Navy Pride
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 39,883
- Reaction score
- 3,070
- Location
- Pacific NW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
SKILMATIC said:Yes. It should be in there twice actually. To say the majority of founding fathers and the majority of first settlers had no incling to religion is the biggest lie anyone has ever told. That is a fact.
I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.
SKILMATIC said:Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.
SKILMATIC said:Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.
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.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.
Then what is the Establishment Clause of our Constitution?
Yeah it did, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional separation of church and state. Total religious freedom, (unless it breaks some other law like human sacrifice or something), but you can’t use the government to promote or compel specific religious beliefs.
I don’t understand you radical right wingers. My God is great enough not to need the U.S. Government to promote him. Moreover, if we were to base all of our laws in Christian Law, better get ready for socialism, because the Gospels of Jesus Christ are practically a handbook for it. You can’t just pick and choose what part of the church you want to promote. Remember, Jesus Christ is a Liberal.
Mixed View said:I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.
Hoot said:Since when do the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?
I see nothing wrong with keeping the term "under God" in the pledge. What about the vast majority of parents that prefer to have their children recite the pledge with "under God?" I guess their rights are thrown out the window?
What I find far more offensive is those of you on the right using terms like "liberal activist judge" whenever a decision is made that you don't care for. Who's to say he's not a conservative who is mistakenly, trying to interpret the constitution?
It specifically states "god". A god is a supernatural being that many Americans do not believe in, and that number is rapidly growing. What about Americans who do not believe in any gods? Shouldn't they be allowed to recite the Pledge and feel as welcome and patriotic as people who believe?
SKILMATIC said:Again the fact is it never happened.
again it never occured. Separation never actually really occurred and rightfully so. How will we justify our laws? The morals whether you agree with them or not are from the 10commandments and if you want to argue with that fact then why are they posted in court rooms? Why is every bylaw written under the morality of religions? And not secular ideas? Again the separation never actually occured. The separation from the power of church occured and that was rightfully so but the evidence of this country being founded on religious principles didnt.
FinnMacCool said:I have an idea. How about we make it say 'One nation under God, Buddha, the force, the dark lord, and science.'
I think people need to learn to pick their battles. some things are just not worth fighting for. Under God is two words and they are insignificant except for the fact that they only show how religious our forefathers were. It doesn't really matter does it?
It has nothing to do with our forefathers. "Under god" was not inserted until 1954. The Pledge itself (even without "under god") was not around until far after our forefathers were gone.
It has nothing to do with our forefathers. "Under god" was not inserted until 1954. The Pledge itself (even without "under god") was not around until far after our forefathers were gone.
Navy Pride said:Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....
It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?
SKILMATIC said:This country interprets the laws and the founding of it by what the fathers would have wanted. The fathers would have wanted this country to be founded on godly principles and its evident of that in the wat they created our laws and the constitution.
Now to say that our founding fathers didnt want god to be the foundation and the fore front of this country is rediculous. Yes some didnt have a fnd belief like other fathers did but they understood that it was an important issue to like 99% of americans at that time casue religion was rampent. Remember thats why this country was founded and created becasue of freedom of religion.
NOW freedom of religion doesnt entail one little exerpt in the pledge to this country. It entails your very freedoms of beleif and express of beleif. And the founding fathers beleived that this country needed a law and a morality to stand upon and it was on godly principles.
SKILMATIC said:I understand this but the talking points doesnt entail the pledge it entails freedom of religion.
The present people who were making the pledge understood that if the fathers were to make one they definitely wouldve shown some acclamation to god.
Slavery is a part of our history as well. Bad argument.Mixed View said:I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.
Where in our Constitution are "godly principles"?
Religion did not come first.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?