Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fly-Bye-NightFlyerGTI

Lol, me and my kind? If you're referring to Conservatives, then you're mistaken

No I'm talking about Religious Fanatics who have more in Common with Bin Laden than they do with Mainstream America.

Before you roll your eyes, NightFlyer. Think about this:

What you want is to have this country based on, and ruled by your religion and it's laws. What the Taliban wants is to have their country ruled by and based on their religion and it's laws.

There is really no difference here, NightFlyer, other than you think your religion is superior. But wait, so does the Taliban.

NightFlyer, there was a period in History where Christianity ruled much of the western world, and the abuses by that rule were very much like the abuses committed by the Taliban.

This is not to say the Christian religion is flawed or inferior, but that any man who rules with "the word of god" as his authority is open to massive corruption.

Our Founding Fathers knew this first hand. They created a religiously neutral government so that there would never again be the "divine right of kings" or government to corrupt man. They did it to ensure that no religion in America would be inferior, or take second class status... or worse, be banned outright.

Religious neutrality in government is essential to religious freedom. Not only yours, but everybody's.

 

[XMan]

I don't care if it's unconstitutional or not, I'm gonna say it - and mean it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indvisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Don't like it? Try and f*ckin' stop me from saying it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Xerox Man
I don't care if it's unconstitutional or not, I'm gonna say it - and mean it.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indvisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Don't like it? Try and f*ckin' stop me from saying it.

More knee-jerk reactionism.

No where in the decision did it say it's illegal to recite the pledge any way you see fit. It only means that government institutions are not to endorse it in it's present form.

NO WHERE has your right to say anything you damn well please been infringed upon.

So, we can stop the dramatics, eh?

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

3 words : Liberal fvcking bedwetters

Probably the only three words you can type without getting any on your keyboard.

hehe, its amazing how many people resort to name calling when they have no legitimate arguements to make
take away "liberal + etc etc etc" and their sentences become much shorter

Every nation that has turned it's back on God has eventually disintegrated at some point in history. We need to pay attention to lessons learned because if God is pushed out of our society then so goes the rule of law.

funny, well someone already said that no nation lasts forever. but rule of law? how many attrocities have been commited by countries whos people had not turned away from religion eh? one rather recent example being slavery. oh wait, that was inhumanity under the rule of law... do you think the nazi's were athiests? no, they were definetly deists, they were the master race placed on this planet by God. looking back through history there is no connection between whether a people are religious and whether they do bad things. sad but true. and sucks for you.



i can't believe how huffy christians get in this country when you try to take God back out of governent. its like come on, it was put there in 1950, not by God but some misguided people. its not as if your existence as christians is being threatened. everywhere you turn someones thanking god at award shows, there are churches around every corner, politicians proclaim their religion as a badge of decency etc etc etc. the nations governement should be secular, not influenced at all by religion, no matter how big it is. christians claim they are having atheist ideas shoved down their throat all the time when all thats happening is the removal of religion from government which has seeped in. in a sense, they see any attempt to block them from injecting more religion into government also as attempts to force atheist beliefs on them. twisted? yes.

"Under God" our country was founded for freedom of religion and restraint against tyrany. The words "under God" doesn't constitute the Christian God, but whatever God you want to believe in...whether it be Buddha, Allah, or no god at all. I hope that one day we can get over all this PC crap.

i'm sorry, no amount of twisting words is going to make "Under God" as interpretable as there being no god and look at the reasons it was put there. those reasons were corrupt, its time to fix it. or was the original copy just that horid. maybe we should toss the entire thing then i'm agnostic and thus distanced from either group i can see that its not the athiests pushing belief on others, but well the religions. a right they surely have in civilian life, but not through the government. just because you got used to something or its "tradition" does not make it right.

and its not PC crap. now imagine if in 1950 they added 3 words, "under no God". would you still be happy with it? it is in fact pushing a belief on you, no matter how you twist it. or perhaps using your reasoning you could say that "under no God" means no God forced upon you, meaning it could work for just about anyone with any religion.

keeping the governement free from religious bias is not PC.


everytime i said the pledge i felt the tinge of hipocrisy in a country founded with a separation between church and state. and yes, the tradition of swearing on bibles is also pretty absurd, its nothing but a tradition. murderers and liars place theiir hand on it...and LIE. it does nothing but cheapen the book really if you think about it.


as for all our presidents being christian. well kennedy was catholic and back then many were against him just for that reason. sick isn't it. jefferson was a deist, and thats all.

It is such a stupid little thing to put your time, money, and energy into. You are not going to convert the whole world to atheism or any other belief system, so why not just teach your kid to be a good person who knows how to live and let live?

i suppose you'd say the same if we added "There is No God" into the pledge in 1950?

and yes live and let live. something the people who pulled the change in 1950 were not willing to let happen.

That parent could have just seen to it that his daughter didn't have to recite the Pledge of Allegience... but I guess then the poor little darling would have felt left out. So he got the whole thing declared unconstitutional.

"My daddy is bigger than your daddy... "

which is a poor arguement once you consider that the changed pledge is basically unconstitutional. pooping on others parties is ok when the party is corrupt. its not about being offended but the very foundation of the country. allowing hipocrisy to continue hurts everyone.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

you're damn sure going to at least deal with our beliefs and traditions

Who's? Not mine.

One nation under the great Allah!

 

[Red Dawn]

Don't like it? Try and f*ckin' stop me from saying it.

We'll sneek up behind you and tip you on your side. That should keep you busy for awhile Dan

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Don't like it? Try and f*ckin' stop me from saying it.

We'll sneek up behind you and tip you on your side. That should keep you busy for awhile Dan

Hehe. I'd just outrun your creaky ass, Mike.

 

[HardwareAddicted]

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
Is nobody here religious, or believes that this country wasn't FOUNDED with a firm stronghold in The Faith of God? I can't believe most of you are in favor of this crap. :| The insertion of "under God" was NOT a 'political hack'- you guys make me sick. If we're not a Nation under God, who are we as a Nation 'under'? Politically correct bastards from California (not surprised where this ruling came from) who are trying to undermine our history and tradition? I'm not. Adding "under God" to the allegiance was the right thing to do, although adding "under Jesus Christ" would probably have gone too far, even though I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Despite what you hear on the biased, brainwashing Clinton News Network, this Nation does not side as a whole with extremist left-wingers from the west coast, which is what Ted Turner's wet dreams would like for you to believe. I can't wait to read the articles and hear the interviews of the backlash from the Right in the coming days on this. :frown:

This is changing the traditional beliefs of America to favor a wider range of people, which I'm not in favor of. Everyone here certainly has the right to freedom of speech, but if you're going to come to my Country or keep living here, to reap the benefits and virtues it provides because of the foundations of democracy, capitalism, a Faith in God, and especially the great men and women who *fought for it* (re: all very serious things), you're damn sure going to at least deal with our beliefs and traditions, without so much as a mouse fart from protestors. This isn't about going on strike for better working conditions in a factory, or to seek worker's comp from a mis-managed corporation who screwed your retirement plans or 401k, this is the foundation of what makes it all exist in the first place- The United States of America. If I moved to Karachi, I certainly wouldn't try to raise a ruckus in the streets to change policy, with even a thousand like-minded individuals, who severely under-number the citizens of that city and country who have been following the same beliefs and traditions for ('x' years; honestly don't know how long Pakistan has been under their current form of government) and favor otherwise.

My Pledge of Allegiance will go unchanged.

AMEN !!

Pride before the fall people....ring any bells ?

This country was HUGELY guided by our creator in it's begining.... I honestly believe this.
But having this newly found freedom of religion, also lets you not believe at all...... so don't say it then, fine with me.
Having it in there will not force you to do or believe anything.... your PARENTS should be raising you..... remember ?

But the more you try and thump your chest and try to claim that you have done this all on your own.....you're in trouble.

Pride before the fall.... Pride before the fall....

I will always try to remember those who died for this country, and our creator for all the blessings and help he has provided that has got us this far.
It's a team effort here as I see it.... as it should be.

It would seem that history is going to repeat itself yet again....
For those who know what the scriptures are, you will know that people always prosper when they follow our creator....
then get pridefull thinking that they have done this all by themselves.

This is where they lose everything they have gained and more..... and so it repeats, one more time.... *SIGH*

What scares me most in the short term, is that most of these people for this, are the younger generation, and will be running this country into the ground very soon.

And all I will be able to do is sit back and watch.... (and vote)

But I'm still worried about where this country is headed if we keep on this kind of thinking.

As for me, when my time comes, I will be judged by my redeemer, and it will be fair and just.

Not by a godless country run by worldly kids.....

[sarcasm] I'm sure there will be a gold calf coming to a town near you soon [/sarcasm]

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
America was never founded as nor intended to be a "Christian nation."

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"

(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress.)

Look who the other party is.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hehe. I'd just outrun your creaky ass, Mike

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance while you run away. Hey Dan, you can say the pledge anyway you want as far as I am concerned. I'd never dream of telling you that you can't. I just prefer to have it as it was originally written before some Politico's got a hold of it and changed it to their liking. It was perfectly fine before then.

 

[Spike]

ok, I am a little confused here, why are people saying that the foundgin fathers did not want the nation to be one of God? they most certainly did, it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson that was mis-interpreted that started the whole separation of chuch and state thing. I am a Christian, but I am for the separation even though it came about from a mistake*. I firmly believe that people should make there own choices about being religious and should not have it forced on them, especially by there freely elected government.

I do, however, belive that the "under God" should be kept in. A student cannot be made to say the pledge and does not even have to be in the room when it is said, so why should they change it? if it is really offensive to the students, then we should do something about it, but let the students decide and not their parents.

I believe that since this nation was founded "under God" and is now the longest lasting government in the modern world that maybe we should leave things as they are, especially for something as minor as this. If we keep changing, what is to keep our country from getting so PC that everyone is afraid to reach out to anyone else? this is not really a concern I have for myself, but it is one that I have for my future children, I don't want them growing up in a country so cold and afraid of being sued that no one really connects.

* this is what I read, if anyone can correct me then please do as I have been known to be wrong from time to time (but please correct me nicely and not flaming... ok?)

 

[Red Dawn]

Thank you HardwareAddicted for demonstrating how whacko's think!

 

[Nefrodite]

I do, however, belive that the "under God" should be kept in. A student cannot be made to say the pledge and does not even have to be in the room when it is said, so why should they change it? if it is really offensive to the students, then we should do something about it, but let the students decide and not their parents.

so, we live in a country where a citizen who doesn't believe the religion of the majority has to leave the room whenever a pledge of allegiance to the country is called for? and only because you stubbornly attach yourself to basically a bastardized version of the original pledge? and a pledge that would be subject to change depending on the bias of those who spoke it? how unifying..... so muslim americans would be free to change to to under allah in their schools right? officially too right?

I believe that since this nation was founded "under God" and is now the longest lasting government in the modern world that maybe we should leave things as they are, especially for something as minor as this.

that is nothing but a belief. and if the words are as minor as you say, you've made the arguement for their removal.

the fact is, keeping the words in is "politically correct". any politician that comes out against it takes a heavy risk of being booted permanently when his term is over. this is a fight for justice, fairness, and freedom, not over political correctness.

It would seem that history is going to repeat itself yet again....
For those who know what the scriptures are, you will know that people always prosper when they follow our creator....
then get pridefull thinking that they have done this all by themselves.

your post was vacuous as could possibly be. but this is just pathetic. we also prospered off the backs of black slaves. off the chinese infidels who built the railroads. so what of it? did god send the heathens to be enslaved and abused for the benifit of the believers?

and you speak of pride. pride is exactly what kept those words in the pledge these 50 years. pride that they sneakily begun to thrust the fingers of religion into government.

What scares me most in the short term, is that most of these people for this, are the younger generation, and will be running this country into the ground very soon.

as yes, the standard fire and brimstone arguement used throughout the ages. i suppose you are comparing todays youth to an earlier time. an ideal that doesn't exist. was it the 50s? time of mcarthyism, riots, oppression of blacks and other nonwhites? or was it farther back when laws were setup so asians couldn't marry whites, or own land. and blacks were subhuman and property. where was god all that time? yes it was in the people.

But I'm still worried about where this country is headed if we keep on this kind of thinking.

oh you mean the abolition of slavery, the right of women to vote, civil rights for blacks.... etc etc etc. surely we are doomed. u know many of the first public school textbooks claimed catholics to be for all intents and purposes evil? ah yes, its true. maybe we should go back to that wonderous time of tolerance. (btw there were riots in catholic areas of course).

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: HardwareAddicted

Originally posted by: NightFlyerGTI
Is nobody here religious, or believes that this country wasn't FOUNDED with a firm stronghold in The Faith of God? I can't believe most of you are in favor of this crap. :| The insertion of "under God" was NOT a 'political hack'- you guys make me sick. If we're not a Nation under God, who are we as a Nation 'under'? Politically correct bastards from California (not surprised where this ruling came from) who are trying to undermine our history and tradition? I'm not. Adding "under God" to the allegiance was the right thing to do, although adding "under Jesus Christ" would probably have gone too far, even though I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. Despite what you hear on the biased, brainwashing Clinton News Network, this Nation does not side as a whole with extremist left-wingers from the west coast, which is what Ted Turner's wet dreams would like for you to believe. I can't wait to read the articles and hear the interviews of the backlash from the Right in the coming days on this. :frown:

This is changing the traditional beliefs of America to favor a wider range of people, which I'm not in favor of. Everyone here certainly has the right to freedom of speech, but if you're going to come to my Country or keep living here, to reap the benefits and virtues it provides because of the foundations of democracy, capitalism, a Faith in God, and especially the great men and women who *fought for it* (re: all very serious things), you're damn sure going to at least deal with our beliefs and traditions, without so much as a mouse fart from protestors. This isn't about going on strike for better working conditions in a factory, or to seek worker's comp from a mis-managed corporation who screwed your retirement plans or 401k, this is the foundation of what makes it all exist in the first place- The United States of America. If I moved to Karachi, I certainly wouldn't try to raise a ruckus in the streets to change policy, with even a thousand like-minded individuals, who severely under-number the citizens of that city and country who have been following the same beliefs and traditions for ('x' years; honestly don't know how long Pakistan has been under their current form of government) and favor otherwise.

My Pledge of Allegiance will go unchanged.

AMEN !!

Pride before the fall people....ring any bells ?

This country was HUGELY guided by our creator in it's begining.... I honestly believe this.
But having this newly found freedom of religion, also lets you not believe at all...... so don't say it then, fine with me.
Having it in there will not force you to do or believe anything.... your PARENTS should be raising you..... remember ?

But the more you try and thump your chest and try to claim that you have done this all on your own.....you're in trouble.

Pride before the fall.... Pride before the fall....

I will always try to remember those who died for this country, and our creator for all the blessings and help he has provided that has got us this far.
It's a team effort here as I see it.... as it should be.

It would seem that history is going to repeat itself yet again....
For those who know what the scriptures are, you will know that people always prosper when they follow our creator....
then get pridefull thinking that they have done this all by themselves.

This is where they lose everything they have gained and more..... and so it repeats, one more time.... *SIGH*

What scares me most in the short term, is that most of these people for this, are the younger generation, and will be running this country into the ground very soon.

And all I will be able to do is sit back and watch.... (and vote)

But I'm still worried about where this country is headed if we keep on this kind of thinking.

As for me, when my time comes, I will be judged by my redeemer, and it will be fair and just.

Not by a godless country run by worldly kids.....

[sarcasm] I'm sure there will be a gold calf coming to a town near you soon [/sarcasm]

I agree. Stupid kids.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Before you roll your eyes, NightFlyer. Think about this:

What you want is to have this country based on, and ruled by your religion and it's laws. What the Taliban wants is to have their country ruled by and based on their religion and it's laws.

There is really no difference here, NightFlyer, other than you think your religion is superior. But wait, so does the Taliban.

NightFlyer, there was a period in History where Christianity ruled much of the western world, and the abuses by that rule were very much like the abuses committed by the Taliban.

This is not to say the Christian religion is flawed or inferior, but that any man who rules with "the word of god" as his authority is open to massive corruption.

Our Founding Fathers knew this first hand. They created a religiously neutral government so that there would never again be the "divine right of kings" or government to corrupt man. They did it to ensure that no religion in America would be inferior, or take second class status... or worse, be banned outright.

Religious neutrality in government is essential to religious freedom. Not only yours, but everybody's.

That is patently ridiculous and you know it. Having "under God" in our Pledge because 95% of the population wants it that way does not mean that we are two inches away from beating men without beards, destroying all television sets and whipping women who show ankles.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Before you roll your eyes, NightFlyer. Think about this:

What you want is to have this country based on, and ruled by your religion and it's laws. What the Taliban wants is to have their country ruled by and based on their religion and it's laws.

There is really no difference here, NightFlyer, other than you think your religion is superior. But wait, so does the Taliban.

NightFlyer, there was a period in History where Christianity ruled much of the western world, and the abuses by that rule were very much like the abuses committed by the Taliban.

This is not to say the Christian religion is flawed or inferior, but that any man who rules with "the word of god" as his authority is open to massive corruption.

Our Founding Fathers knew this first hand. They created a religiously neutral government so that there would never again be the "divine right of kings" or government to corrupt man. They did it to ensure that no religion in America would be inferior, or take second class status... or worse, be banned outright.

Religious neutrality in government is essential to religious freedom. Not only yours, but everybody's.

That is patently ridiculous and you know it. Having "under God" in our Pledge because 95% of the population wants it that way does not mean that we are two inches away from beating men without beards, destroying all television sets and whipping women who show ankles.

But from reading NightFlyer's posts, he doesn't want to stop at "Under God" in the pledge. No where did I state that this phrase alone would lead to an abusive theocratic government. Please, if you're going to address a point of mine, keep in in the context I presented it in.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

so, we live in a country where a citizen who doesn't believe the religion of the majority has to leave the room whenever a pledge of allegiance to the country is called for? and only because you stubbornly attach yourself to basically a bastardized version of the original pledge? and a pledge that would be subject to change depending on the bias of those who spoke it? how unifying..... so muslim americans would be free to change to to under allah in their schools right? officially too right?

Who the hell says he has to leave the room? He only has to leave the room if his parents herniate themselves when they hear the word "God."

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne But from reading NightFlyer's posts, he doesn't want to stop at "Under God" in the pledge. No where did I state that this phrase alone would lead to an abusive theocratic government. Please, if you're going to address a point of mine, keep in in the context I presented it in.

Well sorry, I lose track after readin 150 posts. I *would* stop there, and I'm glad that you aren't going to make slippery slope arguments about how on utterance of "God" in public is all that stands between us and Saudi Arabia.

 

[Nefrodite]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: Nefrodite

so, we live in a country where a citizen who doesn't believe the religion of the majority has to leave the room whenever a pledge of allegiance to the country is called for? and only because you stubbornly attach yourself to basically a bastardized version of the original pledge? and a pledge that would be subject to change depending on the bias of those who spoke it? how unifying..... so muslim americans would be free to change to to under allah in their schools right? officially too right?

Who the hell says he has to leave the room? He only has to leave the room if his parents herniate themselves when they hear the word "God."

ah so something that is unjust is ok if one can force the minority to tolerate it

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Spike
ok, I am a little confused here, why are people saying that the foundgin fathers did not want the nation to be one of God? they most certainly did, it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson that was mis-interpreted that started the whole separation of chuch and state thing. I am a Christian, but I am for the separation even though it came about from a mistake*. I firmly believe that people should make there own choices about being religious and should not have it forced on them, especially by there freely elected government.

I do, however, belive that the "under God" should be kept in. A student cannot be made to say the pledge and does not even have to be in the room when it is said, so why should they change it? if it is really offensive to the students, then we should do something about it, but let the students decide and not their parents.

I believe that since this nation was founded "under God" and is now the longest lasting government in the modern world that maybe we should leave things as they are, especially for something as minor as this. If we keep changing, what is to keep our country from getting so PC that everyone is afraid to reach out to anyone else? this is not really a concern I have for myself, but it is one that I have for my future children, I don't want them growing up in a country so cold and afraid of being sued that no one really connects.

* this is what I read, if anyone can correct me then please do as I have been known to be wrong from time to time (but please correct me nicely and not flaming... ok?)

You are wrong. Here is the entire text of the Jefferson letter to The Danbury Baptist Org:

To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which delcared 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 & 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

ThJefferson Jan. 1, 1802

There is no other way to read this letter. "A wall of separation between church and state" can mean only one thing: Government is to stay out of religion, and religion is to stay out of government. It can mean nothing else.

add to that this quote:

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
(Treaty with Tripoli, 1797. Presented by President and Founding Father John Adams, and ratified unanimously by Congress.)

And you have your proof that this nation was NOT founded as a Christian nation, but as a departure from 1500+ years of Christian nationalism in Europe.

Our nation is a product of the Age of Enlightement, not Christianity. Our Constitution is anathema to anything in the bible, as is our Bill of Rights. If anything, our country was founded on the model of pre-Christian, pre-Ceasar Rome more than anything biblical.

 

[Scipionix]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which delcared 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 & State.

Yes, a wall between church and state means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Founders never intended for that to mean that religion and public life could never cross paths. Furthermore, "God" in our Pledge, on our currency, in our Motto, and in our oaths does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, nor does it give any particular religion fiscal, discriminatory, or even moral support. Courts have held that "God" in these contexts is not religious in any sense suggested by the First Amendment and I am inclined to agree. Saying the Pledge is not mandatory, and certainly choosing to omit the "under God" part is not prohibited. The will of the people has been clearly expressed as supporting the inclusion of "under God," and in this case there is no good reason to ignore that will.

I also remind you that a friendship treaty is by nature diplomatic and need not express accurately the policy of the country signing it, especially where the language concerned is not an actual clause in the treaty. Keep in mind that we were making nice with the Mohammedean government of Tunisia.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which delcared 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 & State.

Yes, a wall between church and state means that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Founders never intended for that to mean that religion and public life could never cross paths. Furthermore, "God" in our Pledge, on our currency, in our Motto, and in our oaths does not prohibit the free exercise of religion, nor does it give any particular religion fiscal, discriminatory, or even moral support. Courts have held that "God" in these contexts is not religious in any sense suggested by the First Amendment and I am inclined to agree. Saying the Pledge is not mandatory, and certainly choosing to omit the "under God" part is not prohibited. The will of the people has been clearly expressed as supporting the inclusion of "under God," and in this case there is no good reason to ignore that will.

I also remind you that a friendship treaty is by nature diplomatic and need not express accurately the policy of the country signing it, especially where the language concerned is not an actual clause in the treaty. Keep in mind that we were making nice with the Mohammedean government of Tunisia.

A wall works both ways. I've heard the "one sided wall" argument, and it's absurd. Have you EVER seen a "one sided wall?" The very concept defies common logic. You cannot keep government out of religion without keeping religion out of government. To claim you can is absurd. When religion becomes involved in government, government is by default now involved in religion.

Religions have one thing in common. "God." To claim the mention of a "god" is non-religious is another absurdity.

Our motto and Pledge is an extention of our governmental policies. A verbal represenitive, if you will. It is the one motto and pledge endorsed and embraced by our government. To have a motto and/or pledge with a mention of a god in it IS an endorsement of religion in general. This alienates those who are agnostic or atheist in belief.

As for the treaty, it speaks for itself. One can try to diminish it's weight in a debate, but they cannot deny that this exact wording was presented by Adams and ratified by the entire US Senate.

 

[Strych9]

Originally posted by: Scipionix

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Czar
One question, why was this phrase added in the first place?

Because in the 50's the Religious Right had a stranglehold on the country, and if you didn't believe in GOD, you were a Communist.
Do some reading on Joseph McCarthy and the "red scare."

The religious right as you know it did not exist in the 50s, and neither political party was closely allied with any religious group.

Actually quite the opposite. More people were to the right than not. Unlike today.

 

[Stark]

I don't care much about removing something that was added during the Eisenhower years. I just wonder if they're going to re-write the Declaration of Independence and re-issue all money free of "In God We Trust." If the San Francisco ruling stands, that's the logical next step.

The liberals are dead set on removing God from our culture any way they can. They can try, but when me and my future children say the pledge, you better believe we will be shouting "under GOD" when we say it. I expect as much from 90% of the people who say the pledge. The end result will be the removal of the pledge from schools and government altogether.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Stark
I don't care much about removing something that was added during the Eisenhower years. I just wonder if they're going to re-write the Declaration of Independence and re-issue all money free of "In God We Trust." If the San Francisco ruling stands, that's the logical next step.

The liberals are dead set on removing God from our culture any way they can. They can try, but when me and my future children say the pledge, you better believe we will be shouting "under GOD" when we say it. I expect as much from 90% of the people who say the pledge. The end result will be the removal of the pledge from schools and government altogether.

"In God We Trust" was added during the Eisenhower era too. The law mandating this be added to all currency passed in 1956.