I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.

- Thomas Jefferson

The first point is that the Amish are regularly made fun of, and even physically abused. There is more testimony of Amish interaction with mainstream society that disagrees with your testimony, that all good citizens accept their strange Amish neighbors without ridicule or abuse and sing kumbaya around the campfire, than their is that supports you. Then the question is why are the Amish so mistreated, as they very often are when the two cultures interact? The reason is that they stand out. They are both different and a minority. This is dangerous. This exposes one to ostracism and persecution, even if not from on high, then behind the teacher's back, and on the playground. Even assuming that a child summons up the willpower to actually stand up (metaphorically; sit down is more accurate) and say that they will not say the pledge, doubtful given the pressure put upon them to do so, regardless of their wishes, the child is still not safe. What it comes down to is that most Americans are fine with the Pledge because it doesn't disagree with their beliefs, and that is all. If it did, they would be incredibly outraged, but as the naturally selfish creatures they (and all humans) are, they do not care about the few disenfranchised.

This is remniscenct, actually, of a story from a biography I once read, about a woman who grew up in British occupied Hong Kong, and attended a British school there. As an American, she did not wish to sing whatever the British anthem was (Isn't it "God Save the Queen"? I think that's correct), and was not forced to- not by the teacher, at any rate. But she was bullied and physically threatened for not doing so by larger kids. It's not hard at all to see that something similar would happen with, say, a Hindu child who did not wish to recite the post-1950s version of the Pledge.

Every group of people who are different is subject to a certain amount of ridicule. Each individule child who is in any different is subject to a certain amount of teasing. It is part of the growing up experience, and without it, it is harder for a kid to understand why tolerance of others is to be valued. When I was a kid, the other kids used to tease me because I had an odd sounding last name. I learned to handle that sort of thing, and I learned to empathize with other kids who were being treated unfairly, or unjustly. It is a part of growing up. However.......

In my experience with the Amish, which is considerable, they have been treated with courtesy and respect.

I think that there are two reasons for that. First, they are a fundamentally respectable people. They pay their bills, they take care of their own (and others), they are seldom seen in welfare offices or in prisons and they do nothing to force their religion on others. About the only negative thing about the Amish is the fact that their horses leave deposits on the road that would make the uninitiated think that the Democratic National Convention had just gone through town.

The second is that we, as students, were taught that to make fun of a person for his religion was a no no. We were expected to be tolerant of the beliefs of others and they were tolerant of ours. So, when they didn't get their pictures taken, or when they wouldn't look into mirrors, or when they came to school dressed differently that we, we didn't give it a second thought.

That was in the 1940's and the 1950's.

Today, young people seem to be so very intolerant of other people's belief's that their parents take school boards to court because the Pledge of alligiance (a completely voluntary pledge) contains the word "god" in it.

Is this where we want to go? Is this what we want to teach our children?

I don't think so--do you?

depends on the version of god...two thousand years ago, he was simply the father of jesus, then after jesus's death, the apostles set forth slandering mary and attempting to spread the "gospel" at that point god became more than a father of their illustrius, and now dead leader, and transcended into a more...general purpose beign...then constantine and his mother discovered the small cult and after several dreams and glorious victories...the roman catholic church is founded...now a the father of a martyr has become a roman godhead for controlling the masses...

things go well, they successfully conquer most of the surrounding area, receiving a significant amount of uprising from the kelts, finally deciding trickery is the best way to get a bunch of warriors under their belt, and then christianity claims a few holidays, a few local gods as saints, and tear down their sacred temples, building their churches and burning anything they couldn't translate with heavy christian symbolism...

then the dark ages, rise of king james, and the bible gets another overhaul...with a more english twist...then we start to see the potential for true damage...

a small group break off and then we have the catholics, lutherans, and i believe protestants form about this time...and then more religious fights...at some point the bible again is altered and then we have the mormons and they're salt lake version of christianity, and the jehovahs who believe jesus has not yet been born...

so yes, i would say god has changed as much as his religion in the last two hundred years...gods are made by the people, regardless of their religion...and as i've stated, people have indeed changed in the last two thousand years...

Well then, you would be wrong!

God has not changed one little bit.

It is only the definition, the concept of God--in the minds of mankind--that has changed.

That statement is obviously, if we assume your version of a God figure, which isn't viable in logical debate.

That statement is obviousely.........what?

"God has not changed one little bit."

That statement is obviously geared towards us accepting your definition of a God figure.

Which, of course, presumes that there is a God, and also seems to infer that we as humans don't really know a damn thing about him...

Not necessarily.

If God exists, then he would not have changed over the years. He is, after all, GOD.

If, on the other hand, God does NOT exist, he COULD not have changed over the years. :pill:

Not necessarily. If God exists, then he would have no reason to change and if he does NOT exist, there is no opportunity for change.


Which, of course, is precisely the case.

my gods have changed, making them my gods...so if he is not your god, how can you say he has not changed?

your god may not have changed...and that would be your opinion...not fact.

if he does not exist, than this is a pointless discussion and they're spending our tax dollars arguing to keep our country udner a non existant entity...which i wouldn't be suprised by such a tactic and the government...if there is not god, than why argue for him, and violate the rights of others who have their own perception of god, or the lack there of?

if he does exist, he's timeless and subjective, and would change as peoples perceptions of him change...unless you know the source of his existance? if he does exist, and has not changed, why is he allowing cities that are more sinful and blasphemous than sodom and gomorah to flourish and prosper, why is his decree no longer eye for an eye, but a turn the other cheek approach, why does he let bad things happen to good people, and why let his spokemen get away with violating the innocence of children?

oh, and on another note...forensic scientist have confirmed his son has changed...from a long haired, fair skinned caucasion to a more...middle eastern and expected look. So if his son can change, why not him?

Your God has changed? How?

I am spending your tax dollars arguing? How?

These are the questions that children ask.

Forensic scientists have ascertained that Jesus was not fair skinned and did not have long hair? How?

That God did change between the beginning of the Bible and now is actually a very popular theological theory.

Well, it's something that logic would have dictated from the start, the forensic scientists and anthropologists are just reminding us of the fact that no man living in the region of Jerusalem millenia ago would have blond hair and blue eyes. In other words, "Duh, he was Jewish."

Doesn't that sound like trying to approach a theological problem from a scientific point of view?

If Jesus was the son of God, as he said he was, what makes an anthropologist think that he could discribe his appearance?

Has he ever dug a skeleton of a God?