NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe not. But your religion has disrespect for ME...in spades, too!

I have been treated like garbage by people who profess to your religion more times than anyone else. Horrible things have been done to me...and justified in the name of your religion, and your God.


Well, i'm sorry that happened to you.....but that has nothing to do with me, or with my religion, that is those ppl's hang ups not, mine or Christianity. What i believe is that Christ preached to love everyone and to treat everyone like you would want to be treated, if some so called "Christians" did something bad to you, then they weren't really Christians.........

Am I really being unreasonable here? i'm stating facts! Christian organizations have been the biggest roadblock to our (GLBT) people obtaining our equality, rights, and happiness.

Your not being unreasonable, you deserve your rights too, your a human being and an American citizen. But getting rid of Christian organizations are the WORST thing you could do for America. YES, i will admit, there are alot of sick, twisted people that do bad things in the name of Christianity and Jesus, but that's not what we are about. For one, my church has a food bank that gives food to needy families, or the church down the street from me gives clothing, food, and all sorts of things for the needy and hurt in our communities, and these are just a couple of examples. Lyric, do u really want to get rid of all the good, just to get rid of some bad? Not all Christians are hipocrites, i know you don't know me, but do i seem like a hippocrite? IF so, tell me....... :confused:

No, you don't seem like a Hypocrite, Destiny...but, then, tell me...WHY don't more of the Christians like you get out there and BEAT DOWN the likes of Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and the rest of those fucking assholes, and tell them to quit using your religion, Christianity, as an excuse for their inhumane, and intolerable, treatment towards others?

Why don't Christians like you stand up and SHOUT DOWN the idiots who claim to speak for Christianity?

I'd think a lot more of christians, if they would stand up for what their religion is SUPPOSED to be about.

There IS a reason I refer to myself as a "Unitarian Christian" in case you were wondering...it's because I don't want anyone to confuse ME with the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps!

Instead of complaining to other people about it, why not do the obvious...

1. Don't say the pledge (if thats your oppinion, im sure it's not hard to resist saying it.)

2. Stop caring. You're Australian, what do you care about America's pledge anyway?


:mp5: :sniper: :mp5:
The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany

damn! :D

Now, it was voted to insert those two words, then it was also voted to keep those two words. Now Athiest don't believe in God of any nature or religion. so why are they afraid of a three letter word?It's not fear, at least not for me, but it is unfair. Again, if these words are used in a pledge which is recited by important members of society, they make god part of the national identity. The how can you feel proud of your country if you honestly think god is an illusion? if their child asks about God then the athiest can explain to them What they think god is or isn't and thus "Educate" their kids. This I think is not the big issue here. I'm sure though these kids will still run into religion somewhere in your country when the under god statement is lost. at the same time, those who are curious can persue the entity known as God on their own. "Freedom of Religion." Some say "Saying Under God" is indoctrination. but isn't removing God, removing the option for people to pursue God outside of school a way of removing Religious Freedoms? No. Banning churches is though.

As for schools etcetera, we here in the Netherlands have a wonderfull system. There are basically two kinds of schools: public and religious schools. You choose where you want to send your kids and you're set. Why does god have to be mentioned to the child ofa convicted atheist, besides for the educational value? I can say Magic, play D&D and read Harry Potter Books, but that doesn't mean I believe in magic. I can play A Cleric in EVERQUEST and that doesn't mean I believe that Tunare exsists.
I have read the bible too, and still don't believe everything it says. However, I would never think it right to add a statement such as "the bible is flawed" to the pledge. I think that would be unwise since it is too political for a national text which defines the national identity.
By removing God from every day life, you are also "Indoctrinating" kids to be Athiests or Agnostics.
Please, hold your horses, I don't want to ban god. I just think it's pretty stupid when a supposedly impartial government states they live in "one nation under God". Yes, religion is political.
And I try to stay out of religous debates, because it's like trying to sell a car on E-bay. you can describe how the car performs, but the best way is to let them experience it themselves and let them make an Informed choice.

not disappointed. I hate Hijacking theads. this is about "Under God." and the pledge, not civil rights.
However, this is a civil rights issue in my eyes. Don't Americans have a right to be treated equal by their government?
except alot of people won't pledge to a person. that is why the pledge states the Republic. Hey, I live in a Kingdom. Our national anthem is one big praise of our first King, so I don't think it's that unlikely that here the pledge of allegiance would mention the King. and they also pledge to a nation to be "Indivisable" with "Liberty" and "Justice for all" Imagine if the pledge was still being said every day. perhaps the Gays would get their rights sooner, maybe hate crimes would be punnished faster. and the Patriot Act might've been different.

who knows. but I digress into fantasy [sigh]
Yeah, maybe it would. Does it say anything about Equality by the way? Is there a place where I can read the thing

Instead of complaining to other people about it, why not do the obvious...

1. Don't say the pledge (if thats your oppinion, im sure it's not hard to resist saying it.)

2. Stop caring. You're Australian, what do you care about America's pledge anyway?


The Armed Republic Of Cruel Tyrany
Although this probably wasn't directed to me, I think I'll respond.

1. It isn't saying it or not saying it that is important here, it is the fact that with the majority saying it, god becomes part of the national identity, which is unequal and excludes everybody with a number of gods other than one.

2. Well, in my case, I am Dutch. However, that does not mean I can't care. Maybe you are so limited that you only care about what directly affects you, but I am happy to see there are more people like me who care about the fate of others regardless of whether they are directly affected by it or not. It's called altruism, which you might look into a little bit deeper.

No, you don't seem like a Hypocrite, Destiny...but, then, tell me...WHY don't more of the Christians like you get out there and BEAT DOWN the likes of Fred Phelps and Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and the rest of those fucking assholes, and tell them to quit using your religion, Christianity, as an excuse for their inhumane, and intolerable, treatment towards others?

Why don't Christians like you stand up and SHOUT DOWN the idiots who claim to speak for Christianity?

I'd think a lot more of christians, if they would stand up for what their religion is SUPPOSED to be about.

There IS a reason I refer to myself as a "Unitarian Christian" in case you were wondering...it's because I don't want anyone to confuse ME with the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps!


Your right, i don't know why more Christians like me don't stand up. I don't because i'm only 16 years old, black, and a woman and nobody is going to listen to me(lol)....but more Christians should stand up for true Christianity, instead of these wackos that hurt ppl in the name of Jesus. That's not right...and i really wish more ppl would stand up, maybe when i get older i'll start standing up......

There IS a reason I refer to myself as a "Unitarian Christian" in case you were wondering...it's because I don't want anyone to confuse ME with the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps!

Dobson! You forgot the focus on the family jackass!

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

#1 Your not an American so what business is it of yours and why would you give a damn what is in our pledge ?

"On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:"

#2 And on behalf of all Christians. Ever think that if we are right and you are wrong, It will be up yours with fire and brimstone stuff :)

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

#3 Australia is that far behind the US as far as the current music craze ? Omg man. Wait for 13 years till you hear what we playing now.. Eminem and such...

There IS a reason I refer to myself as a "Unitarian Christian" in case you were wondering...it's because I don't want anyone to confuse ME with the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and Phelps!
Hmm. Another Unitarian. I was raised Unitarian, but I've never considered myself a Christian... those dudes are just too uptight, all things considered.

The fact that there is any discussion at all about this is, frankly, ridiculous. There should be no debate about whether or not the phrase should remain in the pledge. The answer is that no, it should not remain in the pledge.

The reasoning for this is laughably simple. Students should not be advised to say our nation is "Under God" because our nation is not under God. As is very clearly stated in the Bible, God is located underground, beneath the deserts of Nevada, to be precise.

The fact that so many so-called Christians are fighting to keep this highly untrue and sacrilegious statement in our pledge is very disturbing and indicative of how lax our nation has become towards the reading of the Bible. This is just further support for what I have been saying all along, that instead of teaching meaningless drivel like mathematics and "science" (or, as I call it, "Horrible Lies"), our schools should be enforcing mandatory daily Bible reading.

Another step that should be taken immediately by the U.S. Government is the hunting down and execution of the terrorist leaders known by Muslims as "Allah" and "Muhammed". The quicker their poisonous lies cease to delude our nation's youth, the better.



I don't know what this smiley is meant to represent :gundge:

Your right, i don't know why more Christians like me don't stand up. I don't because i'm only 16 years old, black, and a woman and nobody is going to listen to me(lol)....but more Christians should stand up for true Christianity, instead of these wackos that hurt ppl in the name of Jesus. That's not right...and i really wish more ppl would stand up, maybe when i get older i'll start standing up......

I have to believe it is because the majority of so-called "Christians" are NOT like you...or me. They have bought into the hatred, the prejudice, the bigotry, the discrimination....and they really DO think that God and Jesus endorse such behavior towards their fellow man!

Even though the Gospels and the New Testment quite clearly state that God and Jesus do NOT endorse such behavior!

It's as if these people all want someone they can spit on, and look down on, and treat like garbage. Unfortunately, they have hijacked a good religion to use as cover for their abhorrent activities.

This is why I make the distinction, and refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian.

I started out in this life Roman Catholic...and lost the faith by age fourteen, due to the disparity I saw in the words and the actions, of the church. they didn't square up, you know?

So I spent ten years going between Agnosticism and Athiesm...apathy for and rage against God...and then it hit me that God and Jesus did not endorse this sort of crap that had driven me away. And, slowly, over the next eight years in the Unitarian church, I rebuilt my faith. It hasn't always been easy to hold onto it....but, nevertheless, I recognize now that these so-called Christians are not truly representative of the words of christ...or God. Because the Gospels and the New Testament paint a much different picture of God and Jesus...than is represented by these people who claim to know...and who are using Christianity as a smokescreen to implement a particular political ideology.

I have to believe it is because the majority of so-called "Christians" are NOT like you...or me. They have bought into the hatred, the prejudice, the bigotry, the discrimination....and they really DO think that God and Jesus endorse such behavior towards their fellow man!

Even though the Gospels and the New Testment quite clearly state that God and Jesus do NOT endorse such behavior!

It's as if these people all want someone they can spit on, and look down on, and treat like garbage. Unfortunately, they have hijacked a good religion to use as cover for their abhorrent activities.

This is why I make the distinction, and refer to myself as a Unitarian Christian.

I started out in this life Roman Catholic...and lost the faith by age fourteen, due to the disparity I saw in the words and the actions, of the church. they didn't square up, you know?

So I spent ten years going between Agnosticism and Athiesm...apathy for and rage against God...and then it hit me that God and Jesus did not endorse this sort of crap that had driven me away. And, slowly, over the next eight years in the Unitarian church, I rebuilt my faith. It hasn't always been easy to hold onto it....but, nevertheless, I recognize now that these so-called Christians are not truly representative of the words of christ...or God. Because the Gospels and the New Testament paint a much different picture of God and Jesus...than is represented by these people who claim to know...and who are using Christianity as a smokescreen to implement a particular political ideology.

I disagree, many Christians ARE like you two. It's just that the fanatics and bigots yell louder.

Hmm. Another Unitarian. I was raised Unitarian, but I've never considered myself a Christian... those dudes are just too uptight, all things considered.

But, if you read what REALLY in there...you may come away with a different perspective. I know I did. Being as you are a Unitarian, did you ever read The Jefferson Bible? You know, "The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazareth," by Thomas Jefferson?

That is as close as we come to a sacred text in the UU church, as I'm sure you well know. And it is THAT book that helped me to understand. Because that book took the oldest source documents available...and then Jefferson, a scholar fluent in six languages...attempted to condense the four Gospels into one narrative, eliminating some of the inconsistencies....omitting the miracles entirely...and focused instead on the TEACHINGS of Jesus.

Try reading it sometime. And then you tell me if most modern-day Christians are following the teachings of JESUS.

Yeah...and the fanatics and bigots also get all the press and all the influence, the better to corrupt more minds with their bullshit.

The reasoning for this is laughably simple. Students should not be advised to say our nation is "Under God" because our nation is not under God. As is very clearly stated in the Bible, God is located underground, beneath the deserts of Nevada, to be precise.


Just answer me this man, where in the WORLD did you get that God is underground in Nevada crap, because i don't know what bible your reading, but you got ur facts REALLY messed up.....God is in Heaven, the Devil is located in Hell(which maybe underground beneath the deserts of Nevada(jk) ;) )

and your right Lyric, the bigots are the only ones that get the air time, them and the atheists, so that's who ppl listen to, but it's not how everyone feels. And i know about being around bigots, because i go to an all christian school, and there are some there that feels like me, and then there are some there that can be bigots and think they are "holier-than-thou" but that just the world we live in. American is a very diverse country and so is a HUGE religion like chistianity so diverse.......

On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

"*

On behalf of all God Loving and God Fearing Americans,

God Still loves you despite your not believing in HIM

Note: This is going to be bloody long, as I've been going though the thread. I may seem incoherent and disorginised in my thoughts - but this was done in two sessions, 'kthnxbye.

don’t believe that “under god” violates the First Amendment, because it doesn’t endorse a specific religion.
However, it does specify masculine god .
Also, while 'under God' may not show favoritism to any specific religion, it excludes a lot of religious beliefs as well, such as atheism [obviously] and hinduism [then it would be 'under Gods, all 45 trillion of them'
_____________________________________
answer to the queen thus not having a Dmocracy
Monachy =/= No Democracy.
BUT IT DOES SAY NOT TO WORSHIP IDOLS,by saying this it is ur responsibility to decide what is an idol to u
... Which is exactly what it says not to do, but whatever floats your boat...
second when the founding fathers made our country and broke away from england there were no wiccans,or muslims,or hindus or probably not many athesits there.
How about the Irish slaves that were brought over, hm? And though the name 'wicca' may not have been in use back then, the faith most clearly was/is.
___________________________________
Yeah, not to mention the problems you would get from christian staff in your school. In some schools they might even make you do councelling because being seen as not christian is very.... unpatriotic
Hm... *flashbacks*
_____________________________________
well it's not true in every school, but taken it out would take away the freedom of speech for christians who want to say it. Besides, are there really people watching to see if you close your mouth during "One Nation, Under God" while all the other classmates are saying it. You could cough, get creative if it hurts you SO much to say it.
So your so-called 'free' country is just like a Catholic Girls School? That's just great...
_____________________________________
Do yall hate that too? Easter? I'm curious
Er... You do know the original version of 'Easter', right? O_o
_______________________________________________
Also... let's be honest. How many of us knew we didn't have to say the pledge in 1st grade? I sure as hell didn't. I went on beleiving I had to say that damned oath for 5 years before I found out I didn't have to.
^Needed to be quoted.
__________________________________________________
didn't even know Texas had it's own pledge!!

It goes like this:

Honor the Texas flag
I pledge alliegiance to thee,
Texas, one and indivisible.
I didn't know that! ^_^ Though, Texas is big enough to be it's own country, right?
__________________________________________________
No. All religions, even the polythiestic religions have an ultimate supreme being that is over the many gods that they have.
Mine sure dosn't...
__________________________________________________-
They take 3 pagan girls from England and force them to live in a convent.
That happens all over the place... *was in a convent*
___________________________________________________-

"Under god" could refer to any monotheistic religion. We norse worshippers want it changed to "One nation under god(s). ALL HAIL ODIN!!
I'll go for that too! ^_^

_______________________________________________
what is there to be "split down the middle" about?? Either you support equal rights for ALL PEOPLE or you don't. It is as simple as that. no fence-sitting on this issue. These are REAL PEOPLE...whose VERY REAL LIVES are being jacked around with by intolerant fools. and I am NOT about to pay homage to the very thing (GOD) that is named as an excuse to oppress us!!
Hey, hey, calm please. Folk have the right to sit on the fence, is included in 'equal rights for all people'.



IMO, the 'under' as well as the 'God' is unconstitutional, and a little worrying. After all, Satanists believe themselves to be gods - so if it was changed to 'under gods' that means that your country is under anyone who believes themselves to be a god.

Blah.

I didn't know that! ^_^ Though, Texas is big enough to be it's own country, right?

Duh, Texas used to be it's own country......


but that's off subject, ne wayz, I completely agree with OU_Sooners, God still loves you even though u don't believe in him and your trying to get rid of him.(Oh and BOOMER SOONERS!!!, although, that is also off subject :p )

I'm an atheist in America, and the right-wing nutjobs can pledge their allegiance under god all they want, I don't care. It's when they try to force it on others that I have a problem. Throughout school, I never once stood up during the pledge. One year in high school, I served detention every day after school because of it. The public school system can be downright hostile if you fail to conform, let alone the peer pressure forced upon kids with beliefs in the minority. It's sickening.

I'm an atheist in America, and the right-wing nutjobs can pledge their allegiance under god all they want, I don't care. It's when they try to force it on others that I have a problem. Throughout school, I never once stood up during the pledge. One year in high school, I served detention every day after school because of it. The public school system can be downright hostile if you fail to conform, let alone the peer pressure forced upon kids with beliefs in the minority. It's sickening.

They weren't forcing you to worship God, because that's not what the pledge is about, it's about respect for your country, and the people that fought so we could have some semblance of freedom. America is not perfect, far from it actually, but it's better than a lot of other countries, Zanto, if u think it's bad here, go over to a country where your FORCED(guns and all) to commit to a certain Relgion(like most Muslim countries)And, i've mentioned this before, close ur mouth on the one nation under God part if it messes with you SO much....

Duh, Texas used to be it's own country......


but that's off subject, ne wayz, I completely agree with OU_Sooners, God still loves you even though u don't believe in him and your trying to get rid of him.(Oh and BOOMER SOONERS!!!, although, that is also off subject :p )

Well, if we're gonna go there, I gotta get mine in. sorry, folks, I'm a LONGHORN fan, and I say OU SUCKS!!

I lived in Austin for nine years and I BLEED burnt orange! Bevo gonna kick yo ass this year!!

Personally I'm not Christian but I like the pledge
God is in the end whatever religion you believe in and if you don't believe in a religion think of god as the government ;)
To me the pledge isn't a cunning way of converting people its just a small pledge and hope that americans say hoping that America will always be like this

The pledge should definatly not have "Under god" in it because the pledge represents our country, and when our goverment goes around talking like a thoecracy it makes us sound like one.
Even if most of the population is Christain, we shouldn't ignore the minority (and it might not be a minority for long) because the other part of the pledge says "with liberty and justice for all", and that's pure contradiction.


Throughout school, I never once stood up during the pledge. One year in high school, I served detention every day after school because of it.

Ditto. (Not really, I didn't get detention, but I never say the "Under god" part.)

Personally I'm not Christian but I like the pledge
God is in the end whatever religion you believe in and if you don't believe in a religion think of god as the government ;)
To me the pledge isn't a cunning way of converting people its just a small pledge and hope that americans say hoping that America will always be like this

Small minded, culturally backward, isolated and semi-theocratic? :P

Ditto.

One guy I knew got three days of in-school suspension for refusing to say the "Under God" part of the pledge.

I never said it, either...I just didn't get caught, because I always made sure my lips were moving during that part...they just didn't move to "Under God."

I might add that, during those years, I was very much the Athiest/Agnostic...I wavered between the two for about ten years, from age 14 to 24.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in. Democrats suck up to Christians? Tell that one to the ACLU. If the dems do any ass kissing, its only because they saw what happened in 04. They are playing politics, trying to get back into power... They hold no ideology while pandering for votes.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours: Demands what? Congress shall make no law endorsing a state religion. Basically thats what it sez, in laymens terms for individuals like you.

Where does it say freedom FROM religion? Wait a sec, where does it say freedom of/from religion at all? Its not in the Constitution.

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang: Who said it was? The US constitution does acknowledge there is a God, read it.

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Who said they all were? Lets not try to make things up just so we can prove it wrong. Not fooling anyone.

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

ew... would not want to touch you, liberals carry diseases...
Is Australia that far behind where MC Hammer is still on the radio? That was like late 80s early 90s wasn't it? Oh I get it... You must have had a really liberal leader in your useless country... Kinda like how all the libs here still live either in the 60s or the 90s under Bill "Define is" Clinton.

Who said it was? The US constitution does acknowledge there is a God, read it.

But that was over 200 years ago. Times have changed, and the constitution was built to accept and embrace change.

ew... would not want to touch you, liberals carry diseases...

HOW DARE YOU!!!! You know who else talked about poeple of different viewpoints carrying disease? HITLER!!!!!
*What an asshole*

Who said it was? The US constitution does acknowledge there is a God, read it.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.
Wierdos since your all going to be debating about this I'm actually going to be smart about it
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article. I.
Section 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. (See Note 2) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

Clause 4: When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Clause 2: Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. (See Note 4)

Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

Clause 5: The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.
Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Clause 2: The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, (See Note 5) unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.
Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Clause 3: Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Clause 4: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section. 6.
Clause 1: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. (See Note 6) They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, beprivileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Clause 2: No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section. 7.
Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 9.
Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Clause 2: The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Clause 3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Note 7)

Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Clause 6: No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section. 10.
Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.
Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Clause 6: In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, (See Note 9) the Same shall devolve on the VicePresident, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Clause 7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Clause 3: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Clause 2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. (See Note 11)

Section. 3.
Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article. VI.
Clause 1: All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
I assume you mean that.


You do realize that "Year of our Lord" is longhand for AD, right? That has to be the stupidest argument that I've ever heard...

Who said it was? The US constitution does acknowledge there is a God, read it.
No it doesn't.

There I was in high dudgeon ready to respond about snot-nosed originalists who insist on the exact language appearing in the Constitution in regard to separation of church and state, yet oh so lax about their language requirements when looking for God in the same document. But your short and sweet response is so much more economical. :D

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine." George Washington

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Thomas Jefferson

"I do do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church." Thomas Paine

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." Thomas Jefferson

"The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." Abraham Lincoln

They weren't forcing you to worship God, because that's not what the pledge is about, it's about respect for your country, and the people that fought so we could have some semblance of freedom. America is not perfect, far from it actually, but it's better than a lot of other countries, Zanto, if u think it's bad here, go over to a country where your FORCED(guns and all) to commit to a certain Relgion(like most Muslim countries)And, i've mentioned this before, close ur mouth on the one nation under God part if it messes with you SO much....

I realize that standing up during the Pledge is about respect for my country. However, by including 'one nation under God' it is essentially disrespecting those who do not believe in Monotheism, or gods in general. Therefore, I will not acknowledge what does not respect me. There are greater things that you can do to show appreciation for the brave people who fought for our freedom without adhering to the Pledge. Lastly, a greater evil does not justify a lesser evil. If someone brutally stomps a puppy into the ground, it does not make kicking that puppy in the face any less malicious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zexaland
And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE.




Yeah, but I'm not entirely sure any of were atheists either. As far as I know, pretty much all of them belonged to some denomination of Christian church.


While it is true that no evidence indicates we ever had an atheist president in the United States, we have had many presidents that we think were not Christian. Many early presidents such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison are believed to have been raised Protestant but became Deists. Deism is the belief that a "god" is responsible for the first cause that started creating the universe but does not act within the universe and that all things are uncovered via reasoning and science, not divine revelation, which of course goes against everything Christianity and basically all major world religions are founded upon. Wikipedia provides a good list of the religious affiliations of the various presidents of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations

I realize that standing up during the Pledge is about respect for my country. However, by including 'one nation under God' it is essentially disrespecting those who do not believe in Monotheism, or gods in general. Therefore, I will not acknowledge what does not respect me. There are greater things that you can do to show appreciation for the brave people who fought for our freedom without adhering to the Pledge. Lastly, a greater evil does not justify a lesser evil. If someone brutally stomps a puppy into the ground, it does not make kicking that puppy in the face any less malicious.

well, u make a good point, but i will continue to point out that Monotheism and more than one god worshipers make up a very small percentage of the population, you take "Under God" out and your going to have a very large percentage(82% to be exact) upset, which do u think is smarter? Majority on your case, or small percentage upset. Another thing is, most of people from ages 60(or higher) to babies(0), don't even remember when "Under God" wasn't in the pledge so you would have people around you saying it anywayz, I'm sorry for you, you live in a society full of theists......you have to deal....It's not even practical to make EVERYONE happy....Yall got prayer out of school, what do ya want next?

well, u make a good point, but i will continue to point out that Monotheism and more than one god worshipers make up a very small percentage of the population, you take "Under God" out and your going to have a very large percentage(82% to be exact) upset, which do u think is smarter? Majority on your case, or small percentage upset. Another thing is, most of people from ages 60(or higher) to babies(0), don't even remember when "Under God" wasn't in the pledge so you would have people around you saying it anywayz, I'm sorry for you, you live in a society full of theists......you have to deal....It's not even practical to make EVERYONE happy....Yall got prayer out of school, what do ya want next?A little side note for all you who seem to flout the intentions of our founding fathers. One of the reasons they put so many checks and balances in their framework for this country was to prevent "tyranny of the majority". In other words just because a majority believes one way, you can't walk on the rights of the minority.

Even if your numbers (82%) are correct, your still disregarding the will and rights of almost one in five americans, not an insignificant number and exactly what our founders were trying to prevent.

well, u make a good point, but i will continue to point out that Monotheism and more than one god worshipers make up a very small percentage of the population, you take "Under God" out and your going to have a very large percentage(82% to be exact) upset, which do u think is smarter? Majority on your case, or small percentage upset. Another thing is, most of people from ages 60(or higher) to babies(0), don't even remember when "Under God" wasn't in the pledge so you would have people around you saying it anywayz, I'm sorry for you, you live in a society full of theists......you have to deal....It's not even practical to make EVERYONE happy....Yall got prayer out of school, what do ya want next?
Ever taken a gander at the first amendment? Our country isn't ruled by the majority. .

well, u make a good point, but i will continue to point out that Monotheism and more than one god worshipers make up a very small percentage of the population, you take "Under God" out and your going to have a very large percentage(82% to be exact) upset, which do u think is smarter? Majority on your case, or small percentage upset. Another thing is, most of people from ages 60(or higher) to babies(0), don't even remember when "Under God" wasn't in the pledge so you would have people around you saying it anywayz, I'm sorry for you, you live in a society full of theists......you have to deal....It's not even practical to make EVERYONE happy....Yall got prayer out of school, what do ya want next?

how about the ability to pledge alliegiance to our flag, and our country, without ANY MAN'S GOD being involved, whatsoever.

Under God is a stain on our past, anyway, if you ask me, since it is a direct carryover, and reminder of, McCarthyism.

You wanna go back to McCarthyism? If so, please pick a different country to do it in, thanks.

A little side note for all you who seem to flout the intentions of our founding fathers. One of the reasons they put so many checks and balances in their framework for this country was to prevent "tyranny of the majority". In other words just because a majority believes one way, you can't walk on the rights of the minority.

Even if your numbers (82%) are correct, your still disregarding the will and rights of almost one in five americans, not an insignificant number and exactly what our founders were trying to prevent.

but they don't care about the one in five, after all, they are just heathens. They are haters of God, apple pie, mom and America, didn't you know that?

Seriously, I'm sick of these reactionaries who think this country would be well-served going back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

but they don't care about the one in five, after all, they are just heathens. They are haters of God, apple pie, mom and America, didn't you know that?

Seriously, I'm sick of these reactionaries who think this country would be well-served going back to the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

that is NOT what i meant at all, and i know ALL about the minority having a voice to, i happen to be part of a very popular minority group(Blacks) but that is completely different from what we are disscussing here. The main point here is "Under God" is in the pledge like it or not. I don't see it being changed anytime soon......

that is NOT what i meant at all, and i know ALL about the minority having a voice to, i happen to be part of a very popular minority group(Blacks) but that is completely different from what we are disscussing here. The main point here is "Under God" is in the pledge like it or not. I don't see it being changed anytime soon......

It should be changed, because is is Un-fucking-Constitutional, a direct violation of The Establishment Clause! And too fucking bad if 82 percent of the people are pissed off. the constitution should be followed as rigidly when it is inconvenient to the majority...as it is when it is inconvenient to the MINORITY.

And I know YOU, personally, didn't mean that. I meant that most of the 82 percent doesn't give a shit about the one in five Americans, because those are just heathens, anyway. We are too fast becoming a society that is perfectly willing to ignore the constitution and founding documents, whenever it is convenient to "popular opinion" at the time...and we are fast becoming a society that favors ramrodding and running roughshod over the rights of minorities, and we are fast becoming a society that is perfectly comfortable taking away OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.

that was my point.

I understand your point, and i'm not saying the majority is MORE important than the minority, but what about that 82 percent who think it should stay in the pledge? They matter too, what i think they should do is, leave it in there, but don't make the pledge itself so "mandatory" if it's going to tick so many people off, this reminds me of back in the pre-civil war era when the tension was increased between the North and South(what i'm studying in American History) There are just some issues that somebody is going to be mad about whatever the outcome, like abortion, the enviroment, gas prices, and this......my point is, what I believe is the smarter thing, maybe not nessecarily the right thing, but the SMARTER THING, is NOT to tick off the side with the most following,(if u try to bring up about Civil Rights, i can explain to you how that is different from this) MAYBE there is a happy medium we can reach...somehow, but taking it out is not it, and obviously NOW, leaving it in is not either......

I understand your point, and i'm not saying the majority is MORE important than the minority, but what about that 82 percent who think it should stay in the pledge? They matter too, what i think they should do is, leave it in there, but don't make the pledge itself so "mandatory" if it's going to tick so many people off, this reminds me of back in the pre-civil war era when the tension was increased between the North and South(what i'm studying in American History) There are just some issues that somebody is going to be mad about whatever the outcome, like abortion, the enviroment, gas prices, and this......my point is, what I believe is the smarter thing, maybe not nessecarily the right thing, but the SMARTER THING, is NOT to tick off the side with the most following,(if u try to bring up about Civil Rights, i can explain to you how that is different from this) MAYBE there is a happy medium we can reach...somehow, but taking it out is not it, and obviously NOW, leaving it in is not either......

Meh. I prefer to abide by the Constitution and protect fundamental liberties. As the Supreme Court has explained:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

West Viriginia Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

I understand your point, and i'm not saying the majority is MORE important than the minority, but what about that 82 percent who think it should stay in the pledge? They matter too, what i think they should do is, leave it in there, but don't make the pledge itself so "mandatory" if it's going to tick so many people off, this reminds me of back in the pre-civil war era when the tension was increased between the North and South(what i'm studying in American History) There are just some issues that somebody is going to be mad about whatever the outcome, like abortion, the enviroment, gas prices, and this......my point is, what I believe is the smarter thing, maybe not nessecarily the right thing, but the SMARTER THING, is NOT to tick off the side with the most following,(if u try to bring up about Civil Rights, i can explain to you how that is different from this) MAYBE there is a happy medium we can reach...somehow, but taking it out is not it, and obviously NOW, leaving it in is not either......

then how about taking it OFFICIALLY out of the Pledge, thus keeping with the Constitution, and the Establishment Clauise....and allowing those who wish to add it, to do so, of their own free will....and not making those who DON'T want it there say it?

Just insert an extra-long pause between "one nation" and "indivisible" and allowing people the option of adding, or not adding, as they wish?

So our Pledge would then OFFICIALLY be

"One nation..........indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

this would be in line with the Constitution. It would afford those who wanted to add it, to add it...and not force those who DON'T want to say it into saying it.

So many issues in this country are like standing between two seven-year olds with one ice-cream cone. No matter WHAT you do, you are going to piss off some people. some people are not going to be happy with what you finally decide. so how about at least doing something to bring the Pledge back into line with the constitution....and afford those who want to add whetever they want to it....to add it, of their own free will. Isn't THAT what this country was supposed to be about?

then how about taking it OFFICIALLY out of the Pledge, thus keeping with the Constitution, and the Establishment Clauise....and allowing those who wish to add it, to do so, of their own free will....and not making those who DON'T want it there say it?

Just insert an extra-long pause between "one nation" and "indivisible" and allowing people the option of adding, or not adding, as they wish?

So our Pledge would then OFFICIALLY be

"One nation..........indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

this would be in line with the Constitution. It would afford those who wanted to add it, to add it...and not force those who DON'T want to say it into saying it.

So many issues in this country are like standing between two seven-year olds with one ice-cream cone. No matter WHAT you do, you are going to piss off some people. some people are not going to be happy with what you finally decide. so how about at least doing something to bring the Pledge back into line with the constitution....and afford those who want to add whetever they want to it....to add it, of their own free will. Isn't THAT what this country was supposed to be about?
Agreed. 100%

Since, as you say, you can add an extra long pause, then those that don't want to say the words "Under God" can take their freedom and choose not to say those two words. thus, everyone's happy.

and for your analogy of two 7 year olds isn't quite right. for the split between those who want "Under God" in the pledge and those who want it out is not an even split.

Agreed. 100%

Since, as you say, you can add an extra long pause, then those that don't want to say the words "Under God" can take their freedom and choose not to say those two words. thus, everyone's happy.

and for your analogy of two 7 year olds isn't quite right. for the split between those who want "Under God" in the pledge and those who want it out is not an even split.

I didn't mean for it to be a literal analogy...I only wanted to point out that this...like so many issues...has a lot of people who are emotionally charged, on both sides, on this issue...and no matter WHAT you do, you're going to piss off SOMEONE. (Or actually, some GROUP.)

So why not make the Pledge adhere to the Constitution, and insert the long pause? That would still be in keeping with the constitution....and those who want to bring back the good old days of McCarthyism would be welcome to do so...the rest of us would not have to. That is the only viable solution I see that would satisfy MOST people. Anyone pissed off with THAT solution would be pissed off only because they couldn't force their way on everyone else.

And you know what? anyone who is pissed off because they CAN'T force their views onto people who don't share them...quite frankly DESERVES to be pissed off.

Agreed. 100%

Since, as you say, you can add an extra long pause, then those that don't want to say the words "Under God" can take their freedom and choose not to say those two words. thus, everyone's happy.

and for your analogy of two 7 year olds isn't quite right. for the split between those who want "Under God" in the pledge and those who want it out is not an even split.
Doesn't change the fact that it is still mandated as saying "Under God", and as such you are not pledging allegiance to anything.

Ok, I just read the first post of this thread, and I got really distressed. The thing is, first off, your not American, so why bother caring? You come on an American forum, saying "Your all evil Christian tyrants so suck me", hell, you cant even argue professionaly and maturley
I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU!
What are you? A five year old who just learned the "F" word?

The thing is, you may be an athiest, but, 65%, thats right, 65% of this whole country belives in a Christian God. 65% belives Jesus walked this Earth and worships him. And, another 25% are Jewish, and belive in God himself. So, in total, 90% of America belives in God.

THat doesnt mean 10% are Athiest, minorities such as Islamic people, Buddist, Hundis, are also factored in. So its my belif that <3% of this country are athiests.

So, its a 90 - 3 majority. Your pritty much saying "I dont belive in God, even though 90% does, so, if you dont take this symbol away, you hate me!". Unture. Im just siding with the majority, us Americans should have to take God off our pledge and money just because 3% of you dislike it. I mean, its like saying that Bush shouldnt have been put in because he didnt recive a 100% popularity vote.

And if your really that offended by it, why dont you just not say that clause in the pledge, or look away from our money. Dont try to screw things up for the rest of us.

Ok, I just read the first post of this thread, and I got really distressed. The thing is, first off, your not American, so why bother caring? You come on an American forum, saying "Your all evil Christian tyrants so suck me", hell, you cant even argue professionaly and maturley

What are you? A five year old who just learned the "F" word?

The thing is, you may be an athiest, but, 65%, thats right, 65% of this whole country belives in a Christian God. 65% belives Jesus walked this Earth and worships him. And, another 25% are Jewish, and belive in God himself. So, in total, 90% of America belives in God.

THat doesnt mean 10% are Athiest, minorities such as Islamic people, Buddist, Hundis, are also factored in. So its my belif that <3% of this country are athiests.

So, its a 90 - 3 majority. Your pritty much saying "I dont belive in God, even though 90% does, so, if you dont take this symbol away, you hate me!". Unture. Im just siding with the majority, us Americans should have to take God off our pledge and money just because 3% of you dislike it. I mean, its like saying that Bush shouldnt have been put in because he didnt recive a 100% popularity vote.

And if your really that offended by it, why dont you just not say that clause in the pledge, or look away from our money. Dont try to screw things up for the rest of us.

....

THIS IS MONTHS OLD....

where did u even dig this crap up! this conversation has been done and done!

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.


This is kindda an old post, but I have to say, I was FORCED to say the pledge. Now i admit it was not because I don't belive in saying "under god", it was because i didn't want to pledge my alleigance to some thing that i was not so sure if I was willing to be allied with it (ie. die for the country). I was 11 then and I really didn't want to die for anything. How every they forced me to repeat those words every day, or face punishment... which I did often ;)

I didn't read this whole thread. Its too long. I just thought I'd add this, though...

I found a solution to this a long long time ago. If you don't like the "under God" part, then just skip that part. Say "one nation...indivisible". See? No under God part. That was easy. If you don't mind that part, go ahead and say it. I really don't see why people get so worked up over this. Its not as if two words in the pledge actually constitute a combination of church and state or anything. Sheesh.

I also don't understand why it was an Australian who started this thread, and why he was so venomous about it. Why should he care how a country half way around the world pledges allegiance to their flag?

I didn't read this whole thread. Its too long. I just thought I'd add this, though...

I found a solution to this a long long time ago. If you don't like the "under God" part, then just skip that part. Say "one nation...indivisible". See? No under God part. That was easy. If you don't mind that part, go ahead and say it. I really don't see why people get so worked up over this.

then, conversely, why not take it completely out of the official version...insert the long pause...and allow people to add or not add, as they choose?

I'm sorry, but I was FORCED to recite the pledge, every day...AND IN HIGH SCHOOL, NO LESS!! AND...a guy I was friends with got punished for refusing to recite the "Under God" part. I always moved my lips during that part, just so that it wouldn't be noticed that I, likewise, was not reciting the "Under God" part.

As to why people get so worked up about it?? It is because a lot of people want the big, bad government to come in and FORCE everyone to conform to their particular belief system.

As I said, above, with my solution...the only reason anyone would be pissed off with it...on either side...would be their inability to force their view on people who do not share it. And anyone who gets pissed off because they don't get to force their views onto people who don't share them....well, they damn well DESERVE to get pissed off!

I'm sorry, but I was FORCED to recite the pledge, every day...AND IN HIGH SCHOOL, NO LESS!! AND...a guy I was friends with got punished for refusing to recite the "Under God" part. I always moved my lips during that part, just so that it wouldn't be noticed that I, likewise, was not reciting the "Under God" part.
That is so f-ing sick and disturbing. If I'm not mistaken, you have the right, as a US citizen, to choose not to say the pledge at all, let alone the under God part. I'm glad I never encountered that problem. People in my classes were strongly encouraged to at least stand and remove their hats during the pledge, but never actually forced.

then how about taking it OFFICIALLY out of the Pledge, thus keeping with the Constitution, and the Establishment Clauise....and allowing those who wish to add it, to do so, of their own free will....and not making those who DON'T want it there say it?

Just insert an extra-long pause between "one nation" and "indivisible" and allowing people the option of adding, or not adding, as they wish?

So our Pledge would then OFFICIALLY be

"One nation..........indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

this would be in line with the Constitution. It would afford those who wanted to add it, to add it...and not force those who DON'T want to say it into saying it.

So many issues in this country are like standing between two seven-year olds with one ice-cream cone. No matter WHAT you do, you are going to piss off some people. some people are not going to be happy with what you finally decide. so how about at least doing something to bring the Pledge back into line with the constitution....and afford those who want to add whetever they want to it....to add it, of their own free will. Isn't THAT what this country was supposed to be about?

I would not have a problem with that at all, as long as i can still say what i want......Although, if yall really don't like hearing it, even if they take it out and leave a "pause" you will still have to put up with it any where you go, so your going to be ticked off either way.......

I would not have a problem with that at all, as long as i can still say what i want......Although, if yall really don't like hearing it, even if they take it out and leave a "pause" you will still have to put up with it any where you go, so your going to be ticked off either way.......

Actually, I wouldn't care about hearing it. I just don't want to be FORCED into saying it.

And, quite frankly, I'd rather pledge my alligiance to Canada these days, anyway. the U.S. is no longer the country of my birth. That country has been taken away from me. i'll feel that loss deep in my bones till the day I die. this is the land of my birth...but it no longer is the country of my birth.

Canada far better resembles the country of my birth these days. Canada, by FAR...better reflects my values, my beliefs, and what's important to me. They are, in my opinion, far more worthy of my admiration and alligiance...than is the United States these days.

I've had it with staying here and fighting a rigged fight against the forces of repression. If it weren't for my mom, I'd probably be gone for Canada already. I didn't turn my back on America. America turned it's back on me. And I'm beginning to think it's time to start voting with my feet.

Ok, I just read the first post of this thread, and I got really distressed. The thing is, first off, your not American, so why bother caring? You come on an American forum, saying "Your all evil Christian tyrants so suck me", hell, you cant even argue professionaly and maturley

What are you? A five year old who just learned the "F" word?

The thing is, you may be an athiest, but, 65%, thats right, 65% of this whole country belives in a Christian God. 65% belives Jesus walked this Earth and worships him. And, another 25% are Jewish, and belive in God himself. So, in total, 90% of America belives in God.

THat doesnt mean 10% are Athiest, minorities such as Islamic people, Buddist, Hundis, are also factored in. So its my belif that <3% of this country are athiests.

So, its a 90 - 3 majority. Your pritty much saying "I dont belive in God, even though 90% does, so, if you dont take this symbol away, you hate me!". Unture. Im just siding with the majority, us Americans should have to take God off our pledge and money just because 3% of you dislike it. I mean, its like saying that Bush shouldnt have been put in because he didnt recive a 100% popularity vote.

And if your really that offended by it, why dont you just not say that clause in the pledge, or look away from our money. Dont try to screw things up for the rest of us.

Everytime someone makes this fallacious appeal to popularity (and your logic and numbers are both fallacious), I am forced to remind you, yet again, that the highest law of the land is not majority will but the Constitution. As the Supreme Court has explained:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

West Viriginia Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/US/319/624.html), 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)

[CODE][QUOTE=Elektrik Pyrates]You are missing a point in that many of us feel alienated by the pledge, because of "one nation under god" we feel that we are being cast aside by the christian majority----a majority that if you pay attention you will see being very exclusive and very UNCHRISTLIKE. War, bigotry, hate, persecution, violence,terrorist bombings, outright murder in the name of Christ, all supposedly attoned for so free and clear, all carried out by members of this supposed "moral majority" I am not buying it and they have no place within a hundred miles of MY government thank you very much----->Bush is digging his own grave in the geopolitical scheme of things with this "you're either an evangelical or you're a terrorist" crap.


what you must realize is that one must take historical events in context of the time it happened in. insinuating that the christian church in the past is the same as the christian church today is sort of unfair. its kindda like saying that the italians should be held responsible for the transgressions of Rome or that the jews today should be held responsible for christ's death. i cant speak for other christian religions but the catholic church has gone through many changes. vatican 2 being umong the most important.

Actually, I wouldn't care about hearing it. I just don't want to be FORCED into saying it.

And, quite frankly, I'd rather pledge my alligiance to Canada these days, anyway. the U.S. is no longer the country of my birth. That country has been taken away from me. i'll feel that loss deep in my bones till the day I die. this is the land of my birth...but it no longer is the country of my birth.

Canada far better resembles the country of my birth these days. Canada, by FAR...better reflects my values, my beliefs, and what's important to me. They are, in my opinion, far more worthy of my admiration and alligiance...than is the United States these days.

I've had it with staying here and fighting a rigged fight against the forces of repression. If it weren't for my mom, I'd probably be gone for Canada already. I didn't turn my back on America. America turned it's back on me. And I'm beginning to think it's time to start voting with my feet.



well.....that's interesting....if you clearly feel so strongly about it then, maybe you should move where you feel more comfortable.

[CODE][QUOTE]


what you must realize is that one must take historical events in context of the time it happened in. insinuating that the christian church in the past is the same as the christian church today is sort of unfair. its kindda like saying that the italians should be held responsible for the transgressions of Rome or that the jews today should be held responsible for christ's death. i cant speak for other christian religions but the catholic church has gone through many changes. vatican 2 being umong the most important.

So they got rid of some bad habits and picked up some new or maybe not so new. Should we listen to morality talk from an institution that protects pedophile priests?

It can be argued that holding up events from 800 years ago is not valid but it is also is not valid to suggest they are a perfect organization.

This thread has been pretty dead lately........i could reliven it by going off topic......maybe........maybe not.......

I've got a question;

The Originall

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Current

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Which one sounds better?

I've got a question;

The Originall

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Current

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Which one sounds better?
If you're gonna do this, then at least correctly quote the original...note the bolded part, which I added, to make it correct.

If you're gonna do this, at least do not purposefully make the original version sound like crap, to produce the result you obviously want.

Now, when comparing the actual original...with the current...I say the original sounds better.

how do u know it's not the other way around? that he's for the original and not for the current one........


if you've been reading this thread at all i think you know what side i am on, i want "one nation under God" to stay in the pledge of allegiance.......

I think we should replace God with Earth Mother. There. Everyone happy?

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

You know, I've heard some half-decent arguments for removing it, and I'll go ahead and say that if I had written the pledge I probably would never have put it in there. But as much as I don't like the radical Christian right, this is a prime example of why I despise so much of the athiest left (not all, I do not mean to do a disservice to the honest, intelligent athiest debaters out there).

I consider myself a conservative Christian, so I'll run with your post a bit.

Yes, many political folks suck up to Christians. Regardless, this goes to show that you can't take pot-shots at Christianity out of spite (which athiests like yourself would lead me to believe the opposition is doing) and survive. Think about it this way: that vote means that even Ted Kennedy voted against removal.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

I'd like to get a feel for your knowledge of the Constitution, so I will ask - why?

Flick off anyone religious and right-wing all you want - in America, you have the right to be an idiot.

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

Of course its not. Actually, "shut up" is precisely what I want so many of your inarticulate compatriots to do.

But I get the feeling that you do not enjoy the current situation. For your pleasure, I will remind you that you have absolutely no say in what goes on here. But us conservative Christians do.

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Look at this silly little man, trying to console his absolute insignificance before those religious people he so indiscriminantly despises, with nonsensical remarks. I could care less if we have a Buddhist president, the entire Congress was Muslim, and the Supreme Court was mixed with Jews, Shintos, and Athiests, so long as they are qualified.

Really, you do a huge disservice to your own beliefs with such rants.

Because "dude", our country's government is in tight with the Yanks. If they get all Christian nutjob, then our government's "me too" policy with drag usz down with them. Here's hoping every1 in America doesn't jump off a bridge....


"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Qunicy Adams

"You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention." George Washington

" Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system." Samuel Adams

"History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion...and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern." Benjamin Franklin

"Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation." John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

"The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians." John Qunicy Adams

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" John Adams

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." James Madison

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. " Thomas Paine

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Thomas Jefferson

And, most importantly:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.

I think we should replace God with Earth Mother. There. Everyone happy?

what the heck are you smoking?!

A freemason, if you're unfamiliar (not to insult your intelligence), was a secret Christian group who sought to protect it in times of tribulation.

The freemasons were not a secret christian group. They were influenced by some esoteric christian group like the Rosicrucians and the Templars, but they their ideology was only based on humanism and individualism. You did not have to belong to some particular religion, in order to become a free mason. For instance Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, was a freemason.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Treaty of Tripoli, 1797.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [note, created, not evolved, not born] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. - Declaration of Independence

Bolding mine, notation in red. all the references to God.

oh and...

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

The Founders believed the Declaration was the foundational document in our Constitutional form of government. The Founders dated their government acts from the year of the Declaration rather than the Constitution. The date of the Declaration of Independence was the recognized date of Sovereignty and Independence of the United States.

In the Declaration, the Founders established the foundation and the core values on which the Constitution was to operate. The Constitution was never to be interpreted apart from those values expressed in the Declaration.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

declaration of independence snip

You're correct in that. I don't deny the mention of a Creator (not Jesus, or even God) in the Declaration, and don't really mind it. I do have a problem with people calling us a Christian nation, which is bullshit. We have a nonspecific religious reference to a higher power in the Declaration, not a specific one.

that all men are created [note, created, not evolved, not born] Creator Supreme Judge of the world protection of divine Providence,
Bolding mine, notation in red. all the references to God.

All references to a god. Not to a specific god whatsoever. Allah, odin, hell even Ra could be any one of those and so could any number of gods.

All references to a god. Not to a specific god whatsoever. Allah, odin, hell even Ra could be any one of those and so could any number of gods.that's right. so why then can't the same reason be applied to Under God in the Pledge?

and why doesn't all those references to Religious figures in the Declaration not have all the Athieist screaming about that? The Constitution supports the Declaration, a Document that repeatedly referres to a Higher Being. yet where is the griping?

that's right. so why then can't the same reason be applied to Under God in the Pledge?
I do apply the same reason to the Pledge. However some people feel that because their kids say it its like making them affirm belief in a god. I tend to take Louis Black's stance on the Pledge problem.

and why doesn't all those references to Religious figures in the Declaration not have all the Athieist screaming about that? The Constitution supports the Declaration, a Document that repeatedly referres to a Higher Being. yet where is the griping?

Because a Higher being isnt necessarly a god. All of those references could be attributed to aliens who made us and then when we die collect our energy and blah blah blah. That or the fact that their kids dont directly have to say it.

You're correct in that. I don't deny the mention of a Creator (not Jesus, or even God) in the Declaration, and don't really mind it. I do have a problem with people calling us a Christian nation, which is bullshit. We have a nonspecific religious reference to a higher power in the Declaration, not a specific one.however, When the Declaration was written, the majority (and not 51% but more like all but a handfull) were Practicing Christians (in one demonination or another)

now, I will not argue that the USA was not founded to be a Christian Nation, back then Christianity was the only religion for our forefathers at that time, so they probably didn't take into account any other Religion, but it was founded on Christian Morals (Morals, not Laws, big difference.)

I do apply the same reason to the Pledge. However some people feel that because their kids say it its like making them affirm belief in a god. I tend to take Louis Black's stance on the Pledge problem.but the argument that most put forth here is that the Pledge gives the image that we are a Christian Nation. if the Pledge gives that image, then the Declaration of Independace is the confirmation that the US IS A CHRISTIAN NATION! since it calls upon Devine Protection and makes references to the Creator. (all names for the Christian God btw.) me, I know alot of people who don't say Under God. and you know what? nothing happened. they wern't bullied or even teased about it when we were in school.

Because a Higher being isnt necessarly a god. All of those references could be attributed to aliens who made us and then when we die collect our energy and blah blah blah. That or the fact that their kids dont directly have to say it.but it still makes reference to a Higher Being that will protect us and care for us, a being that Athiest affirm that they won't believe in until they have solid, irrifutable proof of such exsistiance.

but the argument that most put forth here is that the Pledge gives the image that we are a Christian Nation. if the Pledge gives that image, then the Declaration of Independace is the confirmation that the US IS A CHRISTIAN NATION! since it calls upon Devine Protection and makes references to the Creator. (all names for the Christian God btw.) me, I know alot of people who don't say Under God. and you know what? nothing happened. they wern't bullied or even teased about it when we were in school.
Yea a Christian Nation has aborition legalized, has certain states allowing gay marriage and legalized prostitution in Nevada(I think). And also all those names can be used for any number of gods. For all I care the Pledge could mean we have Thor watching over us. It really doesnt bother me.

but it still makes reference to a Higher Being that will protect us and care for us, a being that Athiest affirm that they won't believe in until they have solid, irrifutable proof of such exsistiance.
Vague references which they dont have to deal with whatsoever. The big deal is that kids say the pledge but not the decleration.

however, When the Declaration was written, the majority (and not 51% but more like all but a handfull) were Practicing Christians (in one demonination or another)

It was definitely around 95% or more. Trying to say otherwise is just revisionist history at its worst.

now, I will not argue that the USA was not founded to be a Christian Nation, back then Christianity was the only religion for our forefathers at that time, so they probably didn't take into account any other Religion, but it was founded on Christian Morals (Morals, not Laws, big difference.)

Morals aren't laws, and I agree with you that our nation was founded on that morality. Christian morality is mostly similar to the moral codes of almost all of the world's cultures and religions, so it's virtually impossible to argue that our nation wasn't founded on some kind of morality. It was Christian morality because that was the religion of the vast majority of Americans as you said..

Vague references which they dont have to deal with whatsoever. The big deal is that kids say the pledge but not the decleration.but both are still Legal Documents, and one is said, the other is Written. One can be altered by indivuals while reciting to suite their creed the other cannot. one is only heard by a few and only on rare occasions is it heard by the masses, the other is on display where people around the world can read it 24/7.

yet which one are people nitpicking over?

It was definitely around 95% or more. Trying to say otherwise is just revisionist history at its worst.I count 5% a handfull (on a nation wide scale) I knew it was a lot tho.
Thanks

You're correct in that. I don't deny the mention of a Creator (not Jesus, or even God) in the Declaration, and don't really mind it. I do have a problem with people calling us a Christian nation, which is bullshit. We have a nonspecific religious reference to a higher power in the Declaration, not a specific one.


There may well be a difference between a Christian nation and a nation of Christains.

that's right. so why then can't the same reason be applied to Under God in the Pledge?

and why doesn't all those references to Religious figures in the Declaration not have all the Athieist screaming about that? The Constitution supports the Declaration, a Document that repeatedly referres to a Higher Being. yet where is the griping?

Because the Declaration has absolutely zero bearing on American law. None. Zilch. Zip. Nothin.

The Constitution overruled the Declaration.

Because the Declaration has absolutely zero bearing on American law. None. Zilch. Zip. Nothin.

The Constitution overruled the Declaration.where is that stated, that the Constitution declared the Declaration null and void.

oh, and no one is, by law, bound by the Pledge of Alliegence either, it has no bearing on American Law either. None. Zilch. Zip. Nothin.

where is that stated, that the Constitution declared the Declaration null and void.

It's common sense. The DoI didn't found a country, it said the several colonies of England no longer held feality to the King. The Articles of Confederation made us a country and were later supplanted by the Constitution.

Do you know anything about the formative years of the American Republic?

oh, and no one is, by law, bound by the Pledge of Alliegence either, it has no bearing on American Law either. None. Zilch. Zip. Nothin.

Er, yes it is law. In fact, it's also part of the budget: since teachers are paid by time, they are paid a tiny fraction of their salary as time they spend saying the Pledge.

It's common sense. The DoI didn't found a country, it said the several colonies of England no longer held feality to the King. The Articles of Confederation made us a country and were later supplanted by the Constitution. Do you know anything about the formative years of the American Republic?The DoI was the keystone for the Constitution as well as the Founding of the USA. if you call the Delcaration null and void, then I call the Treaty of Tripoli also null and void. mind you, alot of Pro Same Sex marrage people use the Declaration of Independance to further their cause, so if you say that is now overrulled by the Constitution then tell them that "all men are created equal" and their right to "persuse Happiness" are no longer valid arguments in their fight.

and no, it's not common sense because the Declaration is a document we as Americans used to state the dreams of our country. It was the backbone for our Independance. Without it, there would not have been any Constitution of the United States.

Er, yes it is law. In fact, it's also part of the budget: since teachers are paid by time, they are paid a tiny fraction of their salary as time they spend saying the Pledge.unfortunatly, my Elementary, Intermediate and High School teachers were probably not paid for it since we were not saying the pledge then. :(

that's right. so why then can't the same reason be applied to Under God in the Pledge?

and why doesn't all those references to Religious figures in the Declaration not have all the Athieist screaming about that? The Constitution supports the Declaration, a Document that repeatedly referres to a Higher Being. yet where is the griping?
Because A - it still establishes a MONOTHEISM. And that is against the Establishment Clause, as there are valid religions practiced in this country, and world, that are polytheistic.
and B - because it was the SPECIFIC INTENT of the lawmakers who passed the bill adding those words in 1954, to force schoolchildren to at least give lip service to the Christian God. Look it up for yourself in the congressional Record, for the trascripts of the floor debates on this bill...and the words of Eisenhower on signing it into law, and it is very clear that the INTENT was not just to establish a monotheism...but to establish Christianity, specifically.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*So an australian child has an opinion about the American pledge of allegiance.

Thanks for sharing.

where is that stated, that the Constitution declared the Declaration null and void.

oh, and no one is, by law, bound by the Pledge of Alliegence either, it has no bearing on American Law either. None. Zilch. Zip. Nothin.

But schoolchildren are forced to recite the Pledge. Daily.

If you're gonna do this, then at least correctly quote the original...note the bolded part, which I added, to make it correct.

If you're gonna do this, at least do not purposefully make the original version sound like crap, to produce the result you obviously want.

Now, when comparing the actual original...with the current...I say the original sounds better.

NB I haven't read any of the thread since this.

It was an honest mistake. I'm British, and thought the original version I posted sounded better then with the addition. And now I think the corrected version you posted sounds even better then that,

It's got a kinda rythm to it.

My knowledge of any signifigance of the pledge, goes no further then that.

Because A - it still establishes a MONOTHEISM. And that is against the Establishment Clause, as there are valid religions practiced in this country, and world, that are polytheistic.it doesn't establish anything.
and B - because it was the SPECIFIC INTENT of the lawmakers who passed the bill adding those words in 1954, to force schoolchildren to at least give lip service to the Christian God. Look it up for yourself in the congressional Record, for the trascripts of the floor debates on this bill...and the words of Eisenhower on signing it into law, and it is very clear that the INTENT was not just to establish a monotheism...but to establish Christianity, specifically.show me the law that states that all school children MUST recite the Pledge verbatim and that everyone who recites the pledge is Law Bound to follow the Pledge.

SHOW ME the Law that states that the words UNDER GOD is meant to establish the Monothiestic Theology that you SAY is being FORCED on you.

not the quotes or the arguments, but the WRITTEN LAW signed by the Lawmakers and enacted.

Then show me where that LAW (if it ever exsited) WAS REPEALED.

But schoolchildren are forced to recite the Pledge. Daily.I Wasn't. My whole Class wasn't. The years after my Class wasn't.
The the Years before my Class wasn't.

No one is Forced to say the pledge. if your teacher is forcing you, then it's the problem with the school board or that teacher.

it doesn't establish anything.
show me the law that states that all school children MUST recite the Pledge verbatim and that everyone who recites the pledge is Law Bound to follow the Pledge.

SHOW ME the Law that states that the words UNDER GOD is meant to establish the Monothiestic Theology that you SAY is being FORCED on you.

not the quotes or the arguments, but the WRITTEN LAW signed by the Lawmakers and enacted.

Then show me where that LAW (if it ever exsited) WAS REPEALED.

JuNii,

Stop with the red herrings.

We've been over this.

There is no law requiring everyone to recite the Pledge. To the contrary, that is unconsitutional. Nonetheless, some schools, teachers, districts, and states attempt it.

There are laws requiring the Pledge to be said in every classroom. California Education Code § 52720 provides, for example, that every day in elementary school begin with the Pledge or a similar "patriotic exercise." Most school districts have complied with this law by adopting regulations that require: “Each elementary school class [shall] recite the pledge of allegiance to the flag once each day.” Other states more directly require the Pledge.

On June 22, 1942, Congress first codified the Pledge as “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Pub. L. No. 623, Ch. 435, § 7, 56 Stat. 380 (1942) (codified at 36 U.S.C. § 1972).
On June 14, 1954, Congress amended Section 1972 to add the words “under God” after the word “Nation.” Pub. L. No. 396, Ch. 297, 68 Stat. 249 (1954) (“1954 Act”). The Pledge is currently codified as “I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 4 U.S.C. § 4 (1998) (Title 36 was revised and recodified by Pub. L. No. 105-225, § 2(a), 112 Stat. 1494 (1998). Section 172 was abolished, and the Pledge is now
found in Title 4.)

The June 14, 1954 amendment to Section 1972 (and its current incorporation in 4 USC s.4) is unconstitutional.

There is a law passed by Congress at issue here. It is a law that "respect[s] an establishment of religion."

You cannot possibly argue that the phase "under God" has no religious connotation or is completely neutral regarding religion.

I Wasn't. My whole Class wasn't. The years after my Class wasn't.
The the Years before my Class wasn't.

No one is Forced to say the pledge. if your teacher is forcing you, then it's the problem with the school board or that teacher.


bullshit. Texas and Colorado are two states I know of that FORCE children to recite the pledge daily...in fact, Texas not only forces a Pledge of Allegiance recital...but also a pledge to the Texas flag...and it's on the lawbooks in Texas...which is where I went to public school.

Texas Flag Pledge

Honor the Texas Flag
I pledge allegiance to thee
Texas, one and indivisible.

On Edit: Think I'm full of shit? Look for yourself!!
http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/flagpledge.html

Now, let me find a link to where you will see the law requiring both this, and the Pledge of Allience be recited by schoolchildren every day.

Found it. Read it and weep, Junii!! Here's the direct link to the fucking Terxas State Legislature news release concerning the passage of Senate bill 83. READ IT AND WEEP....schoolchildren in Texas ARE COMPELLED BY LAW!!!
In my case, I finished my education prior to this law passing, but the school district policy forced me anyway. NOW, it is STATE LAW...but don't take my word for it, look for yourself...
http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/release.php?id=289

Antre_Travarious']So an australian child has an opinion about the American pledge of allegiance.

Thanks for sharing.

Don't mention it. :p

Did you know that 8 out of 10 ppl believe in God? No one is forcing you to say it so shut up! Go back to your own country if you have a problem with ours!

Did you know that 8 out of 10 ppl believe in God? No one is forcing you to say it so shut up! Go back to your own country if you have a problem with ours!

Oh, yeah? See my post two above your inflammatory post, and you will see that FOUR MILLION TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLCHILDREN ARE BEING FORCED!!

Did you know that 8 out of 10 ppl believe in God? No one is forcing you to say it so shut up! Go back to your own country if you have a problem with ours!

Can I see the source of those numbers please?

I Wasn't. My whole Class wasn't. The years after my Class wasn't.
The the Years before my Class wasn't.

No one is Forced to say the pledge. if your teacher is forcing you, then it's the problem with the school board or that teacher.

Who cares if you are forced to say the pledge or not? It is codified by the government and therefore cannot make any endorsement of religion. If you want to add "under God", you can, Congress, on the otherhand, cannot.

EDIT: The solution to this is so simple that I cannot believe this argument comes up.

The First Prayer offered in Congress:

"Lord our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. all this we ask In the Name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen." September 7th, 1774 by Jacob Duche in Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia



National Anthem, By Francis Scott Key:
1st verse: Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

4th verse: Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Money:
“In God we Trust” since the Civil War
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

When representatives met in 1787 to write the Constitution of the United States, they fought bitterly and struggled for days and days, and days turned to weeks, all while they were making little or no meaningful developments, Benjamin Franklin (by then a very old man), decided something had to be said before they were about to adjourn in disorder. It seemed to him that the challenge of forming a permanent union was about to fail.

Benjamin Franklin said, "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor....And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?"

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of man.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this."

"I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war or conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

He then closed by suggesting that that the assembly should adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer. The stirring speech of Benjamin Franklin marked a turning point in the writing of the Constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights. And Congress has opened with Prayer since then to this very day…

I fail to understand the “Under God” objection. It seems to want to alter the very purpose of freedom of religion by denying religion’s right to exist in public life, including public service. There is little historical position to back that proposition of interpretation. I understand it, I just disagree with it. We cannot mandate attendance or service or maintenance of religious institutions, it does not mean we cannot refer to it, despite what the atheist would like to argue to the contrary. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

-snip-
I fail to understand the “Under God” objection. It seems to want to alter the very purpose of freedom of religion by denying religion’s right to exist in public life, including public service. There is little historical position to back that proposition of interpretation. I understand it, I just disagree with it. We cannot mandate attendance or service or maintenance of religious institutions, it does not mean we cannot refer to it, despite what the atheist would like to argue to the contrary. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Religion has every right to exist in the public. It has no right to exist in the law and policy of the nation. In fact, it is specifically barred from law and policy (first ammendmant anyone?). There is a great deal of historical evidence supporting the opposition of religion in government (Thomas Jefferson having coined the term "Seperation of church and state"; and of course that pesky first ammendmant again.). You are free to refer to your god and your beleifs. You are not, however, free to make the government refer to them as well.

Simply put, I don't ask you to put "Possibly under God but we can't know" in the pledge, so why the hell are you asking me to say "Under God"? Its blatant hypocracy. If agnostics were to attempt to change the pledge to say that, you would have a heart attack.

I fail to understand the “Under God” objection. It seems to want to alter the very purpose of freedom of religion by denying religion’s right to exist in public life, including public service. There is little historical position to back that proposition of interpretation. I understand it, I just disagree with it. We cannot mandate attendance or service or maintenance of religious institutions, it does not mean we cannot refer to it, despite what the atheist would like to argue to the contrary. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

This is completely and utterly wrong. There is no law proposed that would disallow someone from adding "under God" to the pledge, there is no law proposed to disallow someone from believing the US is a nation under God. So I cannot begin to fathom how taking that out of the pledge would deny "religion's right to exist in public life."

And your last sentence is absurd. To have freedom of religion, you must have freedom from religion. There can be no authority or privileged status given to religion.

Did you know that 8 out of 10 ppl believe in God? No one is forcing you to say it so shut up! Go back to your own country if you have a problem with ours!
Let's say that the pledge had, after 'indivisible', the words 'n*****rs suck'. Since no one is being forced to say those words, anyone who complains should shut up, as your logic dictates.

Postscript: When calling people idiots, take care not to misspell words. It makes you look like an even bigger moron than resorting to childish insults does.

Let's say that the pledge had, after 'indivisible', the words 'n*****rs suck'. ...

*snip* ...

It makes you look like an even bigger moron than resorting to childish insults does.

You're calling someone else childish and insulting immediately after having suggested that saying "under God" is comparable to saying a racial epithet? Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

You're calling someone else childish and insulting immediately after having suggested that saying "under God" is comparable to saying a racial epithet? Unbelievable. :rolleyes:

The fact that it is just as insulting for an atheist or agnostic to be told "America is Under God. If you can't accept that you aren't a true American" as it is for an African American to be called a N****r

You're calling someone else childish and insulting immediately after having suggested that saying "under God" is comparable to saying a racial epithet? Unbelievable. :rolleyes:
Ever heard of using purposeful exaggeration to make a point?

The fact that it is just as insulting for an atheist or agnostic to be told "America is Under God. If you can't accept that you aren't a true American" as it is for an African American to be called a N****r


Really? You really said that? Unbelievable.

Ever heard of using purposeful exaggeration to make a point?

Yes, yes I have. But what you used was purposeful obscenity, simply for the sake of shock value. Say it, damn the offensive nature of the delivery. In other words, it was irresponsible.

Yes, yes I have. But what you used was purposeful obscenity, simply for the sake of shock value. Say it, damn the offensive nature of the delivery. In other words, it was irresponsible.
Fine. You want a better example? How about if the Pledge said "Under Jesus". That'd be damn offensive to Jews, for example. Would you tell those who complained about it to shut up?

Edit: Of course it was there for shock value. If ordered, logical explanations don't work, shock value's the next best way to make a point.

Really? You really said that? Unbelievable.

Yeah, I would say I did say that. You really don't understand just how insulting it is. You are, in essence, calling all Atheists and Agnostics Un-American.

Would you like it if we were to have "Godless" added in place of "Under God"? Of course not. So stop patronizing me and refute the statement or shut up.

The First Prayer offered in Congress:

"Lord our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. all this we ask In the Name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen." September 7th, 1774 by Jacob Duche in Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia



National Anthem, By Francis Scott Key:
1st verse: Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

4th verse: Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Money:
“In God we Trust” since the Civil War
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

When representatives met in 1787 to write the Constitution of the United States, they fought bitterly and struggled for days and days, and days turned to weeks, all while they were making little or no meaningful developments, Benjamin Franklin (by then a very old man), decided something had to be said before they were about to adjourn in disorder. It seemed to him that the challenge of forming a permanent union was about to fail.

Benjamin Franklin said, "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor....And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?"

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of man.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this."

"I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war or conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

He then closed by suggesting that that the assembly should adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer. The stirring speech of Benjamin Franklin marked a turning point in the writing of the Constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights. And Congress has opened with Prayer since then to this very day…

I fail to understand the “Under God” objection. It seems to want to alter the very purpose of freedom of religion by denying religion’s right to exist in public life, including public service. There is little historical position to back that proposition of interpretation. I understand it, I just disagree with it. We cannot mandate attendance or service or maintenance of religious institutions, it does not mean we cannot refer to it, despite what the atheist would like to argue to the contrary. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Freedom of religion INCLUDES Freedom From Religion, if that is your choice. don't try and shove your God down my throat!
I think very few people actually worship the same God I do. I'd go into more detail, but it's not the right thread. i'm a Unitarian Christian, however. I think most Christians worship a different God than I do.

Religion has every right to exist in the public. It has no right to exist in the law and policy of the nation. In fact, it is specifically barred from law and policy (first ammendmant anyone?). There is a great deal of historical evidence supporting the opposition of religion in government (Thomas Jefferson having coined the term "Seperation of church and state"; and of course that pesky first ammendmant again.). You are free to refer to your god and your beleifs. You are not, however, free to make the government refer to them as well.

Simply put, I don't ask you to put "Possibly under God but we can't know" in the pledge, so why the hell are you asking me to say "Under God"? Its blatant hypocracy. If agnostics were to attempt to change the pledge to say that, you would have a heart attack.

Of course they'd have a heart attack. Don't you know that fundamentalist Christians believe they are the only people whose rights should be respected? Screw everyone else's rights, that is their motto!

Of course they'd have a heart attack. Don't you know that fundamentalist Christians believe they are the only people whose rights should be respected? Screw everyone else's rights, that is their motto!

I can always hope to come across an exception to that rule. Although I suppose its unlikely.

Fine. You want a better example? How about if the Pledge said "Under Jesus". That'd be damn offensive to Jews, for example. Would you tell those who complained about it to shut up?

Edit: Of course it was there for shock value. If ordered, logical explanations don't work, shock value's the next best way to make a point.

Your new example here is much more appropriate and fitting to the debate.

The shock value is not the best way to make a point, you offended every civil rights fighter in America in one stoke, reducing, not improving, your odds of converting them to your way of thinking.

Yeah, I would say I did say that. You really don't understand just how insulting it is. You are, in essence, calling all Atheists and Agnostics Un-American.

Would you like it if we were to have "Godless" added in place of "Under God"? Of course not. So stop patronizing me and refute the statement or shut up.

You really are quite offensive in your manner of speech aren't you? I fail to understand why I am supposed to "shut up" simply because you want to equate real world racial bigotry as being no worse that having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Of course they'd have a heart attack. Don't you know that fundamentalist Christians believe they are the only people whose rights should be respected? Screw everyone else's rights, that is their motto!


Stereotyping bigotry, dehumanize them all, good argument. :rolleyes:

OK i would like to say first of all your australian
you dont even live in the United States so why do you care
and secondly i think that it is all blow out of proportion and everyone should just be laid back and forget about it
that is the problem with society these days they take everything so seriously
everyone should just be like yeah thats cool

You really are quite offensive in your manner of speech aren't you? I fail to understand why I am supposed to "shut up" simply because you want to equate real world racial bigotry as being no worse that having the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't. I equate racial bigotry to the religious bigotry hidden behind the use of the phrase "Under God". I don't want you to shut up at all, I would much rather you had a refutation of your own, but you seem to be sorely lacking in that regard. Or is repeating the same thing over and over again your idea of a refutation?

I wish I could apologize for my "offensive" manner of speech, but I get the feeling that its exactly what a number of people need to hear.

All right... I am, as usually, late in coming to the argument... however, I will provide my two cents. 'Cause I can.

First off, as to the matter of the Constitutional attributes of this argument... I would like someone to please point out, specifically, where it mentions the "separation of state and church" because, as far as I've ever been able to understand it there never was a direct mention in the Constitution. I don't really think religion was mentioned at all until the Bill of Rights (though I could be wrong).

Next, I would like to point out the time period in which the Constitution was written... it was a time period when everyone was agreeably Christian or, at least, widely recognized Christianity and could quote the Scriptures more than accurately enough. You may argue Jefferson being athiest, but he wasn't... he was a deist... (however that's spelled) and accepted the Christian God, but didn't declare fealty. The men who drafted the Constitution were all Free Masons to be sure, but the importance of the Bill of Rights must be understood. Rhode Island was the first state to say, "Not without a Bill of Rights." Rhode Island is very close to Mass if you'd remember, and they still harbored the angst the Pilgrims did about the Anglican church. And that is why they stressed religion. To them, the importance of the matter was to worship God (the Christian deity) in any means you would want, i.e. Catholic, Puritan, Presbyterian, etc... They didn't consider, at the time, the possibility of the nation getting so large and including many peoples from everywhere else... Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera ad nausem.

So, putting these two fact into perspective of today... we had to modify it to make people from all of these religions happy. In the end it came to be thought that we were going for "separation of church and state" while we were not ever declaring them as separate entities. The facts that "Under God" was put in there, that "In God We Trust" was put on every minted coin, that the Constitutional delegations would pray before every meeting, that Congress still holds a prayer before every congregation, and that Christianity is still considered our "National Religion" all point to the fact that Christianity was a deep root to all of American culture from the beginning.

My argument, upon stating this is, "Why change it?" There's no reason to get pissed about it. Muslims who go to school are allowed their times to pray, and even get out of class for it, they are allowed to wear the traditional head-wrap stuff if they would like, so forth (at least in the Char-Meck NC school system). We allow any religion the right to 3 religious holidays that they don't have to make up, and we don't enforce upon anyone the necessity to say anything during the Pledge of Allegiance, only that they stand in respect of the nation they live in. I don't think that's very unfair to any religion.

If you're so pissed that America would allow people their religious freedoms and not enforce any religion on anyone then I suggest you move to the Phillipines and become a Muslim (not a slur on anyone) because they do not tolerate Christianity. Go to Haiti and practice voodoo. If you don't like it leave, and if you don't live here, don't complain about it.

...

I wish I could apologize for my "offensive" manner of speech, but I get the feeling that its exactly what a number of people need to hear.

I think that's the same argument that the people who want to keep the word, "God' in the pledge of allegiance, use... they don't care if it's offensive, they think that is something that a number of people need to hear. You don’t care if they are offended, they don’t care if you are offended. In the end it comes down to judge’s opinions and congress members voting.

As to refuting your arguments, you didn’t refute Benjamin Franklin, Nor the National Anthem, nor the prayer’s in congress, nor the “in God we Trust” a hundred and thirty years history… why would I refute your right to disagree? You have your right to disagree, and I have my right to disagree with your view.

All right... I am, as usually, late in coming to the argument... however, I will provide my two cents. 'Cause I can.

First off, as to the matter of the Constitutional attributes of this argument... I would like someone to please point out, specifically, where it mentions the "separation of state and church" because, as far as I've ever been able to understand it there never was a direct mention in the Constitution. I don't really think religion was mentioned at all until the Bill of Rights (though I could be wrong).

Text of the First ammendmant "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Pretty clear, no? And... The bill of rights is consitutional. It overrules everything except for a later ammenmant (And there has been none contradicting the first).

Next, I would like to point out the time period in which the Constitution was written... it was a time period when everyone was agreeably Christian or, at least, widely recognized Christianity and could quote the Scriptures more than accurately enough. You may argue Jefferson being athiest, but he wasn't... he was a deist... (however that's spelled) and accepted the Christian God, but didn't declare fealty. The men who drafted the Constitution were all Free Masons to be sure, but the importance of the Bill of Rights must be understood. Rhode Island was the first state to say, "Not without a Bill of Rights." Rhode Island is very close to Mass if you'd remember, and they still harbored the angst the Pilgrims did about the Anglican church. And that is why they stressed religion. To them, the importance of the matter was to worship God (the Christian deity) in any means you would want, i.e. Catholic, Puritan, Presbyterian, etc... They didn't consider, at the time, the possibility of the nation getting so large and including many peoples from everywhere else... Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera ad nausem.

I fail to see how any of this creates a support for the claim of christian heritage to our law.

So, putting these two fact into perspective of today... we had to modify it to make people from all of these religions happy. In the end it came to be thought that we were going for "separation of church and state" while we were not ever declaring them as separate entities. The facts that "Under God" was put in there, that "In God We Trust" was put on every minted coin, that the Constitutional delegations would pray before every meeting, that Congress still holds a prayer before every congregation, and that Christianity is still considered our "National Religion" all point to the fact that Christianity was a deep root to all of American culture from the beginning.

The mint and the pledge are both in the wrong. America has no national religion and if we ever truly have one, then the spirit of America has died. The legislators have every right to pray. And I most certainly agree that the Puritains brought with them their authoritarian form of religion when they came to America. Are you calling that a good thing? I've got multiple dead "witches" in the Massachusetts colony that say otherwise.

My argument, upon stating this is, "Why change it?" There's no reason to get pissed about it. Muslims who go to school are allowed their times to pray, and even get out of class for it, they are allowed to wear the traditional head-wrap stuff if they would like, so forth (at least in the Char-Meck NC school system). We allow any religion the right to 3 religious holidays that they don't have to make up, and we don't enforce upon anyone the necessity to say anything during the Pledge of Allegiance, only that they stand in respect of the nation they live in. I don't think that's very unfair to any religion.

But it is wrong, because the pledge is an act of government, and there is a very strong feeling of biggotry against people who don't follow your "National Religion" and the pledge expresses that strongly. And, if you've been reading, there are states that do require it, and most little kids don't even know they don't have to say it.

If you're so pissed that America would allow people their religious freedoms and not enforce any religion on anyone then I suggest you move to the Phillipines and become a Muslim (not a slur on anyone) because they do not tolerate Christianity. Go to Haiti and practice voodoo. If you don't like it leave, and if you don't live here, don't complain about it.

No. I'll stay here and fight for my rights, with every ounce of strength I have. I don't like it, but I'm going to change it, not run away with my tail between my legs. I am pissed because America is protecting "Christians" while spitting on non-beleivers. I am not pissed because America is allowing people religious freedoms, I'm pissed because it is spitting on mine.

I think that's the same argument that the people who want to keep the word, "God' in the pledge of allegiance, use... they don't care if it's offensive, they think that is something that a number of people need to hear. You don’t care if they are offended, they don’t care if you are offended. In the end it comes down to judge’s opinions and congress members voting.

In the end it comes down to right and wrong. Judges and Legislators be damned. It is genuinely wrong to persist in anti-religious bigotry. It is not a christian thing to do, and more importantly, it is an evil thing to do.

As to refuting your arguments, you didn’t refute Benjamin Franklin, Nor the National Anthem, nor the prayer’s in congress, nor the “in God we Trust” a hundred and thirty years history… why would I refute your right to disagree? You have your right to disagree, and I have my right to disagree with your view.

I don't see why they matter. Yes, our ancestors made mistakes and did wrong things as well (though honestly I don't feel as though an unsung verse of the national anthem is quite as pointed an attack against non-beleivers as the pledge is). To be fair, I ignored them because they didn't support your arguments, they just showed more examples of wrongdoings.

*snip Declaration of Independence*
Nature's God
Creator
Supreme Judge of the world

Declaration of Independence
Bolding mine, notation in red. all the references to God.

oh and...

1. Nice job of completely failing to respond to the Treaty of Tripoli's declaration that the US is not a Christian nation.

2. The DoI is not law. It was not an act of our current government. It, obviously, pre-dated the Constitution and the First Amendment.

3. The Treaty of Tripoli was law. Under Article VI (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/) of the Constitution, Treaties are the supreme law of the land subject only to the Constitution.

4. You'd throw a shit fit if Congress passed a law changing the Pledge to say "under Nature's God" or "under the Supreme Judge of the world."

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

1. Proving the DoI does not have the force of law. You have inadvertently conceded your main point.

2. Citation please.

3. By 1897, SCOTUS had long recognized the separation of Church and State.

The Constitution itself connects itself to the Declaration of Independence by dating itself from the date of the Declaration of Independence, thereby showing clearly that it is the second great document in the government of these United States and is not to be understood without the first. How many today say the Constitution stands alone devoid of all reference to the Declaration? Let them see hear and understand what those who wrote the Constitution said about our American government. See Article VII.

Article VII of the Constitution (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article07/) makes no reference whatsoever to the DoI. You are misinformed.

Samuel Adams pointed out: Before the formation of this Constitution this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union, and has never been disannulled.

Please provide a citation. I don't believe this. The DoI is not a law and never has been.

The First Prayer offered in Congress:

"Lord our Heavenly Father, High and Mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle! Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst Thy people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. all this we ask In the Name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.
Amen." September 7th, 1774 by Jacob Duche in Carpenters Hall, Philadelphia



National Anthem, By Francis Scott Key:
1st verse: Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

4th verse: Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Money:
“In God we Trust” since the Civil War
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

When representatives met in 1787 to write the Constitution of the United States, they fought bitterly and struggled for days and days, and days turned to weeks, all while they were making little or no meaningful developments, Benjamin Franklin (by then a very old man), decided something had to be said before they were about to adjourn in disorder. It seemed to him that the challenge of forming a permanent union was about to fail.

Benjamin Franklin said, "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor....And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?"

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs in the affairs of man.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this."

"I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little partial local interest; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war or conquest. I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."

He then closed by suggesting that that the assembly should adjourn for two days to seek divine guidance. When they returned they began each of their sessions with prayer. The stirring speech of Benjamin Franklin marked a turning point in the writing of the Constitution, complete with a Bill of Rights. And Congress has opened with Prayer since then to this very day…

I fail to understand the “Under God” objection. It seems to want to alter the very purpose of freedom of religion by denying religion’s right to exist in public life, including public service. There is little historical position to back that proposition of interpretation. I understand it, I just disagree with it. We cannot mandate attendance or service or maintenance of religious institutions, it does not mean we cannot refer to it, despite what the atheist would like to argue to the contrary. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I'll rebut this flummery point-by-point later, but you it is deliberately misleading. You refer primarily to events occurring prior to the existence of the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment. Each specific is irrelevant. For each of these psuedo-factoids there are many evidences of the 200-plus history of separation of Church and State.

And you contradict yourself. You decry the removal of religion from public (which no serious group advocates), and yet you give multiple examples of not just public, but government, endorsement of religion. :headbang:

Moreover, you are demonstrating the danger of letting the camel's nose into the tent. Obviously, you wish to use each instance where a minor breach in the wall of separation of Church and State as a precedent for tearing down the wall altogether. If we give you an inch, you demand a mile.

Please provide a citation. I don't believe this. The DoI is not a law and never has been.
Looking for it, there was a site I came across a long time ago that had that definition put in and it stated that the Constitution and DoI were Linked, that the DoI was considered the "spirit" in which the Constitution was suppose to support... and that it wasn't repealed or altered after being signed into law... bear with me, but Leagaliese is like greek to me.

Freedom of religion INCLUDES Freedom From Religion,
No, it doesn't.

Originally posted by Kinda Sensible People

Text of the First ammendmant "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Pretty clear, no? And... The bill of rights is consitutional. It overrules everything except for a later ammenmant (And there has been none contradicting the first)

No, not clear. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are two separate documents that have been "stapled together". The Constitution was written by the government for the government and the Bill of Rights was written by the people for the government. The Bill of Rights overrides the Constitution, but it is not the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution does not state anywhere that there is separation of church and state.

I fail to see how any of this creates a support for the claim of christian heritage to our law.

The reason it supports is to say that those men who wrote the law were Christian or recognized the Christian God. As I stated. They pressed for religious freedoms in a Christian society. They did not want laws to prohibit them from worship God as they wished. They never thought that other religions such as: Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc... would come to America and bring their own religions en masse. The men were Christians and they were descendants of Christian nations. They hailed from England, Holland, France, Italy, and Spain... all of which were Christian nations. I believe that the heritage is clearly Christian. None of them were Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, nor anything save Deist.

The mint and the pledge are both in the wrong. America has no national religion and if we ever truly have one, then the spirit of America has died. The legislators have every right to pray. And I most certainly agree that the Puritains brought with them their authoritarian form of religion when they came to America. Are you calling that a good thing? I've got multiple dead "witches" in the Massachusetts colony that say otherwise.

I disagree. The mint and pledge are both right. They hold to the heritage of America, a Christian nation, and a nation that believes in the sanctity of Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To say that we have a National Religion is not to "kill the spirit" or America. To say we have a Nation Religion means we declare that religion as the majority religion in which people worship, and the religion in which the nation was created, as well as to say that the laws and fundementals of the nation were and are created with that religion's basic principles in mind.

I'm glad you agree that the Puritains brought their religion to America. I would have you note, however, that America was not the only place to hold such trial. Many other nations held similar trials, most notably England and France, and under similar circumstances. To delve into the history of the Witch Trials is to say that the first trials actually happened in England, but America got more invovled and the fact that the Puritans were at blame mostly is saying nothing to me. The English were Anglican, and yet they did it as well. So don't throw the blame on the denomination of the religion. For the most part it was the people who were taken over by fear of the unknown, which is understandable. You, I would believe, under similar conditions, would do the same thing they did and panic. Furthermore, do not press "authoritarian" on them specifically. In nearly any Muslim nation, the same happened. They were far more authoritarian.

And, on a second tangent about your recognition on the Puritan Americans. If you recognize their hold on America... then also recognize the Quakers, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Catholics, etc... which were all here from pretty much pre-foundation of even the colonies. From the pilgrims in Mass to Spanish explorers in Florida, the beginnings of this nation were Christian. Thus the heritage. If you will recognize one, recognize all of them.

But it is wrong, because the pledge is an act of government, and there is a very strong feeling of biggotry against people who don't follow your "National Religion" and the pledge expresses that strongly. And, if you've been reading, there are states that do require it, and most little kids don't even know they don't have to say it.

The pledge is not an act of the Federal government, which is where the general application of the Constitution lies, and where all of the Bill of Rights is centered. The Bill of Rights was written to keep the Federal government from having too much power, while allowing the individual state governments their choices. So, on that point, even if it were an act of government, it would still be legal even by the First Amendment which specifically states "Congress shall make no law..." Furthermore, the feelings of biggotry are unfounded. Those are your beliefs. I would disagree. I live in the Bible Belt of the South and so I see a fair share of these biggots, yes. However, I also see very many people who are accepting and curious of others' religions. Myself, while I may be Christian, I have friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I have been associated with people from Muslim, Wiccan, Jewish, Hindu, and Christian backgrounds. I hold no biggotry, nor does mainstream America. I believe America is very liberal about religious practices. If you would like to see biggotry, go to the Phillipines and say you're Christian. See what happens. Go to North Ireland and say you're Catholic, or Ireland and say you're Presbyterian. In America, we do not care save for a loud minority which can easily be ignored.

As to the states that require it... I concede that I didn't really read much because it was too much to get caught up on and I figured someone would point out what I missed. And, to that, I say there's no problem with declaring fealty to a nation you live in. The fact that it says "Under God" means nothing. If it were to say, "Under Yahweh" or "Under Jehovah" or another nomer for the Christian deity then I would agree with you. However, it says "God". That could mean "Allah" if you wanted, or which ever Hindu deity you prefer worship under, or--if you're Athiest--a simple understanding to your moral code or whatever you hold high in your mind. When you swear into the military you also say those very words "Under God". My recruiter explained it to me, as an athiest, that, to him, he was swearing to protect this nation not by a religious belief, but by his moral beliefs in freedom and justice. It's not a Christian statement to say "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance if you're not Christian, you make it what you believe. Furthermore, the Pledge of Allegiance does not focus on that particular phrase. What, then, is the point in getting mad about it? It is a Pledge of Allegiance to a country, not a deity. If you don't care to swear fealty, you simply stand to show respect for those that to believe in this nation.

I am pissed because America is protecting "Christians" while spitting on non-beleivers. I am not pissed because America is allowing people religious freedoms, I'm pissed because it is spitting on mine.

I do not profess knowledge of your particular religion (if you stated it, I just missed it...). However, America is not spitting on anyone. America freely lets anyone worship any which way they would like so long as it does not involve the infringement of the law. I can go down a street and see a synagouge, a church, and a mosque all within 5 miles of each other. All of these are government sanctioned, tax-free buildings. I have even seen Wiccan churchs that are government sanctioned and tax-free. So tell me how it is spitting on any religion. The fact that America retains characteristics that it had from birth is not spitting on anyone, it is simply the way America is.

I would also like to note, to Junii... that the DoI was never law. It was written while America was still a colony of the British Empire. It was merely a statement (a declaration, if you will) that America was going to war. More or less... well, actually, literally, it was a declaration of rebellion and war. Because of this it held no legal authority. Actually, it was illegal because it was a declaration of rebellion against the British government. It was never ratified into law and was merely a spirited document saying why America was rebelling against the British Empire.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Screw you back to all yall athiests. And when the end comes, be sure to send us a postcard from hell :)

Sure ya say you dont believe in it now and love to knock us believers, but in the end. We believers lose nothing if we right. Either way your Fooked :)

hehe. Ya, you got the upper hand butt nuggett :D

Screw you back to all yall athiests. And when the end comes, be sure to send us a postcard from hell :)

Sure ya say you dont believe in it now and love to knock us believers, but in the end. We believers lose nothing if we right. Either way your Fooked :)

hehe. Ya, you got the upper hand butt nuggett :D

...Unless someone else is right, in which case you go to some other form of eternal torment because you chose wrong.

It works both ways.

wow, it's been along time since i posted on there.......well, ne wayz, I see nothin has changed......

I learned something new today(i know! how weird to actually learn something at school, but i did)
Well, in 1942 the Pledge of Allegiance was actually adopted as the National Pledge of Allegiance.....and alot of you have brought up that "Under God" wasn't added untill 1954, A whopping 12 years after it became the actual symbol it is today. Well, my point is....yall make a big deal about "Under God wasn't even in the original Pledge of Allegiance" well......WHO CARES!??! It's been in there for 51 years, compare that to 12 years it wasn't. Whether you like it or not....the words "under God" have become part of the Pledge of Allegiance. And did you not know, that the original Poem that Francis Scott Key wrote that became "The Star Spangled Banner" had "In God we Put out Trust" in one of the stanzas(it's not in the first 4 we usually sing, but it's in the other less famous stanzas also where the words "Star Spangled Banner" can be found) So that's my point, and now i have legitmate proof(you can look it up) to back up what i've been saying for weeks, "Under God" is not consitutional because this country was founded on God and religions. Another point i will keep making is that the whole reasons the Pilgrims came over here was to escape Relgious persectution(not Relgion) that's why Freedom of Religion does NOT included Freedom From Relgion.

Oh and whoever(i didn't have time to read it) was comparing Racial Bigotry to "under God" being in the pledge, needs to get your facts straight! Because i will become extremely offended being a Black Christian, if you don't get your facts straight......

I'M BAAAACK!(i know you all missed me ;) )

wow, it's been along time since i posted on there.......well, ne wayz, I see nothin has changed......

I learned something new today(i know! how weird to actually learn something at school, but i did)
Well, in 1942 the Pledge of Allegiance was actually adopted as the National Pledge of Allegiance.....and alot of you have brought up that "Under God" wasn't added untill 1954, A whopping 12 years after it became the actual symbol it is today. Well, my point is....yall make a big deal about "Under God wasn't even in the original Pledge of Allegiance" well......WHO CARES!??! It's been in there for 51 years, compare that to 12 years it wasn't. Whether you like it or not....the words "under God" have become part of the Pledge of Allegiance. And did you not know, that the original Poem that Francis Scott Key wrote that became "The Star Spangled Banner" had "In God we Put out Trust" in one of the stanzas(it's not in the first 4 we usually sing, but it's in the other less famous stanzas also where the words "Star Spangled Banner" can be found) So that's my point, and now i have legitmate proof(you can look it up) to back up what i've been saying for weeks, "Under God" is not consitutional because this country was founded on God and religions. Another point i will keep making is that the whole reasons the Pilgrims came over here was to escape Relgious persectution(not Relgion) that's why Freedom of Religion does NOT included Freedom From Relgion.

Oh and whoever(i didn't have time to read it) was comparing Racial Bigotry to "under God" being in the pledge, needs to get your facts straight! Because i will become extremely offended being a Black Christian, if you don't get your facts straight......

I'M BAAAACK!(i know you all missed me ;) )

So I have no right to not be subjected to religious persecution, because I do not want YOUR religion shoved down my throat? Is that what the Pilgrims came here for? Is that what you are suggesting?

The day they take away my right to Freedom FROM Religion (your religion) is the day I find another country to live in.

that's why Freedom of Religion does NOT included Freedom from Religion

The fact we don't have to pass a religious test to take part in society says it does.

OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.

The quetion is why the decision to take out the part got repealled by the Senate (99-0, proof that even Democrats like to suck up to Christians) and the part stayed in.

The Constitution demands it, yet the Yankees ignored it to please a bunch of wacko Christians. On behalf of all Atheists, I say to you religious right-wingers F*** YOU! :upyours:

America IS NOT A THEORACY, so shut up. :headbang:

And for all those saying America is a "Christian nation", answer this:

Q: True or False: all American presidents have been practising Christians?

A: FALSE. :sniper: BAM! YOU GOT SERVED!!

*Break dances to MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This."*

Like middle-fingers, do you? I take offense to that. Luckily for me, my President represents MY feelings completly, let's take a look:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y208/zimmy60/AngryBush.jpg








I'm sorry, I just had to use that.

I amazes me that not one other "Christian" has quoted the bible to support their opinion that the NT supports the state promoting a belief in God. Well there is a reason for that. There is NOTHING in the BIBLE that supports political powers supporting or promoting religion. Secondly, I see no "Christian" arguing that Jesus promoted Crhistians forcing their beliefs on others. That is because Jesus said just the opposite. Christians are NEVER to force their beliefs on others. Doesn't it just burn that those who say they live by the BIBLE and believe it Word-for-Word cannot find one arguement in the NT to support their position.

WHO. CARES.

seriously, if you're athiest, its not gonna offend you to say god, because you know he's fake. don't make a big deal over A WORD. BECAUSE THATS ALL IT IS.

EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PC DOESNT IT??????

WHO. CARES.

seriously, if you're athiest, its not gonna offend you to say god, because you know he's fake. don't make a big deal over A WORD. BECAUSE THATS ALL IT IS.

EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PC DOESNT IT??????

If it's just a word then there is nothing wrong with removing it; right?

WHO. CARES.

seriously, if you're athiest, its not gonna offend you to say god, because you know he's fake. don't make a big deal over A WORD. BECAUSE THATS ALL IT IS.

EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PC DOESNT IT??????
A real "Christian" would not take the chance of offending someone. A real Christian would rather not do what is his right to do than offend someone. 1Cor 8:12 Thus, sinning against your brethern and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

My friend, you have it all wrong.
Originially posted by Goodlifes

A real "Christian" would not take the chance of offending someone. A real Christian would rather not do what is his right to do than offend someone.
1Cor 8:12 Thus, sinning against your brethern and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

I would like, to start, to provide some basis around your quote. Like most, you have taken a sole verse in the Bible and blown it out of proportion.

Read the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 8. You will note that the Apostle Paul is talking of eating food sacrificed to idols as opposed to food not sacrificed to idols. As Christians, we do not have to sacrifice food to God, nor to any idol. However, the time period was during Roman occupation, and the place was filled with pagans who still did such. As a man telling the church in Corinth to be Godly, he was saying, "Do not eat meat if the people around you think you are being unGodly in doing so." More or less, because Christians were allowed to eat meat and others were not used to unless it was in offering to an idol, they would think that we were not being Christian and straying our beliefs.

The specific passage area you spoke of is, 1 Corinthians 9-13:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in and idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

Okay... now, honestly, does your argument fit in at all? No. It merely means, exercise caution, that you do not give people the wrong impression of God. Offending people is fine. Read the Gospels. Jesus offended everyone. They crucified him, I mean, seriously. How badly would I have to offend you to have you nail me to a cross?

If you want to use Bible references, please use them correctly. It's insulting to me to think I'm so ignorant about my own religion.

Now...

I amazes me that not one other "Christian" has quoted the bible to support their opinion that the NT supports the state promoting a belief in God. Well there is a reason for that. There is NOTHING in the BIBLE that supports political powers supporting or promoting religion. Secondly, I see no "Christian" arguing that Jesus promoted Crhistians forcing their beliefs on others. That is because Jesus said just the opposite. Christians are NEVER to force their beliefs on others. Doesn't it just burn that those who say they live by the BIBLE and believe it Word-for-Word cannot find one arguement in the NT to support their position.

Okay.... Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governerning authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
I think that goes good. God established our government. He helped found it. Read examples. Read the story of George Washington and crossing the Hudson. God helped us create this place. That they pay homage is fair. I say, God supports the state. If the state supports God, then more power to the institution, I say.

I know that's kind of a weak example. But again, I press, look at Jesus. Jesus told the people and the government what was right. He said, "Give to God what is His, and to Caesar what is his." I think it's fair to say that the state doesn't have to support God, but that God supports it, and thus it should. You are right we are not to force Christianity on others. However, we are supposed to be Christian and model ourselves that way. And, because of that, we are supposed to be open with our religion. I say, if this country is mostly Christian, then we should be open with it. We shouldn't hide it. Look to my other, previous arguments on the topic if you want. I don't feel like re-stating points.

yeah, everyone has to say the Pledge, u can't pray in school, but you have to say the Pledge, just out of respect for America, cause it is kind of important.......... ;)

Wait...Really? You guys have to give that pledge of yours at school?

The specific passage area you spoke of is, 1 Corinthians 9-13:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in and idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.


You're right, we are not argueing about eating food given to idols. BUT what is the message that we are being given. "WHEN YOU SIN AGAINST YOUR BROTHER IN THIS WAY AND WOUND THEIR WEAK CONSCIENCE, YOU SIN AGAINST CHRIST". Obviously the Bible cannot hold every example of everything we will run into. We don't run into meat given to idols, but we DO run into cases where our actions---even actions legal under Christianity--can and do hurt the conscience of others around us. Saying "under God" in public may be legal under Christianity (depending on if it is defined as a prayer or not) but obviously, it does hurt the conscience of some of our neighbors. Just like Paul said not to eat meat if it would hurt anyone's conscience. Should we mumble words that hurt the conscience of those around us? WWJD???

I know that's kind of a weak example. But again, I press, look at Jesus. Jesus told the people and the government what was right. He said, "Give to God what is His, and to Caesar what is his." I think it's fair to say that the state doesn't have to support God, but that God supports it, and thus it should. You are right we are not to force Christianity on others. However, we are supposed to be Christian and model ourselves that way. And, because of that, we are supposed to be open with our religion. I say, if this country is mostly Christian, then we should be open with it. We shouldn't hide it. Look to my other, previous arguments on the topic if you want. I don't feel like re-stating points.
I agree that Christians should obey every law. I even try not to speed as it would be a violation of God's law. As long as it is the law that children must say the pledge as it is written, Children should say the pledge. But in this country, we have the right and duty to change laws that harm others around us. Even as Paul said, it MAY hurt the CONSCIENCE of those around us. That is the core of this debate. Does a Christian force someone to say something against their conscience?
Christians are not to force their beliefs on others. Others should be able to tell we are Christians by our actions not our words or laws. What actions make someone know you are a Christian? Could one of those actions be that we love our neighbor so much that we would not force them to say something against their conscience?

Saying "under God" in public may be legal under Christianity (depending on if it is defined as a prayer or not) but obviously, it does hurt the conscience of some of our neighbors. Just like Paul said not to eat meat if it would hurt anyone's conscience. Should we mumble words that hurt the conscience of those around us? WWJD???

It hurts the conscience of someone either way.

How can a faithful follower of Christ (for example) make a pledge of allegiance to the government and NOT acknowledge in and during their pledge, that their pledge is UNDER their allegiance to God? They cannot.

They can’t make their pledge to the government at all then. Because once this had been brought to their attention how many religious people (once they are forced to acknowledge that they cannot have two masters) will be required to accept this 'non-under God' pledge of allegiance, when it does not specifically allow them to place their oath under their Allegiance to God?

More people will be offended without the “under God” than with it, Christians with free conscience can and should vote to keep it in.

More people will be offended without the “under God” than with it, Christians with free conscience can and should vote to keep it in.

Just because more people are offended doens't make it right. It used to be more people were offended by inter-racial marriages than were not offended, it still didn't make it right to outlaw them.

As I suggested before, why not open up the pledge? Why not allow each person to follow the dictates of their conscience and have the government totally neutral acknowledging that people can substitute what they hold more dearest in the pledge, be it "one nation under God", or "one nation under Gods" or "One nation under the Goddess," or "One nation under Reason," or "one nation under Liberty" or "one nation under Love." We were founded as a nation of religious freedom, why shouldn't our pledge reflect that?

I do not believe that it is illegal for you or anyone else to alter it as they say it... Indeed, they are not forced to say it at all.

I do not believe that it is illegal for you or anyone else to alter it as they say it... Indeed, they are not forced to say it at all.

Well I got dentention during high school for doing it. But that is besides the point, the government does not recognize any other version. It's like gay marriage, we can marry homosexual couples in our church but if the government doesn't recognize it, is it really marriage?

Well I got dentention during high school for doing it. But that is besides the point, the government does not recognize any other version. It's like gay marriage, we can marry homosexual couples in our church but if the government doesn't recognize it, is it really marriage?


Tries to imagnine a non-intrusive way for you to privately say the Pledge that would get you suspended for it.... Can't think of any ... What exactly were you doing? :p

Tries to imagnine a non-intrusive way for you to privately say the Pledge that would get you suspended for it.... Can't think of any ... What exactly were you doing? :p

One nation, Under the Spirit of Life and Love, with liberty and justice for all.

warned once, detention the next day. Granted I was raised in a town dominated by a very conservative church. (When I say conservative, they didn't allow women to speak in church and most of the congregation still supported segregation about 10 years ago)

One nation, Under the Spirit of Life and Love, with liberty and justice for all.

warned once, detention the next day. Granted I was raised in a town dominated by a very conservative church. (When I say conservative, they didn't allow women to speak in church and most of the congregation still supported segregation about 10 years ago)

Were you doing it as a form of protest? Were you trying to be disruptive or loud enough to ensure everyone else heard your alteration of the pledge? If not, are your 'sure' ;)

But you have my sympathy, I understand.

Originally posted by Good Lifes

You're right, we are not argueing about eating food given to idols. BUT what is the message that we are being given. "WHEN YOU SIN AGAINST YOUR BROTHER IN THIS WAY AND WOUND THEIR WEAK CONSCIENCE, YOU SIN AGAINST CHRIST". Obviously the Bible cannot hold every example of everything we will run into. We don't run into meat given to idols, but we DO run into cases where our actions---even actions legal under Christianity--can and do hurt the conscience of others around us. Saying "under God" in public may be legal under Christianity (depending on if it is defined as a prayer or not) but obviously, it does hurt the conscience of some of our neighbors. Just like Paul said not to eat meat if it would hurt anyone's conscience. Should we mumble words that hurt the conscience of those around us? WWJD???

Aye, but it is specifically speaking about making them sin. It is not a sin to recognize the Christian God under Christianity. Furthermore, it's speaking about "do not be presented in sin to a brother, because he will think your sin is just, and sin as well". It pertains to something like watching porn and getting a friend whom you know, before they were Christian, was addicted to it to watch it with you. That is a weakness. The word "conscience" means "with knowledge" (con - with, science - knowledge), and thus your conscience will not be "hurt" to do something which is not wrong Biblically. That passage is saying, "Do not do what is wrong in front of others whom you are setting an example for, for you will lead them wrong." If we were to impose Christianity to the extreme that prayer was necessary, or that everybody who was not Christian was burned at the stake, then yes. I would agree. However, the Pledge of Allegiance is a primary voice to your nation, and it is saying that you are pledging your support to America (which fits under my Romans 13:1 example) under God. Which, by supporting your own nation you support God.

People have misconstrued how the Pledge is spoken. They think they're pledging under God. But they are not.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

That is saying, "this nation is under God". As it should be Biblically, not "I pledge myself under God to this one nation." That's why there's no comma there. I feel justified with the facts given. Roughly 90% of America believes in Yahweh, the Christian God, be they Jew or Christian, so I believe the majority should have their will in the matter. To take it out is to offend most of that 90%.



Originally posted by UnitarianUniversalists

Well I got dentention during high school for doing it. But that is besides the point, the government does not recognize any other version. It's like gay marriage, we can marry homosexual couples in our church but if the government doesn't recognize it, is it really marriage?

No, it is not. The Christian church Biblically should not recognize gay marriage. That is an abomination against God to get married in a church if you are gay. The Bible blatantly says that those who are gay are sinning, and the church cannot sanctify a sin. So gay marriage is wrong. However, if they want to get married outside of a church, just legally in court. That is fine with me. -shrugs- I oppose forcing the churchs to recognize gays as able to be married in church. That is forcing the government on the church, which is illegal. (However, forcing the church on the government is not illegal.) And, beyond that, if the government doesn't recognize it, then no it is not. The church cannot sanctify marriage if the government does not recognize it.

Were you doing it as a form of protest? Were you trying to be disruptive or loud enough to ensure everyone else heard your alteration of the pledge? If not, are your 'sure' ;)

But you have my sympathy, I understand.

Like most high school students I wasn't above a little protest and that was probably part of it. I don't think I was particularly loud but was in the first row and didn't mumble. Not sure if it would have been noticed except it takes longer to say "Spirit of Life and Love". It was durring the time just after the "revelation" that what I was being taught just doesn't make sense, and if true God was just plain evil. (What kind of deity sends children to Hell who aren't baptised?) Thus, I couldn't believe in God and had to turn my worship to something else. (Since then, I've stopped letting others define God for me and now identify them as one and the same)

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.
Well said. I'm an atheist but unlike many other atheists and proponents of secularism, I recognise that as long as laws do not establish a state religion or infringe on the peoples ability to freely practise religion they do not violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects us from having religion legislated for us, not from hearing the word god from time to time.

Hey, Unitarian.... I'd like for you to IM me. AntitheticTheory is on AIM, if you have that. archaic_entity@hotmail.com if MSN.

'Cause that last post... I don't feel like getting in depth with it on a forum, but I'd like to talk about it.

Well said. I'm an atheist but unlike many other atheists and proponents of secularism, I recognise that as long as laws do not establish a state religion or infringe on the peoples ability to freely practise religion they do not violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects us from having religion legislated for us, not from hearing the word god from time to time.

Thank you :)

Well, there are 2 major points here:

1) The Pledge is not always Mandatory
2) The under god part disturbs some groups (not only atheists)

Let's look at the first. In most school districts you are not required to recite the pledge of Allegiance each morning. However, most have a morning ritual (for lack of a better word) where it is said over public address and at the very least, everyone must stand and be quiet. Those not actually reciting the pledge are chastised socially for not doing it. I once saw a Jehovah's Witness girl brought to her by classmates that didn't like her non-response to the Pledge.

So even if it isn't mandatory due to your beliefs you pay the price for "not being part of the club".

The second point, why, if we are not all Christians, are people fighting to keep it in? It's 2 words that do not effect how I feel about the US. I think here in the US we fight to fight and not for any particular reason. I find it funny that a group that preaches "Treat others as you want to be treated..." and "turn the other cheek..." always get very "eye for an eye" when anyone confronts their beliefs.

My final point (not listed above, but it was in my head)....how do atheists feel about "IN GOD WE TRUST" on our dollars? I don;t care for it, yet I must use money, or fail to pay for anything. While I rarely use cash anymore it has more to do with convenience than confrontation of beliefs.

No, it is not. The Christian church Biblically should not recognize gay marriage. That is an abomination against God to get married in a church if you are gay. The Bible blatantly says that those who are gay are sinning, and the church cannot sanctify a sin. So gay marriage is wrong. However, if they want to get married outside of a church, just legally in court. That is fine with me. -shrugs- I oppose forcing the churchs to recognize gays as able to be married in church. That is forcing the government on the church, which is illegal. (However, forcing the church on the government is not illegal.) And, beyond that, if the government doesn't recognize it, then no it is not. The church cannot sanctify marriage if the government does not recognize it.

Well I guess I an (and my chruch is) not Christian according to you (not a big surprise since I know most of the people who attend don't consider themselves Christians). What does that have to do with anything, we're promiced religious freedom in this country. In addition, the 6 clobber verses usually used are taken out of context and mistranslated. There is nothing in the Bible (Hebrew OT and Greek NT not the English versions) that disallows homosexual marriage or condems homosexuality between two loving people.

You know why other nations support removal of the word God from our country? Because they know it works for us and keeps us strong and balanced. It violates nothing in the constitution! I bet if it said "Alah" instead of "God" they wouldn't have a problem with it. They'd be too afraid to speak up. Christianity isn't going to take over the world, so relax my brothers in the Land Down Under! If we can have laws in this nation that go against the christian beleifs, then we can have laws that go against yours right? Or is equal rights only supported when it's yours that are upheld? We Christians are taught to be tolerant. We don't agree with abortion, cloning, gay marraige, but you expect us to accept it. Again our faith tells us to respect the "laws of the land" but not to accept it. Wouldn't that be saying we have to go against our faith and accept it? We have the same right as you to convince others it is wrong and not to endorce it into law. So have a little compassion that you folks claim to be the party of. It seems to lack even though you claim to be compassionate progressives lol! The word God won't make your pee pee grow smaller, or poison your mind.

The Pledge is not a mandantory requirement .... Amendment.

If it's not mandatory then you won't mind not having it repeated in schools where attendance IS mandatory.


.... and so is not forcing anyone to conform to a particular religious belief....

I can tell you from personal experience as an atheist kid growing up in the 50's and 60's that this is complete hogwash.
"Er...I'd rather not say that pledge 'cause I really don't believe in the God stuff."
"Well, everyone in this class repeats the pledge. You'll learn that there's a god eventually when you grow up. You're just immature now."
"You can't come to my party 'cause my mommy says you don't believe and god and are a bad person."
etc.

This is not an opinion, it's a fact, on this point you're totally full of crap.



The Pledge... does not violate the First Amendment.

I guess we'll have to see what the courts say. With this fundie-nutcase-president appointing two supreme court justices there's a high likelyhood that
that theocracy will win out.
Either way it turns out, there's going to be a lot of people pissed off. I sometimes think maybe they put the "under god" in the pledge just to make sure we don't get to united or indivisible 'cause that's the effect it's had.

That passage is saying, "Do not do what is wrong in front of others whom you are setting an example for, for you will lead them wrong."


You need to read the passage again. It says to a Christian, eating meat is NOT wrong. BUT if you are with someone who thinks it is wrong, DON'T DO IT. A Christian is to submit to the conscience of his neighbor, even if what his neighbor believes is not true to him.

Now who is your neighbor? Just other Christians of different denominations? Lk 10:30-37

You know why other nations support removal of the word God from our country? Because they know it works for us and keeps us strong and balanced.

Yes. Too bad the founding fathers are turning in their graves...

It hurts the conscience of someone either way.

How can a faithful follower of Christ (for example) make a pledge of allegiance to the government and NOT acknowledge in and during their pledge, that their pledge is UNDER their allegiance to God? They cannot.

They can’t make their pledge to the government at all then. Because once this had been brought to their attention how many religious people (once they are forced to acknowledge that they cannot have two masters) will be required to accept this 'non-under God' pledge of allegiance, when it does not specifically allow them to place their oath under their Allegiance to God?

More people will be offended without the “under God” than with it, Christians with free conscience can and should vote to keep it in.

The problem is, if you believe the Bible is acurate, the BIBLE--not the constitution---calls for a separation of church and state. It also says very clearly in 1 Cor, among many other places, that if a choice has to be made, a Chistian would choose to NOT do something that would hurt his neighbor, even if doing it was perfectly acceptable to the Christian. In the Example in 1 Cor Paul said it was perfectly acceptable for a Christian to eat meat given to an idol. Just as it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to say "under God". BUT, even if it is ok to do it, a Christian would submit to the beliefs and conscience of his neighbors. In other words, it's ok to say "under God" but if it will harm anyone with you, DON'T DO IT. A Christian doesn't say, we have the numbers and the power so we can attack the conscience of our neighbors---A Christian says we care about the conscience of our neighbors and would do nothing that would harm them in any way.

If you can quote an area of the Bible that you contend that you live by--word-for-word, I would like to see that quote. If not, submit to the Bible you believe in.

The problem is, if you believe the Bible is acurate, the BIBLE--not the constitution---calls for a separation of church and state. It also says very clearly in 1 Cor, among many other places, that if a choice has to be made, a Chistian would choose to NOT do something that would hurt his neighbor, even if doing it was perfectly acceptable to the Christian. In the Example in 1 Cor Paul said it was perfectly acceptable for a Christian to eat meat given to an idol. Just as it is perfectly acceptable for a Christian to say "under God". BUT, even if it is ok to do it, a Christian would submit to the beliefs and conscience of his neighbors. In other words, it's ok to say "under God" but if it will harm anyone with you, DON'T DO IT. A Christian doesn't say, we have the numbers and the power so we can attack the conscience of our neighbors---A Christian says we care about the conscience of our neighbors and would do nothing that would harm them in any way.

If you can quote an area of the Bible that you contend that you live by--word-for-word, I would like to see that quote. If not, submit to the Bible you believe in.


If you say that, then you are also saying that "Daniel" should have just bowed down to the King and gotten his pledge over-with, so as to not offend the Babylonian citizens that were doing it and fully expecting him to do it too (lest they be offended by his actions and he offends his neighbor).

You are suggesting that he should NOT have resisted saying the King's required pledge of allegiance, even though it did not allow him to vow his allegiance at a level lower than his allegiance to God (as the US Pledge now allows America's religious people to do by allowing them say and place their pledge to their country 'Under" their pledge to God).

To say the pledge as, "one nation under God," for so many year and then now to remove the subservience to a higher being and greater good than the government itself, the pledge to the government then assumes an equal level in ranking as the citizens own allegiance to God. In the end, turning it into a blasphemy.

To say the pledge as, "one nation under God," for so many year and then now to remove the subservience to a higher being and greater good than the government itself, the pledge to the government then assumes an equal level in ranking as the citizens own allegiance to God. In the end, turning it into a blasphemy.

1. The pledge did not originaly have under god in it. Its wouldnt be a completely new pledge because we remove under god from its. It would just be reverting to the second version of the pledge.

2. If you don't like it don't say it. No one would be forcing you to say it. :p

1. The pledge did not originaly have under god in it. Its wouldnt be a completely new pledge because we remove under god from its. It would just be reverting to the second version of the pledge.

That is correct, the pledge at one time did not have "under God" in it, it does now. It's has had it for decades, now. What other rights have been retrieved and reverted to earlier conditions without a bitter conflict?

Are you suggesting that rights once gained are easily given up again after they have become customary? I think not. The longing for the taste of 'right' when it was never known is not highly valued but the taste of 'right' once sipped is a sweetness valued above all others.

2. If you don't like it don't say it. No one would be forcing you to say it. :p

That's right, and those that would get rid of it are no less stubbornness than those that would keep it.

That is correct, the pledge at one time did not have "under God" in it, it does now. It's has had it for decades, now. What other rights have been retrieved and reverted to earlier conditions without a bitter conflict?

Are you suggesting that rights once gained are easily given up again after they have become customary? I think not. The longing for the taste of 'right' when it was never known is not highly valued but the taste of 'right' once sipped is a sweetness valued above all others.
Saying under god is not a right. If someone was to take away the right to lets say abortion then you would have a case here. But reciting the words under god in a countries pledge is not a right.



That's right, and those that would get rid of it are no less stubbornness than those that would keep it.
I agree. When people think they are absolutely right and the other side is wrong they won't back down. The problem is both sides have taken this point of view.

Saying under god is not a right. If someone was to take away the right to lets say abortion then you would have a case here. But reciting the words under god in a countries pledge is not a right.


Sure it is. Currently they have the right to say their allegiance to their country as a pledge "Under God," which allows them the liberty to feel comfortable sure of their vow/pledge, however, without it, they would feel conflict by their vow to keep God above all things and their desire for patriotic loyalty. You would take this right away from them and say they shouldn’t miss it.

The Pledge of Alleigance does not have to be said and so it doesn't establish any religion in to law, and does not prohibit the free exercise of religion. Thus, it doesn't violate the First Amendment, and the case is null.
actually it does have to be said in all public schools. and it is also endorsed by the government. the case was thrown out on a technicality, that being that the father didnt have legal custody of the child. That being said, he would have won the case in the courts. and i agree with him. i never say the pledge because i do not pledge to a god that i dont believe in.
The democrats had to vote that way. The case wasn't legal. if they voted for it, the decision would have gone the other way, and so they're waiting for a time when they can legally challenge it.

If you say that, then you are also saying that "Daniel" should have just bowed down to the King and gotten his pledge over-with, so as to not offend the Babylonian citizens that were doing it and fully expecting him to do it too (lest they be offended by his actions and he offends his neighbor).

You are suggesting that he should NOT have resisted saying the King's required pledge of allegiance, even though it did not allow him to vow his allegiance at a level lower than his allegiance to God (as the US Pledge now allows America's religious people to do by allowing them say and place their pledge to their country 'Under" their pledge to God).

To say the pledge as, "one nation under God," for so many year and then now to remove the subservience to a higher being and greater good than the government itself, the pledge to the government then assumes an equal level in ranking as the citizens own allegiance to God. In the end, turning it into a blasphemy.

If I remember correctly Danial was asked to do something that was NOT allowed under his beliefs and conscience. This is just the opposite of not doing something that is allowed under Christian beliefs and conscience but is not allowed under the conscience of your neighbor.

Saying the "under God" is allowed under the conscience and understanding of a Christian but is not allowed under the conscience of the neighbor. Therefore, under all of the teachings of the Bible the Christian is to act in love to his neighbor, and not force his neighbor to break the neighbors beliefs.

I never said the Bible asks a Christian to do something that is against his understanding of his religion---Just the opposite. In this story the King was trying to force his neighbors to do somthing against their beliefs. If he were a Christian he would have been as wrong as those that are forcing "under God" on their neighbors. The king had the power to force his will, just as Christians today have the votes and power to force their will. Just because the King had the power, or Christians have the power, doesn't make forcing things on your neighbor correct.

If I remember correctly, Danial did not make s show of his position and when arrested, submitted to the government's designated punishment. As the Bible says, all governments get their power from God, so to not submit would have been to defy the will of God.

Yes, he submitted to the punishment that would be wrecked upon him for not pledging his loyalty and fealty to the King (pledge being a form of worship in this case). And he submitted himself afterwards, as he should, to the punishment he would receive. But he did make a spectacle of himself, the entire city knew that he did not bow down because he was not bowing in the crowd, he stood out and everyone could see him.

Where we disagree however is in thinking about what happens IF the “under God” aspect is removed from the pledge of loyalty to the government.

A Christian is NOT allowed to pledge loyalty to a government that would be made equal to their allegiance to God. You cannot have two masters, a Christian must pledge loyalty to their government only as much as it MUST be under God. They cannot pledge loyalty to a government that does not recognize God, only obedience (pay taxes, not break laws that don’t require breaking God’s laws etc.,). You seem to ignore the result of complying willingly with this demand to remove “Under God” from the pledge.

A Christian is NOT allowed to pledge loyalty to a government that would be made equal to their allegiance to God. You cannot have two masters, a Christian must pledge loyalty to their government only as much as it MUST be under God. They cannot pledge loyalty to a government that does not recognize God, only obedience (pay taxes, not break laws that don’t require breaking God’s laws etc.,). You seem to ignore the result of complying willingly with this demand to remove “Under God” from the pledge.

I think if you check you will find that Paul was a citizen of Rome. As I remember, Rome wasn't "under God". But Paul did teach that all power comes from God. So even Nero was to be respected as the leader who received power from God. God can even work with evil leaders to reach God's goals.

I think if you check you will find that Paul was a citizen of Rome. As I remember, Rome wasn't "under God". But Paul did teach that all power comes from God. So even Nero was to be respected as the leader who received power from God. God can even work with evil leaders to reach God's goals.

Paul did NOT honor/worship Nero as he was told to do and was punished for it. All of the Christians were punished for not pledging allegiance to Caesar. They did not obey and they could not, so long as you are not told to break the laws of God, you can respect and follow, but you cannot pledge allegiance to it and have two masters.

In the Pledge of Allegiance today, religious people can pledge themselves simply because the pledge itself confirms that they are still obedient to God above the government.

Sure it is. Currently they have the right to say their allegiance to their country as a pledge "Under God," which allows them the liberty to feel comfortable sure of their vow/pledge, however, without it, they would feel conflict by their vow to keep God above all things and their desire for patriotic loyalty. You would take this right away from them and say they shouldn’t miss it.

You have the right to freedom of speech. You can either say the pledge with the phrase in it or not say it at all but no one is saying no you can't say this. No one is taking away a right. If you think that removing a phrase from a government pledge is removing a right you've got to be kidding me. In the end you arent forced to do anything. The government is being told what it can allow in a pledge hence your rights arent violated. Nice try but that arguement is the worst one I have ever heard for keeping the phrase under god in the pledge.

You have the right to freedom of speech. You can either say the pledge with the phrase in it or not say it at all but no one is saying no you can't say this. No one is taking away a right. If you think that removing a phrase from a government pledge is removing a right you've got to be kidding me. In the end you arent forced to do anything. The government is being told what it can allow in a pledge hence your rights arent violated. Nice try but that arguement is the worst one I have ever heard for keeping the phrase under god in the pledge.


So you are saying that religious people do not have a right to have a stagered loyalty, one to their God and it being over their loyalty to Government.

You are saying that they must decide to either to say a pledge straight up to their government or not say the pledge at all. They cannot, according to you, have the 'right' to remain both loyal to their religious faith and their government simultaneously.


If it isn't for religious freedoms, why are you wanting to remove the "under God" phase to begin with, for you persecute them so?

Your entire argument is already true, free to say it how you like, why change it at all then?

So you are saying that religious people do not have a right to have and staged loyalty, one to their God and it being over their loyalty to Government.
No where in the pledge does it say that you pledge your allegiance to the country over any diety. No where in the pledge does it make you decide who you are to follow. Thats your choice and saying the pledge without any reference to a god or saying there is no god makes you have no decision.

You are saying that they must decide to either to say a pledge straight to their government or not say the pledge at all. They cannot, according to you, have the 'right' to remain both loyal to their religious faith and their government simultaneously.
Nope I'm not saying what people must do at all you are. I'm saying that if they want to say the pledge with under god in it or not say it at all they could. Your trying to say they have to do something not me.


If it isn't for religious freedoms, why are you wanting to remove the "under God" phase to begin with, for you persecute them so?
1. Under god is a phrase that brings the government in the realm of religion where it has no place to be. I want to remove it so that the government is not involving itself in the practice of religion and by doing so I'm protecting your religious freedoms.

Your entire argument is already true, free to say it how you like, why change it at all then?
Because this is about the government dealing in affairs of religion where it should not be. I could use the same arguement against you. If we are free to say it how we want then you should have no problem with us removing the phrase because the government should not involve itself in religion. You can say it however you want so you shouldnt have a problem with that right?

Because this is about the government dealing in affairs of religion where it should not be. I could use the same arguement against you. If we are free to say it how we want then you should have no problem with us removing the phrase because the government should not involve itself in religion. You can say it however you want so you shouldnt have a problem with that right?

No, this is about Government making accommodation and concession to a religious people’s need, to participate at all. To make it possible, and enable them to participate, in a patriotic pledge ceremony.

Their religion says that they cannot pledge loyalty to both God and then to something else as well, unless they say their loyalty to the government is Under God they can not participate. You say that religious tolerance and acceptance and accommodation is an unfair request? Why so? Who is most harmed by leaving the Under God phase in the pledge? Allow the Muslim child a Prayer room at school, but not allow them to pledge allegiance to the flag unless they forsake their religion first, nice. :rolleyes:

Paul did NOT honor/worship Nero as he was told to do and was punished for it. All of the Christians were punished for not pledging allegiance to Caesar. They did not obey and they could not, so long as you are not told to break the laws of God, you can respect and follow, but you cannot pledge allegiance to it and have two masters.

In the Pledge of Allegiance today, religious people can pledge themselves simply because the pledge itself confirms that they are still obedient to God above the government.

Paul appealed his punishment because of his allegiance to Rome. Acts 16:37 Acts 22:25 22:28 25:10-11

He did not say that Rome had to be "under God"--It obviously wasn't. But he still confirmed his loyalty to Caesar.

The Christians were punished by Nero because they were becoming a power. A dictator cannot allow another power. That is why Saddam would never have given haven to the Taliban, Al queda (sp?) or any other power. When in complete power, you kill any rivals.

No, this is about Government making accommodation and concession to a religious people’s need, to participate at all. To make it possible, and enable them to participate, in a patriotic pledge ceremony.
There is your problem. The government can not make accomidations to a single religion. It would have to make accomidations to all religions and to athiests and agnostics. By your own admission then the government is violating the establishment clause.

Their religion says that they cannot pledge loyalty to both God and then to something else as well, unless they say their loyalty to the government is Under God they can not participate. You say that religious tolerance and acceptance and accommodation is an unfair request? Why so? Who is most harmed by leaving the Under God phase in the pledge? Allow the Muslim child a Prayer room at school, but not allow them to pledge allegiance to the flag unless they forsake their religion first, nice. :rolleyes:
I'm saying religious accomidation only works if you do it for everyone. And the pledge doesnt. So according to you either we are screwing the religious people or we are screwing athiests, wiccans, etc. And also NO ONE IS DENYING ANYONE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING. Show me how removing the phrase under god stops a kid from saying it in a class or not saying it at all. Show me how saying a pledge without under god in it would be tanamount for a person to be saying that its above their loyalty to god. The problem with your point of view is your only seeking to accomidate your side.

Is there any substantial legal difference between the pledge saying "under god" and the pledge saying "there is no god" ?

If so, why, and why would one be more or less constitutionally legal than the other?

Paul appealed his punishment because of his allegiance to Rome. Acts 16:37 Acts 22:25 22:28 25:10-11

Wrong sentence. I was speaking of his inability to get out of prison for being a heretic...

He did not say that Rome had to be "under God"--It obviously wasn't. But he still confirmed his loyalty to Caesar.

He did not confirm loyalty to Rome, only obedience, he submitted to their authority on earth, nothing more.

The Christians were punished by Nero because they were becoming a power. A dictator cannot allow another power. That is why Saddam would never have given haven to the Taliban, Al queda (sp?) or any other power. When in complete power, you kill any rivals.

You are speculating here, not biblical and not archaeological either. I won't argue speculation with you, we have enough topics going already. :)

I'm saying religious accomidation only works if you do it for everyone. And the pledge doesnt. So according to you either we are screwing the religious people or we are screwing athiests, wiccans, etc. And also NO ONE IS DENYING ANYONE THE ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING. Show me how removing the phrase under god stops a kid from saying it in a class or not saying it at all. Show me how saying a pledge without under god in it would be tanamount for a person to be saying that its above their loyalty to god. The problem with your point of view is your only seeking to accomidate your side.

I don't need to show you how Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and other monotheistic religions cannot say a pledge dedicating themselves to something other than God, the truth is self evident in that some will not say the pledge even today even with the "Under God" phase in it.

If it comes to a numbers game though, you do remember that we are government by the people and for the people yes? Count how many will be 'hurt' keeping a voluntary pledge and how many will be hurt by changing it. If neither is a civil rights case (you already said I didn't have a civil right to say it, then neither does anyone else) then majority rule and least amount of damage done...

Is there any substantial legal difference between the pledge saying "under god" and the pledge saying "there is no god" ?

If so, why, and why would one be more or less constitutionally legal than the other?


No constitution difference, lets put it to the vote and use the winning phrase.

Wrong sentence. I was speaking of his inability to get out of prison for being a heretic...



He did not confirm loyalty to Rome, only obedience, he submitted to their authority on earth, nothing more.


. :)
Are you saying Paul was only a Roman when it got him out of a beating? Do you think he was really that shallow?

Paul couldn't get out of prison because he had appealed to Caesar. It wasn't like an appeal to the SC. Caesar had to hear EVERY appeal form every citizen. This was a personal appeal. Caesar's staff couldn't handle the appeal. Caesar had a few other things to worry about other than these appeals, so it took a great del of time to get to them. He wasn't actually in prison. Acts 28:16 More like house arrest. He had nothing against his nation. Acts 28:19 He was allowed to have meetings with large groups. Acts 28:23 He even had to pay for the house Acts 28:30 And of course, he was allowed to write uncensored

I don't need to show you how Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and other monotheistic religions cannot say a pledge dedicating themselves to something other than God, the truth is self evident in that some will not say the pledge even today even with the "Under God" phase in it.
Well then they aren't forced to say it so they aren't being denied anything. So you should have no problems with that.

If it comes to a numbers game though, you do remember that we are government by the people and for the people yes? Count how many will be 'hurt' keeping a voluntary pledge and how many will be hurt by changing it. If neither is a civil rights case (you already said I didn't have a civil right to say it, then neither does anyone else) then majority rule and least amount of damage done...
1. You claimed removing under god was removing a right and I disagree. You are not being forced to say or not say anything. The government however is not allowed to endorse a religion in laws and thats why the pledge needs to be removed.
2. You can't play a numbers game here. You can not say well some people get screwed but because its a small group who cares or its the least amount of damage. The best solution benefits everyone. That solution would be removing under god from the pledge. That way if kids want to say under god they can and the government has not put anything down as a law that violates the establishment clause. Athiests everywhere won't feel that their kids are being forced to say an affirmation of god. Its win win for everybody. So why are you opposed to a win win situation?

No constitution difference, lets put it to the vote and use the winning phrase.
Just because the majority supports something it does not mean that it is right. Would you have let the state governments take a vote when it came to the equal rights movement? When an issue dealing with a minority comes up you can not just say lets take a vote because then the majority automaticaly wins and screws the minority. You only say lets take a vote because you know the majority would side with you. If you were in the minority you would not even dare suggest this.

Just because the majority supports something it does not mean that it is right. Would you have let the state governments take a vote when it came to the equal rights movement? When an issue dealing with a minority comes up you can not just say lets take a vote because then the majority automaticaly wins and screws the minority. You only say lets take a vote because you know the majority would side with you. If you were in the minority you would not even dare suggest this.

You already said that the Pledge of Allegiance was not a civil rights issue and you said that my religious freedom does not apply here to give me a first amendment protection clause, then you compare the issue to the equal rights movement? You'll have to make up your mind, it can’t be a non-religious civil rights issue when I mention it but is one only when you do...

Your suggested solution of taking it out and then letting the other group say it, or not, as they please, is already in effect now, we don’t need to change it to apply that theorem. Your solution for a win-win situation is already in place, and yet, you feel strongly about having it changed over.

Should congress be stopped from opening with a prayer? Should the president be allowed to swear his oath on a Holy Book? Should the national anthem be changed next? should we re-write and omit the preamble of nearly every state's constitution and sweep them under a rug trying to pretend that they never existed? Should we take a chisel and hammer to the walls of congress in our 'new' attempt to remove all reference to the Supreme Being from our collective history, simply to appease the few that want to forgot where we came from?

I shouldn’t be surprised I suppose. Societies have gone through such movements before. Look at the multitude of defaced archaeological sites around the world today, from blown to smithereens gigantic statues in Afghanistan to ancient Pharaonic sites in Egypt that have had historical symbols scraped off their walls and the faces of the figures carved off and defiled and lost to posterity because some zealots got it in their heads that their ‘modern’ generation is more enlightened than the past one was and that they are religiously offended by the monuments and memory of what had been done by their forefathers, to the point that they can’t stand the sight of them anymore, so they destroy them.

This sort of activity is brought on us by people that think the religious ideas of the past should be forgotten for the good of the future, the same type of movement that is trying to take hold in America now and end all references to the spirit of those that created the freedom in the first place.

And now we find ourselves, a nation founded as a constitutional republic, guided for hundreds of years by a congress that asks for divine guidance before each session, accused that we are an evil theocrat because we acknowledge the simple 'existence' of a supreme being via our pledge of allegiance to our flag.

Are you saying Paul was only a Roman when it got him out of a beating? Do you think he was really that shallow?

Paul couldn't get out of prison because he had appealed to Caesar. It wasn't like an appeal to the SC. Caesar had to hear EVERY appeal form every citizen. This was a personal appeal. Caesar's staff couldn't handle the appeal. Caesar had a few other things to worry about other than these appeals, so it took a great del of time to get to them. He wasn't actually in prison. Acts 28:16 More like house arrest. He had nothing against his nation. Acts 28:19 He was allowed to have meetings with large groups. Acts 28:23 He even had to pay for the house Acts 28:30 And of course, he was allowed to write uncensored

And he was beheaded for not disavowing himself from God and swearing his loyalty to his government without reservation (which he could not do, even though it could have saved his life).

And like him, today, we cannot swear an oath of loyalty to our government (or anything else for that matter) that competes with out allegiance to God. You would have us remove from the pledge the phrase "under God," the only clause that allows religious people to swear the fealty oath at all.

And he was beheaded for not disavowing himself from God and swearing his loyalty to his government without reservation (which he could not do, even though it could have saved his life).

And like him, today, we cannot swear an oath of loyalty to our government (or anything else for that matter) that competes with out allegiance to God. You would have us remove from the pledge the phrase "under God," the only clause that allows religious people to swear the fealty oath at all.
Why not make the pledge without reference to gad then add to the end 'So help me God'. Then you can make every one happy. And those none Christians can insert the name of thier diety or not as the case may be.

And like him, today, we cannot swear an oath of loyalty to our government (or anything else for that matter) that competes with out allegiance to God. You would have us remove from the pledge the phrase "under God," the only clause that allows religious people to swear the fealty oath at all.
Then I ask, what is the purpose of the pledge? Why do people insist so much in reciting it, and making children reciting it if it is a religious no-no to pledge allegiance to something other than God?

Why not get rid of it entirely?

Then I ask, what is the purpose of the pledge? Why do people insist so much in reciting it, and making children reciting it if it is a religious no-no to pledge allegiance to something other than God?

Why not get rid of it entirely?

Because it's a Republic, elected representative are authorized to make and change the rules. More people want it than do not want it currently, thus they have it. And more religious people and religious tolerant people accept the 'under God' phrase than do not, so, it stays.

It does not establish a religion, the courts are the wrong place to amend the Pledge. If people really want it removed/changed, they should be electing people to congress to change it, once they get enough votes, they win.

Because it's a Republic, elected representative are authorized to make and change the rules. More people want it than do not want it currently, thus they have it. And more religious people and religious tolerant people accept the 'under God' phrase than do not, so, it stays.

It does not establish a religion, the courts are the wrong place to amend the Pledge. If people really want it removed/changed, they should be electing people to congress to change it, once they get enough votes, they win.
That doesn't answer my question. Or it does in a roundabout way.

What is the purpose of the pledge and does it need to be taught to children?

Why not make the pledge without reference to gad then add to the end 'So help me God'. Then you can make every one happy. And those none Christians can insert the name of thier diety or not as the case may be.

I thought about this one for awhile now... I think that this would not solve the problem. The people that do not want a reference to a supreme being would still not like it and the religious people oath would be placing the reference in the wrong place (ask for help from God in their loyalty to the government, rather than loyalty to the government under God).

That doesn't answer my question. Or it does in a roundabout way.

What is the purpose of the pledge and does it need to be taught to children?


People in this forum know that the pledge of allegiance is not as old as the Republic. In was in fact first coined in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, for the magazine Youth’s Companion.

Bellamy wrote the “pledge to the flag” (as it was called) and publicized it as part of the activities surrounding the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s arrival in America. On Columbus Day in 1892, ten million children recited Bellamy’s pledge.

With this in mind, we see historical aspects of the pledge.

-1892 Pledge to the Flag" was included in "The Official Programme for the National Columbian Public School Celebration of October 21."

The flag of the United States" replaced the words "my Flag" in 1923 because some foreign-born people might have in mind the flag of the country of their birth instead of the United States flag. A year later, "of America" was added after "United States." Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

However, NO form of the Pledge received official recognition by Congress until June 22, 1942, when the Pledge was formally included in the U.S. Flag Code. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954, when Congress passed a law, which added the words "under God" after "one nation."

The pledge has been the national oath for only 63 years, and 51 of those years it has said, “under God.”

People were suing to NOT say the anthem even BEFORE (1942) the “under God” phase was inserted (1954).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624

As to your question though, Why try to have it at all? What motivates the people that want to keep it? I’ll say this…

It is widely accepted that in connection with reciting the pledge, standing with the right hand over the heart, is a form of declaration. Imagery is an ancient, but effectual method of communicating thoughts and ideas. The use of a symbol (or flag) to represent some system, idea, institution, or personality, is a message from person to person. Beliefs and nations, political parties, lodges and church groups etc., try to build unity and loyalty in their ranks using such methods.

Public expressions of allegiance convey political ideas just as religious symbols convey theological ones. Acting out the pledge is a form of acceptance or respect from the individual to the community/state (in this case the Republic) A salute, a bowed head, a bended knee or reciting the pledge of allegiance, the person gets from the symbol exactly what meaning they put into it, and what is one man's reassurance and encouragement is another man's joke and disdain.

You already said that the Pledge of Allegiance was not a civil rights issue and you said that my religious freedom does not apply here to give me a first amendment protection clause, then you compare the issue to the equal rights movement? You'll have to make up your mind, it can’t be a non-religious civil rights issue when I mention it but is one only when you do...
Wrong. Dont put words in my mouth here. You said that if we removed under god from the pledge that would be taking away a right. I disagreed and you have failed to show how it would be.

Your suggested solution of taking it out and then letting the other group say it, or not, as they please, is already in effect now, we don’t need to change it to apply that theorem. Your solution for a win-win situation is already in place, and yet, you feel strongly about having it changed over.
The problem I have with the pledge is not that children may or may not be forced to say the pledge. My problem is that the government made a law that was in favor of certain religious groups but not all. The government can't do that.

Should congress be stopped from opening with a prayer? Should the president be allowed to swear his oath on a Holy Book? Should the national anthem be changed next? should we re-write and omit the preamble of nearly every state's constitution and sweep them under a rug trying to pretend that they never existed? Should we take a chisel and hammer to the walls of congress in our 'new' attempt to remove all reference to the Supreme Being from our collective history, simply to appease the few that want to forgot where we came from?
Are any of those an endorsement of a single religion? Do any of those refer to American being a christian/muslim/jewish/etc religion? Are those laws? No and because they are not I have no problem with them. But if the government favors some religious groups over others in laws we have a problem here. If the pledge said on nation under no god you would be up in arms yet as long as your view gets to remain you won't want any change.

I shouldn’t be surprised I suppose. Societies have gone through such movements before. Look at the multitude of defaced archaeological sites around the world today, from blown to smithereens gigantic statues in Afghanistan to ancient Pharaonic sites in Egypt that have had historical symbols scraped off their walls and the faces of the figures carved off and defiled and lost to posterity because some zealots got it in their heads that their ‘modern’ generation is more enlightened than the past one was and that they are religiously offended by the monuments and memory of what had been done by their forefathers, to the point that they can’t stand the sight of them anymore, so they destroy them.
And what zealots were those. Could you provide a link to that information because I have a feeling that the zealots who did that weren't doing it because they didn't like religion but that they believed their religion was better then the old one. And also the under god part of the pledge was not done by our forefathers. You can thank McCarthy and the Red Scare for that one. Is that really the history you want to preserve? A time of paranoia, fear and hatred of a group of people who had a different ideal.

This sort of activity is brought on us by people that think the religious ideas of the past should be forgotten for the good of the future, the same type of movement that is trying to take hold in America now and end all references to the spirit of those that created the freedom in the first place.

And now we find ourselves, a nation founded as a constitutional republic, guided for hundreds of years by a congress that asks for divine guidance before each session, accused that we are an evil theocrat because we acknowledge the simple 'existence' of a supreme being via our pledge of allegiance to our flag.
Congressmen have the right of freedom of speech. If the congressmen were to say a prayer and then start making laws based off a religion we would have a problem. That and the hypocracy here is so evident. If the tables were turned you would be fighting just as hard as the people now to make sure that one view was not endorsed by the government. And no one is accusing that people are evil theocrats here (except for maybe lyric). The point is the government codified a preference to certain religious groups and not all groups in a law and it can not do that.

1: My problem is that the government made a law that was in favor of certain religious groups but not all. The government can't do that.

2: Are any of those an endorsement of a single religion? Do any of those refer to American being a christian/muslim/jewish/etc religion? Are those laws? No and because they are not I have no problem with them. But if the government favors some religious groups over others in laws we have a problem here. If the pledge said on nation under no god you would be up in arms yet as long as your view gets to remain you won't want any change.

I think perhaps the First Amendment, founding fathers and Constitutional intent does NOT object to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge. Acknowledging the existence of God does not constitute a breech of the first amendment because it does not establish a religion.

~On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

~On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

~On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

~ On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

~The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

I don't need to show you how Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and other monotheistic religions cannot say a pledge dedicating themselves to something other than God, the truth is self evident in that some will not say the pledge even today even with the "Under God" phase in it.

If it comes to a numbers game though, you do remember that we are government by the people and for the people yes? Count how many will be 'hurt' keeping a voluntary pledge and how many will be hurt by changing it. If neither is a civil rights case (you already said I didn't have a civil right to say it, then neither does anyone else) then majority rule and least amount of damage done...

So, your best evidence that a change in the Pledge to remove "under God" would keep "Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and [members of] other monotheistic religions " from saying the Pledge if "under God" were removed is that some cannot say the Pledge NOW??!!

ROTFLASTC

BTW, so "Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and [members of] other monotheistic religions " could not say the Pledge until after 1954? Bullshit. You know that is not true.

I think perhaps the First Amendment, founding fathers and Constitutional intent does NOT object to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge. Acknowledging the existence of God does not constitute a breech of the first amendment because it does not establish a religion.

~On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

~On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

~On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

~ On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

~The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

Tut, tut.

You didn't answer Economic Associates questions.

Instead, you went off on another of those fallacious and selective accounts of history. I'll get back to them point by point later. In the meantime, here is counter-evidence.

1. In 1878, the US Supreme Court explained the history of the First Amendment and the involvement of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The Court then said:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say: 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,-I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Reynolds v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/98/145.html ), 98 US 145 (1878).

2. Although the particular phrase from Jefferson's letter of a "wall of separation of Church and State" is commonly cited, the concept and the language of separation of Church and State was commonly used by other Founding Fathers. James Madison, in particularly, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

3. As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

Unlike many of the quotes that you have provided, these are all genuine.

Tut, tut.
*snip*

Unlike many of the quotes that you have provided, these are all genuine.

I don't object to you disagreeing and debating against the idea, but why suggest I'm lying? I call Foul.

I don't object to you disagreeing and debating against the idea, but why suggest I'm lying? I call Foul.

Meethinks thou doust protest too much.

I did not say you were lying, merely providing inaccurate information and quotes.

Care to address the substance? What is foul is your attempt to dodge other's points.

So, your best evidence that a change in the Pledge to remove "under God" would keep "Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and [members of] other monotheistic religions " from saying the Pledge if "under God" were removed is that some cannot say the Pledge NOW??!!

ROTFLASTC

BTW, so "Jews, Orthodox Christians and Muslims and [members of] other monotheistic religions " could not say the Pledge until after 1954? Bullshit. You know that is not true.


Not my best per se, just my newest :D

Although, it is true, Quaker's (for example) won't be caught dead saying the pledge...either way.

[QUOTE=Zexaland]OK, before I get started let me give you some background info: I'm Australian, an Atheist and believe in the seperation of Church and State. I read some fairly old news about the whole Michael Hedrow wanting to take out the "Under God" part of the American Pledge of Alliegance. I agree with him.[QUOTE]

Oh, well, so you live in AUSTRALIA, huh??? Then you, being an AUSTRALIAN citizen have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to critize the American system. You've never been under it's laws, rights, and protections, so how can you judge it? The media? Wow. So you get one side of the story. It's time you got it all.

This nation was built on Christian principals, so in order to undo all of that, first you would have to change the Constitution, the presidential oath "so help me, GOD", the money, and make over the House. On the front it qouths scripture and uses,... you guessed it. God!

I respect your rights to atheisim, but it's time you tried to understand and hear all sides of the story.

Oh, and I believe I "Just touched this"

:Arquoy :p

Yeah, that's true. Jehova Witnesses won't say it either. They make no alligence to our gov., and they don't even register to vote. :confused: I don't get that, but it's not my place to criticize that.

Oh, well, so you live in AUSTRALIA, huh??? Then you, being an AUSTRALIAN citizen have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to critize the American system. You've never been under it's laws, rights, and protections, so how can you judge it? The media? Wow. So you get one side of the story. It's time you got it all.

Yes, because the media only reports one side of the story.

But anyways, he/she has all the right he desires to comment on how wrong our system is.

This nation was built on Christian principals, so in order to undo all of that, first you would have to change the Constitution, the presidential oath "so help me, GOD", the money, and make over the House. On the front it qouths scripture and uses,... you guessed it. God!

No, this country was founded on the principles of freedom, and the majority used said freedom to apply Christian values to their way of life. Don't confuse the cause and effect here.

You are just making shit up about the constitution, and you use a terrible logical misstep in assuming that past mistakes justify current mistakes.

I think perhaps the First Amendment, founding fathers and Constitutional intent does NOT object to the inclusion of “under God” in the pledge. Acknowledging the existence of God does not constitute a breech of the first amendment because it does not establish a religion.

Okay so saying that this nation is under the watchful eye of a god doesnt imply that atheists, wiccans, etc are wrong? When dealing with religions the government has to take a stance of being either all inclusive or doing nothing at all. Otherwise that is endorsing a single/group of religion/religions while not doing so for others. That is establishing a state religion.

Okay so saying that this nation is under the watchful eye of a god doesnt imply that atheists, wiccans, etc are wrong? When dealing with religions the government has to take a stance of being either all inclusive or doing nothing at all. Otherwise that is endorsing a single/group of religion/religions while not doing so for others. That is establishing a state religion.

To cite P33rdom's own case, Wallace v. Jaffree (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/472/38.html ), 472 U.S. 38, 51-54 (1985):

'We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633 -634 (1943); id., at 645 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of `individual freedom of mind.' Id., at 637. )' ...

Just as the right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of a broader concept of individual freedom of mind, so also the individual's freedom to choose his own creed is the counterpart of his right to refrain from accepting the creed established by the majority. At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. 36 But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the [472 U.S. 38, 53] Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all. 37 This conclusion derives support not only from the interest in respecting the individual's freedom of conscience, but also from the conviction that religious beliefs worthy of respect are the product of free and voluntary choice by the faithful, 38 [472 U.S. 38, 54] and from recognition of the fact that the political interest in forestalling intolerance extends beyond intolerance among Christian sects - or even intolerance among "religions" - to encompass intolerance of the disbeliever and the uncertain. 39 [472 U.S. 38, 55]

As Justice Jackson eloquently stated in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943):

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

The State of Alabama, no less than the Congress of the United States, must respect that basic truth.

Also, Id. at 53 n.37:

Thus, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S., at 15 , the Court stated:

"The `establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

Id., at 18 (the First Amendment "requires the state to be a neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers"); Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S., at 216 ("this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another"); id., at 226 ("The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of the government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality"); Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 (1961) ("We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person `to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs").

No constitution difference, lets put it to the vote and use the winning phrase.


:headbang:

Each is constitutionally impermissible. That is the whole point.

Shouldn't these people have better things to do then taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge? There must be better causes to be involved in.

:headbang:

Each is constitutionally impermissible. That is the whole point.


Yup, and the entire point behind "rule of law."

Shouldn't these people have better things to do then taking the words "Under God" out of the Pledge? There must be better causes to be involved in.


Some people feel they have a patriotic duty to uphold the constitution, even in the face of popular opposition.

Some people feel they have a patriotic duty to uphold the constitution, even in the face of popular opposition.

I suppose you believe that we should rid all references to God off of our currency and to tear down everything on our court buildings with God engraved on it.

I suppose you believe that we should rid all references to God off of our currency and to tear down everything on our court buildings with God engraved on it.

If they violate the Constitution, yep.

But you are the one demanding all or nothing -- not us.

Nah, the argument was already made and has already been dismissed against the claim that things like "under God" need to be removed from the pledge, the argument was stalled before it started in 1952... They were called fastidious...


On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'. (already quoted once, but utterly ignored because it blows holes in the argument advocating the removal of "under God"...)

How does the Pledge NOT fall under that rulings protection? It most clearly does. It says distinctly that it's okay. It even says that otherwise the atheist and agnostic could argue to have them be removed... Obviously it was intended to protect such acknowledgements of the Supreme Being. And here we are today, withe the atheist and agnostic trying to have them be removed anyway.

I suppose you believe that we should rid all references to God off of our currency and to tear down everything on our court buildings with God engraved on it.


Not at all, just that we should remove from schools things which violate the first amendment rights of schoolchildren and remove from courts things which explicitly establish a religion.

How does the Pledge NOT fall under that rulings protection? It most clearly does. It says distinctly that it's okay. It even say that otherwise the atheist and agnostic could argue to have them be removed... Obviously it was intended to protect such acknowledgements of the Supreme Being.

I'm sure plenty of people think that if you fail once just try again to try to get what you want even though the court has ruled already.

I'm sure plenty of people think that if you fail once just try again to try to get what you want even though the court has ruled already.
Yea those abolistionists should have just stopped after the dread scott ruling. :rolleyes:

Nah, the argument was already made and has already been dismissed against the claim that things like "under God" need to be removed from the pledge, the argument was stalled before it started in 1952... They were called fastidious...


On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'. (already quoted once, but utterly ignored because it blows holes in the argument about why it should be removed...)

How does the Pledge NOT fall under that rulings protection? It most clearly does. It says distinctly that it's okay. It even says that otherwise the atheist and agnostic could argue to have them be removed... Obviously it was intended to protect such acknowledgements of the Supreme Being. And here we are today, withe the atheist and agnostic trying to have them be removed anyway.


The issue with the pledge is that it is recided daily by children in government schools. It is not "fastidious atheits" whose rights we are protecting, but young children who are exceedingly impressionable and a captive audiance.

It is always worth mentioning that the "under god" bit was added to the pledge within living memory, it is not something of any long-standing tradition.

Not at all, just that we should remove from schools things which violate the first amendment rights of schoolchildren and remove from courts things which explicitly establish a religion.

Well, I agree that there shouldn't be Christmas trees in schools or copies of the Ten Commandments for that is actively promoting religion. I really don't feel that having "Under God" in the pledge is any worse then reading "In God We Trust" everytime you look at a penny. It just doesn't seem to be that big an issue.

this is horribly overdone, and nobody is going to read, let alone comment on my quick post here but:

i am as agnostic as they come, and i live in america. it is tradition. it's there. it's always been there. it should stay there. we can go on for hours about what 'under God' means, but when it comes down to it, it's there for the same reason the design of the american flag hasn't changed except for the star placement. it's the same reason that our coins say e plurbius unum. it's just how things are, it doesn't even seem to mean anything. i would say that it should stay, and if one chose, he could exercise his right to NOT say the pledge. i say it. i'm agnostic. it will never change, hence why it was unanimous. the day this country sets aside tradition, is the day it's a new country.

Krystar']this is horribly overdone, and nobody is going to read, let alone comment on my quick post here but:

i am as agnostic as they come, and i live in america. it is tradition. it's there. it's always been there. it should stay there. we can go on for hours about what 'under God' means, but when it comes down to it, it's there for the same reason the design of the american flag hasn't changed except for the star placement. it's the same reason that our coins say e plurbius unum. it's just how things are, it doesn't even seem to mean anything. i would say that it should stay, and if one chose, he could exercise his right to NOT say the pledge. i say it. i'm agnostic. it will never change, hence why it was unanimous. the day this country sets aside tradition, is the day it's a new country.
Wrong. The words under god were added to the pledge during our fight with the "godless commies".

And the pledge was first addressed by congress in 1942, making 12 years without "Under God" and 61 years with "under God." (although the pledge was written earlier, it was not the US pledge until 1942.) So what was your point?


Indeed, you are right, the pledge itself is not an american tradition of any appreciable standing.

Yea those abolistionists should have just stopped after the dread scott ruling. :rolleyes:

I hope there isn't going to be any comparisons to this issue and cases like overturning Plessy vs. Ferguson for I hardly think that they are alike in any way.

The issue with the pledge is that it is recided daily by children in government schools. It is not "fastidious atheits" whose rights we are protecting, but young children who are exceedingly impressionable and a captive audiance.

It is always worth mentioning that the "under god" bit was added to the pledge within living memory, it is not something of any long-standing tradition.

And the pledge was first addressed by congress in 1942, making 12 years without "Under God" and 61 years with "under God." (although the pledge was written earlier, it was not the US pledge until 1942.) So what was your point?

Nah, the argument was already made and has already been dismissed against the claim that things like "under God" need to be removed from the pledge, the argument was stalled before it started in 1952... They were called fastidious...


On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'. (already quoted once, but utterly ignored because it blows holes in the argument about why it should be removed...)

How does the Pledge NOT fall under that rulings protection? It most clearly does. It says distinctly that it's okay. It even say that otherwise the atheist and agnostic could argue to have them be removed... Obviously it was intended to protect such acknowledgements of the Supreme Being.

Um.
1. That doesn't say anything about the Pledge.

2. See your own case of Wallace v. Jaffree from which I quoted above.

3. Kids in school are a captive audience subject to coercion. A key factor in Zorach was that the release time at issue was off of school property and did not involve school officials. The court held that allowing children to leave school when their religion so demanded was okay. Nothing more nothing less. "This "released time" program involves neither religious instruction in public school classrooms nor the expenditure of public funds. All costs, including the application blanks, are paid by the religious organizations." [343 U.S. 306, 309]

No one is forced to go to the religious classroom and no religious exercise or instruction is brought to the classrooms of the public schools. A student need not take religious instruction. He is left to his own desires as to the manner or time of his religious devotions, if any.

There is a suggestion that the system involves the use of coercion to get public school students into religious classrooms. There is no evidence in the record before us that supports that conclusion. 6 The present record indeed tells us that the school authorities are neutral in this regard and do no more than release students whose parents so request. If in fact coercion were used, if it were established that any one or more teachers were using their office to persuade or force students to take the religious instruction, a wholly different case would be presented.

343 at 311.


Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.

343 at 314.

The constitutional standard is the separation of Church and State. The problem, like many problems in constitutional law, is one of degree. See McCollum v. Board of Education, supra, p. 231. [343 U.S. 306, 315]

In the McCollum case the classrooms were used for religious instruction and the force of the public school was used to promote that instruction. Here, as we have said, the public schools do no more than accommodate their schedules to a program of outside religious instruction. We follow the McCollum case. 8 But we cannot expand it to cover the present released time program unless separation of Church and State means that public institutions can make no adjustments of their schedules to accommodate the religious needs of the people. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.

343 at 314-15

4. With the Pledge, we are talking about school authorities leading the exercise involving a religious invocation on school grounds. That is an entirely different case. In fact, Zorach tells us such a thing should not be permitted.

And the pledge was first addressed by congress in 1942, making 12 years without "Under God" and 61 years with "under God." (although the pledge was written earlier, it was not the US pledge until 1942.) So what was your point?


As my reply is interestingly above your post, i shall reply again:

Indeed, the pledge itself is not an american tradition of any appreciable standing.

Indeed, you are right, the pledge itself is not an american tradition of any appreciable standing.

Perhaps, if you want to dismiss 34% of the history of the United States.

Perhaps, if you want to dismiss 34% of the history of the United States.


Obviously if we wish to discuss things having merit gained by tradition and length-of-use, the most recent "34%" of history is far outweighed by the 66% preceding.

Wow, I've missed a lot. I got bored reading the citings on the court cases, forgive my mind.

Anyway, I have stated before, and will again... that "under God" is not a Christian statement alone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and most other monotheistic religions believe in a sole god whom they capitalize as "God". It's just not quite as recognized in the minor religions. Might I also add that Jews can be grouped with Christians in this argument, as we both thoroughly believe in the same God. Granted we don't live the Law anymore, the OT states in itself that they are to only live in a government that supports God. I mean, if they lived in governments supportive of pagan gods God just kind of left them to rot for a little while. -shrugs-

Anyway, Muslims also use God and Allah interchangeably. They capitalize it as far as I know. Buddhists and Hindus each have a main soverign god, be it a house god or (if Hindu) one of the major pantheonic gods. Either way, they declare their allegiance under that specific god. They just don't capitalize the word to show respect to the other gods.

And agnostics who believe in a higher force generally will say it is a god of some sort, but do not capitalize.

The only people who really get pissed are Atheists. Because of that they are messing it up for most of those other religions. Note that we say the Pledge of Allegiance, and because we say it... how we envision the word "God" is unimportant. No one but ourselves will know what we mean by it. As to those who refuse because of one reason or another, you do not have to say it. If a school is going to get pissed about it, pull out your rights. If they get pissed even more, then just call up a court case on them. Trust me, your right to not speak is as pure as mine is to speak. So don't fret about it.

The words "under God" are, to most of us alive, a tradition we were born into. We know it as it is, why change it? Because people born before us can recall a minute time where it didn't have "under God"? That makes no sense. Don't argue the history of the matter unless it's fruitful for the argument in today's world.

I think it's fair to say this country was founded by Christians on Christian fundementals. Not to say that it was founded as a Christian country, but that we wrote Christian beliefs into it. Why do I believe it's fair to say that? Because they co-exist quite well together, because this country was founded by Christians, and because this country is still populated by Christians more than any other religion in existance and by such a large margin that you could combine all of the other religions together and still be the minority.

If you feel like arguing about the majority vs the minority. I say, the majority wins. Considering that most religions use the word "god" in one form or another as their chief deity I believe that it's fair to all of those religions to keep it in. As I have said before an Athiest who wants to pledge may do so. "God" could simply mean, to them, an agreement of allegiance to their highest moral standard. It's only a word.

To the impressions of a child's mind. If the child is raised in a Muslim family, trust me, to him "God" means "Allah" not "Yahweh". There will be no imprint of Christianity on his/her mind. The country is so diverse as it is that it won't matter and no one will point at him and laugh because he thinks something different.

Uhm.... I forget what I miss. Don't relate this to slavery. Slavery was a civil rights problem it was wrong. We all know this. We all accept that. By using that argument anyone who defends the other side of it feels very, very put out. It's an unfair argument. None of us support slavery. Might I also add that the Dredd Scott case failed because Mr. Scott was trying to make himself a buck and was a shady character in the first place. He used his own slave in the course of the matter and it just backfired on him.

Other than that... I dunno. I feel justified in giving a definition of the word "god" by Webster.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Just to note, that covers all persons aforementioned in my case. (Remember, no one knows if you are mentally uncapitalizing the word.) The majority of America would be outraged if you decided to uncapitalize it in the Pledge, whereas a minute minority is angered now. To save the country a riot... I think it's safe to say, keeping it capitalized is a good idea.

It doesn't matter what religion it belongs to, the fact is that all religious beliefs should be removed from secularized issues and law and order.

Wow, I've missed a lot. I got bored reading the citings on the court cases, forgive my mind.

Anyway, I have stated before, and will again... that "under God" is not a Christian statement alone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and most other monotheistic religions believe in a sole god whom they capitalize as "God". It's just not quite as recognized in the minor religions. Might I also add that Jews can be grouped with Christians in this argument, as we both thoroughly believe in the same God. Granted we don't live the Law anymore, the OT states in itself that they are to only live in a government that supports God. I mean, if they lived in governments supportive of pagan gods God just kind of left them to rot for a little while. -shrugs-

Anyway, Muslims also use God and Allah interchangeably. They capitalize it as far as I know. Buddhists and Hindus each have a main soverign god, be it a house god or (if Hindu) one of the major pantheonic gods. Either way, they declare their allegiance under that specific god. They just don't capitalize the word to show respect to the other gods.

And agnostics who believe in a higher force generally will say it is a god of some sort, but do not capitalize.

The only people who really get pissed are Atheists. Because of that they are messing it up for most of those other religions. Note that we say the Pledge of Allegiance, and because we say it... how we envision the word "God" is unimportant. No one but ourselves will know what we mean by it. As to those who refuse because of one reason or another, you do not have to say it. If a school is going to get pissed about it, pull out your rights. If they get pissed even more, then just call up a court case on them. Trust me, your right to not speak is as pure as mine is to speak. So don't fret about it.

The words "under God" are, to most of us alive, a tradition we were born into. We know it as it is, why change it? Because people born before us can recall a minute time where it didn't have "under God"? That makes no sense. Don't argue the history of the matter unless it's fruitful for the argument in today's world.

I think it's fair to say this country was founded by Christians on Christian fundementals. Not to say that it was founded as a Christian country, but that we wrote Christian beliefs into it. Why do I believe it's fair to say that? Because they co-exist quite well together, because this country was founded by Christians, and because this country is still populated by Christians more than any other religion in existance and by such a large margin that you could combine all of the other religions together and still be the minority.

If you feel like arguing about the majority vs the minority. I say, the majority wins. Considering that most religions use the word "god" in one form or another as their chief deity I believe that it's fair to all of those religions to keep it in. As I have said before an Athiest who wants to pledge may do so. "God" could simply mean, to them, an agreement of allegiance to their highest moral standard. It's only a word.

To the impressions of a child's mind. If the child is raised in a Muslim family, trust me, to him "God" means "Allah" not "Yahweh". There will be no imprint of Christianity on his/her mind. The country is so diverse as it is that it won't matter and no one will point at him and laugh because he thinks something different.

Uhm.... I forget what I miss. Don't relate this to slavery. Slavery was a civil rights problem it was wrong. We all know this. We all accept that. By using that argument anyone who defends the other side of it feels very, very put out. It's an unfair argument. None of us support slavery. Might I also add that the Dredd Scott case failed because Mr. Scott was trying to make himself a buck and was a shady character in the first place. He used his own slave in the course of the matter and it just backfired on him.

Other than that... I dunno. I feel justified in giving a definition of the word "god" by Webster.
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

Just to note, that covers all persons aforementioned in my case. (Remember, no one knows if you are mentally uncapitalizing the word.) The majority of America would be outraged if you decided to uncapitalize it in the Pledge, whereas a minute minority is angered now. To save the country a riot... I think it's safe to say, keeping it capitalized is a good idea.

Among all your various gibberish, the bolded sentence was particularly noteworthy.

I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or vomit.

Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg address I believe, made use of the phrase "Under God". By today's standards, a few ACLU lawyers would have probably dragged him away without half a thought. There is the moderate position, where 95% of Christians and athiests stand. Namely, that current US principle has placed "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance by the principle of the rule of the majority. The rights of the minority are preserved by the fact that an athiest has the freedom to say however much of the pledge he or she wishes to say. Then we have the radical Christians - "You WILL say the pledge!". And their distant radical athiest cousins - "Send in the ACLU! My rights are being violated!"

There is nothing to argue over here. There is a reason why every day, Christians and Athiests go to schools over the nation and are not hurt in any way by the pledge. The fundamentalists can go back to listening to Robertson, and the extreme athiests can continue to hit legal brick walls as they and their ACLU partners in crime realize that "minority rules" does not work in this nation.

Abraham Lincoln, in the Gettysburg address I believe, made use of the phrase "Under God". By today's standards, a few ACLU lawyers would have probably dragged him away without half a thought. There is the moderate position, where 95% of Christians and athiests stand. Namely, that current US principle has placed "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance by the principle of the rule of the majority. The rights of the minority are preserved by the fact that an athiest has the freedom to say however much of the pledge he or she wishes to say. Then we have the radical Christians - "You WILL say the pledge!". And their distant radical athiest cousins - "Send in the ACLU! My rights are being violated!"

There is nothing to argue over here. There is a reason why every day, Christians and Athiests go to schools over the nation and are not hurt in any way by the pledge. The fundamentalists can go back to listening to Robertson, and the extreme athiests can continue to hit legal brick walls as they and their ACLU partners in crime realize that "minority rules" does not work in this nation.

Um, you do not appear to understand the concepts of rights or the Constitution

These are not matters for popular vote.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

EDIT: Also, as explained at length in this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9651730&postcount=645), it is irrelevant that stating the entire official Pledge may be voluntary.

I've just perused most of these posts, but I must note that the term "under God" is a way to include all religions. We're a nation founded on religious freedom- and Puritanical ideals. Yes, Thomas Jefferson has been rumored to be an atheist, but it was he who said quite plainly in the Declaration of Independence that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." Creator. I guess they figured "under Creator" didn't have the same ring to it.

What I don't particularly understand is (a) the hostility I've noted in the posts by the original poster and others who agree (again, I've only perused these posts, so if there are angry posters who agree with me, I can claim not to understand those, either), and (b) why someone from Australia has the gall to try to judge my country, my pledge, or ideals of anyone living here? Don't you'all have enough to do over there?

What they fail to note is what you argue, actually, that most every religion houses a belief in a god. He calls it gibberish only because it's true. And because it's true they do not want to argue with me on it. If he would like to prove me wrong, then I would love him to. The fact that he did not argue any of my points, rather he stated merely that it was gibberish and he wanted to laugh is a petty arrogance. So... I don't think anyone who is moderate on the matter is going to win.


As for what you pointed to laugh at. It was my mistake. I hadn't read the case in a long time. Mr. Scott's owner was the theif who wanted to make a quick buck. He owned a slave, and was asked by abolitionists to go up north and try to win his slave his freedom in return for money. It backfired because he tried to be enterprising. Dredd Scott was an honest slave, it just sucked for him. I am sorry for my terrible error.

What they fail to note is what you argue, actually, that most every religion houses a belief in a god. He calls it gibberish only because it's true. And because it's true they do not want to argue with me on it. If he would like to prove me wrong, then I would love him to. The fact that he did not argue any of my points, rather he stated merely that it was gibberish and he wanted to laugh is a petty arrogance. So... I don't think anyone who is moderate on the matter is going to win.

Whether "every religion houses a belief in a god" is not the question. Not every American houses the belief that we are a nation "under God."

The phrase "under God" is inherently monotheistic. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation "under God" is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans
believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase "one nation under God" in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism.

The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation "under God" is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation "under Jesus," a nation "under Vishnu," a nation "under Zeus," or a nation "under no god," because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.

Moreoever, it is certainly not true that "every religion houses a belief in a god." There are many nontheistic religious viewpoints. Buddhism, atheism, secular humanism, animism, Confucianism, and Taoism are a few that come to mind.

As for what you pointed to laugh at. It was my mistake. I hadn't read the case in a long time. Mr. Scott's owner was the theif who wanted to make a quick buck. He owned a slave, and was asked by abolitionists to go up north and try to win his slave his freedom in return for money. It backfired because he tried to be enterprising. Dredd Scott was an honest slave, it just sucked for him. I am sorry for my terrible error.

Thank you for the correction. What you said sounded bad and was to what I reacted.

Perhaps, if you want to dismiss 34% of the history of the United States.
As NG says, what about the remaining 66% of the history?

Also, The U.S. has been around for 229 years. "Under God" has been in the pledge for 51 years. That's about 22.3% of the history. Not 34%.

I've just perused most of these posts, but I must note that the term "under God" is a way to include all religions.
Well, except for Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, LaVeyan Satanism, Shintoism, Wicca, and other religions without a God. (The first four are atheistic religions. Shinto has kami, which are spirits, not gods. Wicca has a Goddess.)

Well, except for Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, LaVeyan Satanism, Shintoism, Wicca, and other religions without a God. (The first four are atheistic religions. Shinto has kami, which are spirits, not gods. Wicca has a Goddess.)

Thanks.

And athiests and agnostics are also protected by the First Amendment.

please don't confuse athiesm with nontheism. Athiests belive in no god. Nontheists, believe that their could be gods, but that are not all knowing and are a waste of time. I'm a Buddhist, and a nontheist, not an atheist. I believe that the words under god should be removed simply because they were added by congress (as law) and therefore violate the constitution.

As NG says, what about the remaining 66% of the history?

Also, The U.S. has been around for 229 years. "Under God" has been in the pledge for 51 years. That's about 22.3% of the history. Not 34%.

Bah, I was talking about the age of the Pledge being recognized and 'officiated' via government law. Since 1942, when congress recognized it for the first time... (people were suing to not have the Pledge forced on them even before the "under God" phrase was inserted in 1954).

And what about the first 66% of US history? You think they didn't mention God then? Asking for divine guidance by ritual prayer and asking for God's blessings on the court during those years? Of course they did, if anything, they mentioned and acknowledged the Supreme Being more, not less, than we do today. To bring solemn respect to our ceremony and ritual by saying the phrase “under God,” is a secular reason strong enough to allow "under God" to remain in the pledge, as Justice O'Conner wrote not so long ago.

Treaty of Tripoli 1798: Article 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


There I have sited a government documents stating the United States was not founded on the Christian religion, please cite one that says the opposite.

Bah, I was talking about the age of the Pledge being recognized and 'officiated' via government law. Since 1942, when congress recognized it for the first time... (people were suing to not have the Pledge forced on them even before the "under God" phrase was inserted in 1954).

And what about the first 66% of US history? You think they didn't mention God then? Asking for divine guidance by ritual prayer and asking for God's blessings on the court during those years? Of course they did, if anything, they mentioned and acknowledged the Supreme Being more, not less, than we do today. To bring solemn respect to our ceremony and ritual by saying the phrase “under God,” is a secular reason strong enough to allow "under God" to remain in the pledge, as Justice O'Conner wrote not so long ago.



The problem still remains that precedent calls the school setting "inherantly coercive" when cases involving the establishment and free excercize clauses come up.

It could conceivably be ruled that the pledge is fine, but that reciting it in school is not.

please don't confuse athiesm with nontheism. Athiests belive in no god. Nontheists, believe that their could be gods, but that are not all knowing and are a waste of time. I'm a Buddhist, and a nontheist, not an atheist. I believe that the words under god should be removed simply because they were added by congress (as law) and therefore violate the constitution.
You're confusing atheism with antitheism. Antitheism states that there are no gods. Atheism is simply the lack of a god belief. Since Buddhism by itself does not include deities, it is by definition an atheistic religion.

I've asked the so called Christians on this thread several times to justify forcing their values on others based on what they say is their constitution---The BIBLE. Not one of these "Christians"??? if I dare call them that without getting struck by lightning---Can come up with even ONE place in the BIBLE that says Christians are to do things in front of others that harm the conscience of anyone around them. I have quoted several verses that say "under God" being forced on people with other beliefs goes against the teaching of both Jesus and Paul. If you SO CALLED Christians can't defend your position using what YOU say overrides the US constitution (the BIBLE)--You have NO basis for your position. You don't even know what the beliefs are that you say you subscribe to. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that's what the BIBLE actually says. I dare you to actually STUDY the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Treaty of Tripoli 1798: Article 11: As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That's a treaty was written for the assurance of the barbary pirates that we were not a nation with religious conviction to declare war on them simply because they are/were heathens... finish the sentence of your own high-lighted section, go all the way to the period, to finish the quote. You cut the sentence in half and it makes no sense that way.

There I have sited a government documents stating the United States was not founded on the Christian religion, please cite one that says the opposite.

Okay, but Christianity wasn’t my defense, acknowledgement of a Supreme Being in a government endorsed ritual was my target…

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
Feb. 29, 1892

If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.

and this:

There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."

The problem still remains that precedent calls the school setting "inherantly coercive" when cases involving the establishment and free excercize clauses come up.

It could conceivably be ruled that the pledge is fine, but that reciting it in school is not.

I agree. The reciting of the pledge in school might be banned... I for one hope it is not taken out of the schools, but I agree that the pledge could left alone and taken out of the schools.

I've asked the so called Christians on this thread several times to justify forcing their values on others based on what they say is their constitution---The BIBLE. Not one of these "Christians"??? if I dare call them that without getting struck by lightning---Can come up with even ONE place in the BIBLE that says Christians are to do things in front of others that harm the conscience of anyone around them. I have quoted several verses that say "under God" being forced on people with other beliefs goes against the teaching of both Jesus and Paul. If you SO CALLED Christians can't defend your position using what YOU say overrides the US constitution (the BIBLE)--You have NO basis for your position. You don't even know what the beliefs are that you say you subscribe to. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that's what the BIBLE actually says. I dare you to actually STUDY the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

I already debated that with you. You didn't have to agree with me and neither did I agree with you, but your request was not ignored, I mentioned the Prophet Daniel because he was confronted almost directly with this exact same situation. A public pledge of loyalty to the Babylonian King that he refused to do and was condemned to death for it... and now you say "Not one of these "Christians".... etc., etc., etc., flame bait and innuendo, and so on and so forth, yadda yadda yadda"... suggesting that no one dare argue with your premise? :rolleyes:

I already debated that with you. You didn't have to agree with me and neither did I agree with you, but your request was not ignored, I mentioned the Prophet Daniel because he was confronted almost directly with this exact same situation. A public pledge of loyalty to the Babylonian King that he refused to do and was condemned to death for it... and now you say "Not one of these "Christians".... etc., etc., etc., flame bait and innuendo, and so on and so forth, yadda yadda yadda"... suggesting that no one dare argue with your premise? :rolleyes:
You didn't give one verse by Jesus or Paul.

You didn't give one verse by Jesus or Paul.

You asked originally for an argument from the Bible and you called it "their Constitution."

Bah, I was talking about the age of the Pledge being recognized and 'officiated' via government law. Since 1942, when congress recognized it for the first time... (people were suing to not have the Pledge forced on them even before the "under God" phrase was inserted in 1954).

And they won. See West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624 (1943).

The case is very instructive, you should read it:

Free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction.

...

The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures-Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

...

Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

...

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

That's a treaty was written for the assurance of the barbary pirates that we were not a nation with religious conviction to declare war on them simply because they are/were heathens... finish the sentence of your own high-lighted section, go all the way to the period, to finish the quote. You cut the sentence in half and it makes no sense that way.

The treaty says what it says and your apologetics do not explain that away. Under the Constitution, it was the law of the land. And it was written, signed, and ratified by our Founders.



Okay, but Christianity wasn’t my defense, acknowledgement of a Supreme Being in a government endorsed ritual was my target…

Nice dodge. If that is true, why do you the trot out something that says we are a Christian nation?

As you admit that is an irrelevancy.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
Feb. 29, 1892

*snip*

1. That isn't even the name of the case. It is Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892).

2. You've trotted out this old bit of misconstrued and out-of-context dicta before and I've thoroughly explained why it does not mean what you think. Among other things, the author of the case expressly stated elsewhere that he meant merely that the country was primarily occupied by Christians.

3. By your own admission, this case is irrelevant to the question at hand.

4. To the extent relevant, the case supports separation of Church and State. The Court decided that the church was exempt from a federal statute forbidding employment contracts with aliens to work in United States.

Originally posted by Good Lifes

I've asked the so called Christians on this thread several times to justify forcing their values on others based on what they say is their constitution---The BIBLE. Not one of these "Christians"??? if I dare call them that without getting struck by lightning---Can come up with even ONE place in the BIBLE that says Christians are to do things in front of others that harm the conscience of anyone around them. I have quoted several verses that say "under God" being forced on people with other beliefs goes against the teaching of both Jesus and Paul. If you SO CALLED Christians can't defend your position using what YOU say overrides the US constitution (the BIBLE)--You have NO basis for your position. You don't even know what the beliefs are that you say you subscribe to. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that's what the BIBLE actually says. I dare you to actually STUDY the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

First off, I find that offensive. You're calling me a liar about my religion. Secondly, I offered Romans 13... which was written by Paul. You're prideful and self-righteous about your religion. I believe you should wipe the plank from your own eye before telling me to get the speck from mine.

Secondly, you want more? Luke 20:25b "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." To me, that speaks true enough. If I were to say, "Whose am I?" I would answer, "I am God's." And to pledge allegiance to something that doesn't recognize at least His sovereignty, then I would betray my religion.

First off, I find that offensive. You're calling me a liar about my religion. Secondly, I offered Romans 13... which was written by Paul. You're prideful and self-righteous about your religion. I believe you should wipe the plank from your own eye before telling me to get the speck from mine.

Secondly, you want more? Luke 20:25b "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." To me, that speaks true enough. If I were to say, "Whose am I?" I would answer, "I am God's." And to pledge allegiance to something that doesn't recognize at least His sovereignty, then I would betray my religion.


I take it that you dont believe in paying taxes, because some of the money doesnt go "to god." ?

The pledge of allegiance is a pledge of your temporal allegiance, a pledge against treason. It really has no spiritual component, it does not ask you to pledge your allegiance spiritually to anything at all.

Originally posted by New Grandpa

I take it that you dont believe in paying taxes, because some of the money doesnt go "to god." ?

The pledge of allegiance is a pledge of your temporal allegiance, a pledge against treason. It really has no spiritual component, it does not ask you to pledge your allegiance spiritually to anything at all.

If you had read the actual verses... then perhaps you would have understood where I was coming from. However, since you did not:

Luke 20:20-26
Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be honest. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said so that they might hand him over to the power and authority of the governor. So the spies questioned him: "Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesor or not?"
He saw through their duplicity and said to them, "Those me a denarious. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?"
"Caesar's," they replied.
Hesaid to them, "Then give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent.

Also, if you would like to read the same story... but do not Luke's Gospel... Mark 12:13-17 is the same story.

I hope that answers whether or not I agree with paying taxes or not...