The Pledge of Allegiance

[MSgt]

If this were true, that we do not have separation of church and state, our laws would look totally different. I was making the point that separation of church/God and state was intended as He is not present in the Constitution. Preambles in state constitutions do nothing to change this. I hope I've made thing clearer.

Unbelievable. There was no need to make things clearer. There is no confusion. I merely mentioned that the founders in each and every state mentioned God. I could care less if it's in the Pledge of Allegiance or not. I don't see why it's even an issue.

 

[Columbusite]

If this were true, that we do not have separation of church and state, our laws would look totally different. I was making the point that separation of church/God and state was intended as He is not present in the Constitution. Preambles in state constitutions do nothing to change this. I hope I've made thing clearer.

Unbelievable. There was no need to make things clearer. There is no confusion. I merely mentioned that the founders in each and every state mentioned God. I could care less if it's in the Pledge of Allegiance or not. I don't see why it's even an issue.

When it's in the pledge it is offical endorsement of religion. Congress signed the bill which added that phrase into law. That is why it should be struck down. The preambles are a totally different matter which I detailed in previous posts.

 

[MSgt]

When it's in the pledge it is offical endorsement of religion. Congress signed the bill which added that phrase into law. That is why it should be struck down. The preambles are a totally different matter which I detailed in previous posts.

Ok. I wish to submit my official resignation from this thread. I am not what people would call a 'devout' Christian, but I am a Christian. Whether it stays in the "Pledge of Allegiance" or not is of no consquence to me.

 

[TheBigC]

I wouldn't be surprised if he does, but there is so much legal precedent along with our Constitution that makes it clear it is violating the 1st amendment. But you would have known that were you constitutionally literate.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Okay, so can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit free exercise of religion. The phrase "under God" does not establish a religion, nor prohibits the free exercise of religion. It recognizes the presence of a God, and as someone pointed out before, this could be any god you choose. Atheism is the absense of religion. ("Being Without God", I think is the literal Latin translation) It is not a religion, and does not enjoy protection under this Amendment of the Constitution. How do you interpret it to do so?

 

[marchare]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Okay, so can't establish a religion, and can't prohibit free exercise of religion. The phrase "under God" does not establish a religion, nor prohibits the free exercise of religion. It recognizes the presence of a God, and as someone pointed out before, this could be any god you choose. Atheism is the absence of religion. ("Being Without God", I think is the literal Latin translation) It is not a religion, and does not enjoy protection under this Amendment of the Constitution. How do you interpret it to do so?

Here the right wing flim-flam is obvious. You quote word for word the entire First Amendment including, “no law respecting an establishment of religion”, and then attempt to show exclusion of atheism from it’s protection, by the use of “can't establish a religion”, ”does not establish a religion”, and “any god you choose”.

Read it again. It says, ”establishment of religion”, period, not “establishment of a particular religion”. Recognizing the presence of a god, any god, by government, is establishing religion.

Let’s talk about that other clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. So far I’ve not seen anyone on this thread even try to show how a fully secular pledge to the flag would be an infringement. Would anyone dare to try?

 

[TheBigC]

Read it again. It says, ”establishment of religion”, period, not “establishment of a particular religion”. Recognizing the presence of a god, any god, by government, is establishing religion.

Okay, I read it again. I guess we have to agree to disagree, because I don't read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" as being inconguous with "under God" in the Pledge.

But I'll go one step further, I'll demonstrate that George Washington and the First Congress didn't even think the word "God" established religion.

Congress approached the President, in their *first session* back in 1789 to declare a national holiday of prayer to "thank the Almighty God" for their blessings. Washington did *not* make that a permanent national holiday, but did approve it as a one-shot. In his Thanksgiving Proclamation http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html he drops the G-bomb twice, the "Lord" twice, and pretty much declares a prayer to the people of the United States.

So, with everyone who wrote the Constitution still alive and kicking and involved in the House and the Senate, and even the Presidency, wouldn't you think that if they saw mentioning the word "God" in their literature as being unconstitutional they would have NOTICED!?

 

[marchare]

I read the Thanksgiving Proclamation(thanks for the link) and it is a recommendation, nothing legally binding. Washington’s speech in this document is itself protected under the First Amendment. This cannot be compared with instructing young children, before they understand such concepts as liberty and justice, to repeat daily -hand over heart- that our republic is “under God”. This is an establishment of religion, and something that may have the dangerous effect of giving the child the impression that government policy is infallible. Half a century of this forced inculcation may explain why some characterize the criticism of our present situation as “badmouthing America”. Though the amendment covers redress of grievances, they label you a “traitor” for discussing them.

Notice too, that he says , “Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will“, etc., this does not imply that it is the duty of governments to acknowledge God. The meanings of “nation” and “republic” are separate. Nations of free people acknowledge God as they wish. Nowhere in the document does he advocate government involvement in prayer.

Again, I’d like anyone to please establish how a fully secular pledge to the flag would be an infringement on anyone’s right to free exercise. Why is this important aspect of this issue being avoided?

 

[kmhowe72]

Here is my view. I think this decision by that California Judge was just terrible. I think in some ways the aclu is an awful enity. I grew up saying the pledge. And I would hate to think my children wouldn't be able to. I think this is so un american. If those parents in california don't want them to say it FINE! But leave the rest of us alone.

I heard that the aclu is trying to change christmas into Winter solsteice. What is that. That is what it was before Christmas. a pagan holiday the romens celebrated. No thanks. IMO

 

[marchare]

Here is my view. I think this decision by that California Judge was just terrible. I think in some ways the aclu is an awful enity. I grew up saying the pledge. And I would hate to think my children wouldn't be able to. I think this is so un american. If those parents in california don't want them to say it FINE! But leave the rest of us alone.
I heard that the aclu is trying to change christmas into Winter solsteice. What is that. That is what it was before Christmas. a pagan holiday the romens celebrated. No thanks. IMO

I don’t know what you’ve been told about the ACLU, but consider this: When the ACLU sues, the State is always the defendant. The ACLU, the state, the law, or the courts have nothing to do with what free people celebrate during the holidays. You give “The Law” way too much power! What is celebrated is a mater of culture, predating our constitution, and something that in a free society is not government issue.

Your children will always retain the right pledge or pray to anything. The decision in California recognizes the rights protected in the First Amendment as unalienable rights of human beings, not states. It is the State that does not enjoy protection under this amendment, contrary to what TheBigC said of atheists. In fact, the exercise of religion by the State is very specifically prohibited.

A lot of hay is made about “under God” being just “two little words” that seem to frighten liberals. Those two words are as meaningless as the righteous-right claims them to be. The deliberate distraction away from the in-context meaning however, betrays the dishonesty of their position. The notion that this republic or the nation are under God, is a mater of opinion. Religious opinion.

Please, can anyone demonstrate how the legal restoration of the Pledge to it’s pre 1954 form, without two little words, infringes on any human right? Why is this important aspect of this issue being avoided?

 

[MSgt]

I have an idea. Since its treated like it is not such a big deal depending on what side you are on and since Republicans and Democrats can't do anything as a unified voice, they might as well start acting like two seperate countries.

Since Republicans want the American flag protected from burners

and

Democrats want the word "God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance.....

Why don't they just trade, start focusing on what they both agree is important, and stop acting like jack-asses? I know..I know - something that decisive does not define our reality.

 

[marchare]

I hear you, and I think most Americans might agree -especially now with the devastation of Katrina- that taking better care of our own, as a priority, should be a good place to start focusing together. This just might inspire a sense of nationhood in a more compelling way than repeating some pledge over and over.

As I’ve stressed before, the word “God” is not at issue. The State’s teaching of the completely religious opinion, “the Republic is under God”, is what is at issue. Isn’t it self evident, that the State’s motive in instructing kids that the State is under God, can’t be good?

I don’t want to sound repetitive, as this is the fourth consecutive post where I’ve begged for a response.
I’d like anyone to please establish how a fully secular pledge to the flag would be an infringement on anyone’s right to free exercise. Why is this important aspect of this issue being avoided?

 

[MSgt]

I hear you, and I think most Americans might agree -especially now with the devastation of Katrina- that taking better care of our own, as a priority, should be a good place to start focusing together. This just might inspire a sense of nationhood in a more compelling way than repeating some pledge over and over.

As I’ve stressed before, the word “God” is not at issue. The State’s teaching of the completely religious opinion, “the Republic is under God”, is what is at issue. Isn’t it self evident, that the State’s motive in instructing kids that the State is under God, can’t be good?

I don’t want to sound repetitive, as this is the fourth consecutive post where I’ve begged for a response.
I’d like anyone to please establish how a fully secular pledge to the flag would be an infringement on anyone’s right to free exercise. Why is this important aspect of this issue being avoided?

What do you mean by this?

 

[marchare]

If “under God ” is really just two little words as is claimed, why is the righteous-right defending it’s inclusion in the pledge? Can they show that the elimination of “under God” from the pledge is in any way an infringement? I don’t think so. It seems they haven’t tried.

 

[MSgt]

If “under God ” is really just two little words as is claimed, why is the righteous-right defending it’s inclusion in the pledge? Can they show that the elimination of “under God” from the pledge is in any way an infringement? I don’t think so. It seems they haven’t tried.

Oh. I don't know. I'm a Christian, but I don't care if it is in the Pledge or not. Which is also why I don't see why it is such a big deal to strike it.

In the mean time, we have kids not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because some athiest started crying again. Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an athiest win over God.

 

[marchare]

Oh. I don't know. I'm a Christian, but I don't care if it is in the Pledge or not. Which is also why I don't see why it is such a big deal to strike it.

In the mean time, we have kids not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because some athiest started crying again. Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an athiest win over God.

American children compelled by the State to daily proclaim the Godliness of the State, now that’s a big deal to me!
How in the world can a secular pledge be letting an atheist win over God? Win what, exactly? More for them means less for us? There’s not enough liberty to go around?
Still no takers on my ongoing question. Where’s the infringement? Show me the money.

 

[MSgt]

American children compelled by the State to daily proclaim the Godliness of the State, now that’s a big deal to me!
How in the world can a secular pledge be letting an atheist win over God? Win what, exactly? More for them means less for us? There’s not enough liberty to go around?
Still no takers on my ongoing question. Where’s the infringement? Show me the money.

I'm not even arguing this. Like I said, I don't care if it's in or out. I don't see why others are all bent up out of shape if it doesn't matter. I guess next we are going to strike from our money too? Pphhff.

 

[Caine]

American children compelled by the State to daily proclaim the Godliness of the State, now that’s a big deal to me!
How in the world can a secular pledge be letting an atheist win over God? Win what, exactly? More for them means less for us? There’s not enough liberty to go around?
Still no takers on my ongoing question. Where’s the infringement? Show me the money.

I don't see the infringement at all. I do however see the infringement in its current state.

If we want other countries to look up to our "Democracy" as a model government, we need to be able to abide by our own constitution first, before we can help other countries make the switch.

 

[kmhowe72]

I never said it was fact. I said I heard it. Ok I heared from Bill orielly one night when I was watching the facter or what is on the radio show. Nope it was on the radio show.I hope it does happen I love the holidays. I didn't say it was right.

 

[Columbusite]

Oh. I don't know. I'm a Christian, but I don't care if it is in the Pledge or not. Which is also why I don't see why it is such a big deal to strike it.

In the mean time, we have kids not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because some athiest started crying again. Maybe it is as simple as not wanting to let an athiest win over God.

If Christians are so insecure in their beliefs that they think that removing "under God" from the pledge equals the victory of an Atheist over God, then Christians worship a very weak, meager God. The same one who is, according to some Christians, banging on school doors trying to get back in after 40 odd years. Whatever happened to that omnipotency?

 

[marchare]

Brovo, Columbusite

I never said it was fact. I said I heard it. Ok I heared from Bill orielly one night when I was watching the facter or what is on the radio show. Nope it was on the radio show.I hope it does happen I love the holidays. I didn't say it was right.

Learning about the ACLU from Mr. O’rielly is a bit like learning about Islam from Jerry Falwell. All of the ACLU’s cases are a mater of public record. This is a link to a page that briefly lists recent cases that concern the church/state aspects of the First Amendment:
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17598&c=38
You may not agree with the ACLU’s position on all of these issues, but take note of the number of cases where they defend a citizen’s right to express there faith, against an oppressive government body who’s officials are themselves confused about the First Amendment. And Fox News claims “fair And balanced”.

I don't see the infringement at all. I do however see the infringement in its current state. If we want other countries to look up to our "Democracy" as a model government, we need to be able to abide by our own constitution first, before we can help other countries make the switch.

I agree, there is no infringement. Columbusite and others have throughout this thread, been presenting very clearly the constitutional reasoning against State practice of religion. It’s about time the righteous-right do the same, instead of going on and on about “two words”, or “majority rules”. Please, someone show us where a fully secular pledge tramples on your faith. C’mon wing nuts, afraid to go toe to toe with a “bleeding-hearted lily-livered” liberal?

 

[JOHNYJ]

The liberals usualy take the view that the flag only represents the current govt. While most people I know beleieve the flag stands for the nation! For those that have fought and died to create it and to maintain it. That it stands for he Country,not just the govt.
The fear is on the atheists and humanists side.They fear God and especialy christianity. They are willing to edit history to push their agenda. At a time when most academicians are pushing for the truth about all aspects of our history.Those that fear Religion. Are trying to censor it.

 

[argexpat]

I didn't say anything about legal. I said...."Maybe our past did not intend for there to be a separation of God and state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions.":3oops:

Let's cut to the chase here, GySgt: Are you advocating a state religion? Are you advocating that the Constitution (which, btw, is conspicuously absent any mention of God or Jesus) be amended to establish Christianity as the state religion? What is it exactly that you’d like to see happen?

You keep beating around the bush with specious arguments and red herrings, but you never just come right out and advocate a concrete position. If you think Christianity should be the official religion of the United States, then say so. Make that argument. Otherwise you're just a rhetorical coward who doesn't have the balls to say what she means.

 

[argexpat]

I grew up saying the pledge. And I would hate to think my children wouldn't be able to. I think this is so un american. If those parents in california don't want them to say it FINE! But leave the rest of us alone.

kmhowe72,

This is either a calculated or ignorant misinterpretation of the Pledge debate. No one is preventing your children from saying anything, including the "under God" version of the Pledge. They can say it whenever they want, where ever they want. The question here is should a state-sponsored institution be engaging in the religious indoctrination of your children. And the answer is no. Because that is an infringment on your child's Constitutionally protected rignt to free expression of religion, which, if it means anything at all, must include freedom from religion.

If public schools stopped the recitation of the Pledge today, not a single person's right to free expression of religion would be infringed. It would not prevent your child from believing anything, attending any church, saying any prayer, or otherwise engaging in any religious activity whatsoever. The only thing that will happen is that their teacher will stop forcing them to stand up and recite a hokey, empty oath to a piece of cloth they're not intellectually or spiritually mature enough to understand in the first place.

I heard that the aclu is trying to change christmas into Winter solsteice. What is that. That is what it was before Christmas. a pagan holiday the romens celebrated. No thanks. IMO

You "heard" this, but did it actually happen? This sounds like a right-wing equivalent of a Bigfoot sighting. Please provide some proof of this. The truth is the ACLU has on numerous occasions come to the aid of Christians whose freedom of religion was being infringed: http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=16295&c=142

 

[marchare]

Well said, argexpat.

The liberals usually take the view that the flag only represents the current govt. While most people I know believe the flag stands for the nation! For those that have fought and died to create it and to maintain it. That it stands for the Country, not just the govt.
The fear is on the atheists and humanists side. They fear God and especially Christianity. They are willing to edit history to push their agenda. At a time when most academicians are pushing for the truth about all aspects of our history. Those that fear Religion. Are trying to censor it.

I am liberal, grew up in a liberal nest, have many liberal friends, and have no recollection of the view you mentioned being expressed, maybe I missed something. My view, like yours, is that our flag symbolizes the Nation, the People. We the People have specified by law, that the State is to fly our flag, and how it is to be flown by the State.

Atheists fear God? Manifestly silly. Editing history? How’s “founded on Christian principals” for editing history? Atheists fear religion? If any atheists are afraid, they should be:

…The language in the Article states that the free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited. Belief in no God is not a religion. It is no religion. It is the absence of religion. Atheists by default are not protected by that language since they do not recognize the existence of any God. I cannot be protected by a law if I am not in the group for whom the law applies...

Look closely at this. This person is clearly implying that atheists can be jailed in America. It is the Christian Right that oozes with intolerance, and a lot of them vote.

Any wing-nuts care to demonstrate just how the removal of “under God” tramples the rights of anyone? The blatant avoidance of this is speaking loudly, ”the lefties are on to our scam”.

 

[MSgt]

Let's cut to the chase here, GySgt: Are you advocating a state religion? Are you advocating that the Constitution (which, btw, is conspicuously absent any mention of God or Jesus) be amended to establish Christianity as the state religion? What is it exactly that you’d like to see happen?

You keep beating around the bush with specious arguments and red herrings, but you never just come right out and advocate a concrete position. If you think Christianity should be the official religion of the United States, then say so. Make that argument. Otherwise you're just a rhetorical coward who doesn't have the balls to say what she means.

Wow. What the **** was this about? Yes, let's cut to the chase or at least where you are having trouble above everyone else. "She?...enjoy my profile. Coward?...Say's the weakling safely behind his computer...Bwahahahaha! What an emotionally controlled, ill tempered sissy. These guys getting to you? My stance is that I don't care either way because it is a waste of time to focus on and the people that are demanding it come out are as STUPID and PATHETIC as the ones that want it in, as is stated in......

Posts # 277,279, 286, 290, 292.

Beating around the bush? I think not. I merely showed some preambles of the states. Is it comfortable where you have your head planted? Is there room for a hat? How embarrasing for you.:3oops: