Under God?

[tryreading]

Regardless of they are led or not, as long as they are not coerced into saying such matters, it is their choice. If a government official tries to lead those at a reasonable age in a public building into suicide, I would have no problem with that. Only those too stupid will follow will die, which is natural selection.

Congress inserted the 'under God' into the Pledge in 1954 by way of an illegal act. 'Congress shall make no law...'

Wanting a captive audience of children to recite the Pledge with added religious meaning is strange, to me. Religious people don't just want to teach their own children about God, they insist that all kids have to learn it. This is a control issue, a personal problem. If you have kids, and want them to believe what you believe, teach them your dogma at home, or anywhere besides public venues. Don't try to force it on everybody's kids.

 

[Stinger]

Kids aren't forced to say it, I don't and never have. So they should be able to of course, they have a freedom of speech.

Oh they basically are but the point is it is taught as part of the Alligence and by LAW it is part of the Alligence. If they don't say that phrase the either they can continue and become out of sequence with others saying it, or they have to pause and give respect to the phrase as others say it.

The fact is it shouldn't be there in the first place as religious faith has nothing to do with alligence to the country.

 

[Stinger]

Regardless of they are led or not, as long as they are not coerced into saying such matters, it is their choice.

But they are coerced, if you are going to try and claim that a 6 year old is not coerced when their their teacher, whom they are told to obey, teaches them the Pledge WITH the phrase inserted and that when the class reciets it and the majority including the teacher who is leading them says that is not coercive then I don't think you are being very honest in your post.

If a government official tries to lead those at a reasonable age in a public building into suicide, I would have no problem with that. Only those too stupid will follow will die, which is natural selection.

We're talking 6 and 7 year olds.

But why is it there in the first place?

 

[tryreading]

Oh they basically are but the point is it is taught as part of the Alligence and by LAW it is part of the Alligence. If they don't say that phrase the either they can continue and become out of sequence with others saying it, or they have to pause and give respect to the phrase as others say it.

The fact is it shouldn't be there in the first place as religious faith has nothing to do with alligence to the country.

Yes, they definitely are coerced, or were before the lawsuit.

It shouldn't be there. It was placed there because Congress acted illegally. Why should school kids endorse their crime?

Stinger, I have seen your posts here, and you surprised me. I have usually seen you defend President Bush and the GOP on almost every issue, therefore I assumed you would be of the conservative Republican type who would be for the recital with 'under God.' Some people ignore the Constitution regarding religious issues, I'm glad you don't, at least on this one.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Absolutely.
And this is one of the many things we cannot allow the atheists to change.

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. "

 

[Stinger]

Yes, they definitely are coerced, or were before the lawsuit.

It shouldn't be there. It was placed there because Congress acted illegally. Why should school kids endorse their crime?

Take it out of the "Offical" pledge, get rid of the statue that created it. At all public gatherings say the new "Official" pledge. Any Church is free at their settings to insert it if they want to.

Works for everyone it seems to me.

Stinger, I have seen your posts here, and you surprised me. I have usually seen you defend President Bush and the GOP on almost every issue, therefore I assumed you would be of the conservative Republican type who would be for the recital with 'under God.' Some people ignore the Constitution regarding religious issues, I'm glad you don't, at least on this one.

See where assuming gets you :naughty. Just kidding! I'm a conservative, not a Republican. And I am not religious. For you see to me the true conservative position with regards to church and state is that they should be seperate. Government should not interfer with nor give any creedence matters of faith and religion. I believe the consitution is quite clear on that. For the life of me I don't understand why on earth religious conservatives WANT government to be involved in thier religions. The liberal position WOULD be one of mixing government and religion liberals want a buracacy over EVERYTHING. One reason I'm an independent. I live in Alabama and thuroughly oppose Judge Roy Moore.

 

[tryreading]

Take it out of the "Offical" pledge, get rid of the statue that created it. At all public gatherings say the new "Official" pledge. Any Church is free at their settings to insert it if they want to.

Works for everyone it seems to me.


See where assuming gets you :naughty. Just kidding! I'm a conservative, not a Republican. And I am not religious. For you see to me the true conservative position with regards to church and state is that they should be seperate. Government should not interfer with nor give any creedence matters of faith and religion. I believe the consitution is quite clear on that. For the life of me I don't understand why on earth religious conservatives WANT government to be involved in thier religions. The liberal position WOULD be one of mixing government and religion liberals want a buracacy over EVERYTHING. One reason I'm an independent. I live in Alabama and thuroughly oppose Judge Roy Moore.

Yes, generalizing is often a mistake.

I agree about separation. Jefferson wanted it, Madison spoke of "a perfect separation," John Adams said the following:

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.
-- President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88)

Madison also fought hard against the establishment of Chaplains for Congress, paid by our government. He opposed it, but was outvoted on it. He said the members of Congress who wanted to see chaplains could pay for the service themselves.

I agree on Moore too. He is a nut. I believe he was removed from his bench, wasn't he, over the Ten Commandments monument?

 

[tryreading]

"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven. "

I say Amen.

 

[Stinger]

I agree about separation. Jefferson wanted it, Madison spoke of "a perfect separation," John Adams said the following:

Which goes with my point that the true conservative position would be complete seperation of church and state.

I agree on Moore too. He is a nut. I believe he was removed from his bench, wasn't he, over the Ten Commandments monument?

One in the same and yes he was removed for violating a federal order. Also our state constitution is very very pro-seperation.

 

[jfuh]

Which goes with my point that the true conservative position would be complete seperation of church and state.

One in the same and yes he was removed for violating a federal order. Also our state constitution is very very pro-seperation.

If only more ppl would realize this perspective.
In the last 10 years this evangelical fundamentalist movement is just getting way out of hand. What have politicians done? well just as we would assume, they coo these fundamentalists, as opposed to the standing of the constitution which these people swore and oath to uphold.
Apparently a sworn oath means nothing to politicians.