the republic for which it stands. You are then stating that it is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I mean you cant pledge that its indivisible, you are only stating that it is.

as far as how things began...you could argue until you are blue in the face and it all has to come back to the different theories

example...creation...ok God created but where did God come from

science...ok how did the tiniest frst atom get here.

no one can say how the first things of things got here...therefore theories

but its a bit more specific than that.
the us was founded an the Christian faith.
we came to america because we did not want to be forced to bow to the pope.
the only other belief in practice at that time, in this part of the world was the worship of Christ.
that is why we broke from england...to be Christians.
our founding fathers were predominantly Christian-and those who
weren't, were open to there brothers being so.
we were founded in prayer to the Almighty. we have overcome because of prayer and belief in the Almighty.
the blessing is that that has translated into freedom of religious worship.
but our foundation still stands.

could you give an example please

hey now...I've given examples and I'm still ignored

why are you special??

i was going to "pray" this thread would stay on topic

now thats funny...stay on topic...hahahahaha

isn't this still part of the topic? it's more specific

or am I misunderstanding

Actually its not about ‘things’. They can say how the first atoms got here. Because atoms aren’t really ‘things’ they are patterns in quantum fields.

What they can’t say is what gives rise to quantum fields. However, and this is the really strange part. The quantum fields themselves have no physical existence. That is to say that they are totally undetectable in and of themselves. The only things that can be detected (or sensed) are ripples in the quantum fields. The ripples give rise to the physical reality that we know and love. But the quantum fields themselves are not physical in nature. That is to say that when there is no ripple in a quantum field it is completely undetectable by any means of physical perception or measurement.

This is a bit of a paradox because when no ripples are being manifest, then the underlying substrate has no physicalreality. However, it must at least have a potential reality.

Maybe to put this in better perspective,… When a quantum field is not excited it cannot be detected in any way. However, when it becomes excited it manifests as a physical ripple with definite properties. And the key is that those properties are always consistent (albeit random within constraints). Like tossing dice. Only the dots on the face of the dice can come up but precisely which faces will be revealed is random.

Let me try this again,…

The quantum field is like a pair of dice with no dots on the faces, and no faces. In fact it has no physical form at all that can be directly detected,….. UNTIL,… the dice are rolled (until the quantum field is excited).

THEN, and only then, do the faces of the dice appear with their random (but finitely limited) dot counts.

In other words, when you excite a quantum field you have no idea what will pop out of it, but only certain things can pop out of it. So it’s random, yet constrained and predicable within that randomness.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the quantum fields must have “preexisting” properties (like a pair of dice). Otherwise why would they only produce a limited number of random things when excited (rolled)?

However, the paradox lies in the fact that the quantum field has no physically detectable properties when not being rolled. Unlike the dice, the quantum fields has no physical reality of its own. Only when it becomes excited does it manifest physical properties.

This is where science is today. They are far beyond the ‘atoms’. Atoms don’t even exist. They are nothing more than random fluctuations of the quantum field.

So you may say, “Well, then no one knows what the quantum field is”.

And that’s correct. Some say that it is the quintessence of the Holy Spirit.

Science may very well have traced the origins of physical manifestation to the very interface of the spirit of God. What they are trying to learn now is how that interface works. Currently most theories are suggesting that it will ultimately be impossible to answer that question, at least using current methods of physical investigation. And they may very well be correct. However, there may also be other methods of investigation that can be used to move forward in our quest to understand this true nature of our very own physical existence.

Some religious people say, “STOP! We have no right to probe into the nature of God!!!”

Other people say, “WHAT? We aren’t trying to probe the nature of God, we are probing into the nature of OUR very own existence!!! We have every right to learn as much as we can about our true nature!!!”

And the debate goes on.

I see nothing wrong with learning about our true nature. I think even if our true nature is that of a spiritual essence we have every right (even a responsibility) to investigate it to our full potential. Maybe that’s what the game is all about?

Who knows? Even religious doctrines never say, “Thou shalt not try to discover thy true nature!”.

Where was that ever written?

Disclaimers:
These are rhetorical questions not aimed at anyone.
The information in this post is food for thought.
The content of my posts are random fluctuations of thought.
This post has been a quantum manifestation in the nonexistent void between the separation of Church and State.