WEhy did it need to be added in the first place? It was a knee Jerk reaction to the paranoia that was sweeping the Nation during the 1950's. Kind of like the paranoia that's sweeping the nation regarding the right to own Fire Arms. Maybe we should add a couple lines in the Second Ammendment saying that only those who have government approval should be able to own firearms?How does saying "under God" represent the state supporting a single religion?
Like their spineless Republican Brethren they are deathly afraid of the Religious Ridiculous err Right.Why is there NO NATIONALLY ELECTED DEMOCRATE supporting this decision?
Red -- If we take your idea a littel further, you have just solved the gun control problem. Maybe we could add a couple lines in the Second Amendment saying only those who have approval from god should be able to own firearms. Then, since there is not god, no one could own guns.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Maybe we should add a couple lines in the Second Ammendment saying that only those who have government approval should be able to own firearms?
Originally posted by: waggy
heh and he just said on CNN he plans on filling a complaint on the fact "In god we trust" is on money.
I don't feel like honoring the Legacy of Fear that ran rampant through American Society in the 1950's. If you like pledging to the legacy of cowardice JoeBad tough shait,plain and simpleIf you don't belive in God, tough shait for you. Plain and simple.
And if the ruling is overturned the Legacy of Joe Macarthy will live on. Of course we can't expect our politicians to show courage in this situation because both the Republicans and the Democrats are led by those whose cowardice would make Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine hang their heads in shame.The 50's are ancient history.
I really don't care what inspired the addition of "under God". I just think its bullshait for a court to order its removal based on the principle of seperation.
and by the way, EVERY nationally elected public official, so far, agrees. As well as, if you can trust the polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans.
This excerpt if actually from the official legislative history of the 1954 Act:Check out Neal Boortz He is a syndicated talkshow host out of Atlanta.He is Libertarian. He is a former lawyer. He is probably one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to debating our freedom and / or loss of it. It is interesting to read his response on the decision.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And if the ruling is overturned the Legacy of Joe Macarthy will live on. Of course we can't expect our politicians to show courage in this situation because both the Republicans and the Democrats are led by those whose cowardice would make Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine hang their heads in shame.The 50's are ancient history.
I really don't care what inspired the addition of "under God". I just think its bullshait for a court to order its removal based on the principle of seperation.
and by the way, EVERY nationally elected public official, so far, agrees. As well as, if you can trust the polls, the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Originally posted by: ToBeMe
This ruling isn't going to last long people.........................
- WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the U.S. Congress on Thursday denounced a court decision that struck down recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools.
Senators packed their chamber for a rousing recitation of the pledge, with emphasis on the words, "one nation under God," while the House of Representatives worked on a resolution which would overturn the ruling.
It takes courage to stand up for what is right despite it's unpopularity.Now, without getting into the validity of the poll argument, would someone like to tell me how the Congress is being cowardly and not doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is supporting the wishes of their constituency?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It takes courage to stand up for what is right despite it's unpopularity.Now, without getting into the validity of the poll argument, would someone like to tell me how the Congress is being cowardly and not doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is supporting the wishes of their constituency?
The words "under God" in 1954 during the hieght of the Red Scare. They were added for this reason:Just curious, but what does Joe Macarthy and anti-communism have to do with Christianity? I'm sure it's a stupid question but I don't remember hearing stuff about that.
Joseph MaCarthy was the Leading Antagonists of the Red Scare.?The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual.?
Originally posted by: montanafan
AmusedOne, it is sad to see that you're one of those types who just repeats any drivel he sees to support his argument without worrying about who it came from, the reasoning behind it, or the context in which it is said.
I should have known you'd go to one of the sites maintained by Jim Allison, Susan Batte, and Tom Peters. They're always the ones referred to about that quote because they're the only people with the gall to say Adams didn't utter it based on such flimsy reasoning. Here is what Jim Allison said about it on the link you provided:
"John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution 1860 (reprinted NY: Burt Franklin, 1860; 1970), p. XXIX.
We recently located this source and now suspect that John Quincy Adams never uttered these words. Here's what we found..."
..."Throughout this introduction, Thornton quotes various early Americans on the subject of religion. At least some of the quotations are footnoted, and all of them appear to be enclosed in quotation marks.
Sometimes portions of the quotations are italicized for emphasis
The words attributed to John Quincy Adams appear on page XXIX. None of these words are placed in quotation marks. Rather, the sentence reads as if Thornton is making his own conclusion about what John Quincy Adams believed. Thornton's sentence reads as follows:
The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principle of Christianity (italics in the original)...."
... "It is, of course, possible, that the printer made a mistake and forgot the quotation marks but, until somebody can locate the original source of the quote, there is no ground whatsoever to treat these words and Adams' own. The quote should be regarded as bogus."
Then AmusedOne, based on that, you come on here and say this:
Nice, but he never said that. Religious Right activist and "One Sided Wall" BSer David Barton made that up for his "America's Godly Heritage" video. It has no basis in fact, and the cite used turned out to be an author's own words, not those of Adams
You may be so easily swayed, but I prefer to think for myself and not take as gospel (no pun intended) the baseless suspicions of "an independent researcher from Virginia Beach".
It's also good to know for future discussions that the context in which something is said is not important to you.
As for the Treaty with Tripoli, the context is not important here.
Hmmmmmm I wonder, do you think that if this does get to the US Supreme Court that the guy from California's lawyer will refuse to stand when the call to order is read? Or perhaps he'll just wait in another room? Or maybe he'll sue the Supreme Court for making him stand and listen to it?
Originally posted by: Isla
Just a quick comment on the parent who brought this to court in the first place:
Why not teach your kid that generally speaking, you will come across people every day who don't share your beliefs and it is best to just agree to disagree? Why teach your kids to sue every time something bothers you, like the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience? Aren't there better things to worry about these days?