Pledge of Allegiance

[WVBill]

Here's something else that, I guess if you follow the logic of the 9th circuit court of appeals, would also be unconstitutional because it contains reference to "God" and other religious references....

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

 

[paccorti]

<font color=blue>I am not advocating that anyone who does not believe in God leave this country. However, if the constitution of this country is not one an individual can whole heartedly support and would give their life to protect then they should either be quiet and live here in peace or move to a land that supports their beliefs.</font color=blue>


But that's the whole point! I am an atheist. I do support the Constitution. I will support the governernment even if it require me to serve in the military. The Federal government is not a religious institution and the constitution is NOT a religious document. A pledge to the non religious institution and non religious document that makes reference to religion makes no sense to me. You can say the pledge any way that you want. But the official version of the pledge excludes me!

What if the offical version of the pledge said "under god and white" since most people believe in god and most Americans are white. Would this be ok? Should the minorities excluded by this just suck it up and say the pledge their own way?

<font color=blue>I'm all for freedom of religion, a person should be able to worship what they view as "God" as long as they do not try ro take away my freedom to do the same. Down through the histroy of this great nation God has been revered as One who guided and protected the people of this land, I see no reason to change things now.</font color=blue>

Removing "under god" from the pledge in no way affects your ability to practice your religion. Removing "under god" from the pledge does not exclude you from anything! Mind you I am not hostile to religion. If you find comfort in religion I am happy that you can practice your faith here. But don't require me to be religious to be a patriotic citizen of this country. I love this country as much as you and I deserve to be a citizen in good standing even though I do not believe in god. My pledge to the non religious institution, which I deeply respect, should not have a reference to god.

Peter

BTW Be careful with the love it or leave it concept. It is deeply insulting to atheists (such as my Father) who nearly died in enemy action in WWII for this country.

 

[ejb]

BRITISH TO RETAKE AMERICA? DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISMISSED!!
By: Doug Sefried

Associated Press (Jun 26, 03:38 PM) SAN FRANCISCO (AP) The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today declared the United States Declaration of Independence as null and void because it has several references to God.The decision left many Americans stunned and angry and the future of the once great country in doubt. A United Nations world court will now determine if America will be returned to the British, the country that the United States declared its Independence from on July 4th, 1776. Yesterday, the United Nations declared martial law in the United States, dismissing the elected government and freezing all personal assets. Queen Elizabeth is scheduled to meet with the Untied Nations next week to possibly begin the power transfer.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

I concur completely. I'd be proud to stand next to your father and say the Pledge of Allegience he learned during the Big One.

On a humoruous note:

Actually today I came up with what I thought were three viable alternatives to the under god thingy.

The first of course would be to put a "s" on it, "under gods" if you will. That opens and closes all the doors and gives those with a slight lisp permission to speak up and be heard without the fear of embarrassment.

The second one of course would be to do like we all learned in kindergarten, take turns. You know something along the line of the Chinese New Year. We could have this year the year of God, next year the year of Allah, you get it.

The third and probably most logical would be to go by senority. We could accept that even before the Native Americans there were doh people. We could have doh.

But then there's the problem with the that people. They followed the doh people. I imagine their descendents are still sensitive about being number two. In fact that might explain this whole problem.

 

[Youare]

You are right that adding or retracting those two words does not change or alter my priviledge worship in whatever religious fashion I desire as long as it does not break any laws of the United States.

You have the same priviledge to hold the convictions you do and to not worship as you see fit without any influence by the State. I beleive that was the pure intent of the law.

My concern is that as the courts decide on more issues of seperation of church and state with school vouchers, the pledge of allegiance, and a host of other decisions that ban religious activities will it come to a place where any religious activity is against the law.

I heard on the radio the other day of a town where a family was holding a Bible study in there home and they were told the area was zoned residentail and they could not do that. They were facing fines as high as $250.00 per day for every day they were in violation and possible jail time.

I respect a person's right to make up their own mind as to what they believe or do not believe about spritual matters. I have no right to tell you what you have to believe or practice as a resident of this great nation. It just appears that the priviledge or right that I have to express my faith seems to be slowly legislated away.

No one should required to recite the pledge in part or in whole, it should be left to the convictions of each individual, but just don't take my right to recite the pledge, or the priviledge of school children to say the pledge and to learn the histroy of this country.

Your loyality to this country is not dependant on your religious convictions, Ben Franklin wasn't a religious man by he sure was dedicated to this country.

This just seems like one more thing pointed at the efforts of the State to control religion. Does the seperation of Church and State go both ways? Was the law to keep the State out of the Church as well as the Church out of the State?

Peter, my apologies for any offence towards your personal beliefs. As you have stated your allegiance is for this nation not it's religious system for that I honor you. I just hope that I can still express my allegiance to both God and counrty as long as I live in this land. And that we can both live together respecting each other.

Randy

 

[Alan L.]

I'm not aiming this at all atheists. Most are moral people, but I pray for their souls. Mosts atheists are tolerant of people who believe in God and understanding the overwhelming majority do, and that it means so much to us, they go on about their business and don't interfere, because it in now way can hurt them.

But the atheists who are complaining about the Pledge of Allegiance, the ones who have stopped Texas crowds from having a prayer at high school football games, those atheists are interfering with the beliefs of the majority under false pretenses.

Its all about being left out. Its about them not wanting to be scrutinized for not taking part. Its about their own image. It has nothing to do with anything else. They would wish the majority to do what they do, so that they don't stand out as different. This is why they don't deserve much credibility.

This country IS a nation under God. We received our rights and freedoms from Him. Deal with it.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

<font color=blue>I heard on the radio the other day of a town where a family was holding a Bible study in there home and they were told the area was zoned residentail and they could not do that. They were facing fines as high as $250.00 per day for every day they were in violation and possible jail time.</font color=blue>

These urban legends how sweet they are. If it wasn't for them some of the folks behind the pulpit would have to talk more about politics.

Chances are most likely that scenario is all about the neighbors. They got tired of all the cars blocking the street etc. So when it became a regular event and made their lives miserable they called the law. And of course the laws are there to protect us. Sometimes from folks not very considerate of others.

The city or state just doesn't go out and look to persecute folks for doing their god thing. It's the folks who are the neighbors who are being inconvenienced or feeling threatened by the god thing doing that make the complaint and then the city or state is forced to enforce the laws.

Of course that doesn't sound as good when we say it's the neighbors having a fit about bible meetings as it does when we say it's the state going after these poor folks just wanting fellowship.

 

[wroughtn_harv]

Two points for you to ponder Alan.

First and maybe foremost it might be like the mouth of the south, Mark Davis WBAP said. Now the majority is pro christian. But are you willing to send your kid to school and have them say "one nation under Allah?"

That could happen. All it would take would be for us to make a Constitutional Amendment putting the dominate god in charge. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world you know.

So instead of going off on the atheists maybe we might want to think about what the laws will mean when some other group is in charge. Which is something I don't believe the present administration is taking into consideration as they erode away at our civil rights.

Of course the most interesting thing about this whole discussion is how some are stopped and choking over "under god" and not being able to go on to "with liberty and justice for all."

 

[Chuck52]

I concur, and would further note that much of the "believe as we beleve or get out" verbiage could easily be assigned to bin Laden, with only minor modifications.

Chuck

 

[Youare]

It is intresting how the same news can be reported by two different people and the veiwpoints are exactly opposite. Depends on what side of the fence you are on. It seems there is an overwhelming lack of tolerance these days along with a great lack of respect for one another.

Let alone religious tolerance just drive down the highway or on a city's streets and you will see a great lack of tolerance and lack of respect for the driver in front or the guy who is trying to pull out into the flow of traffic. I have seen it where a person had to wait in line while a dear old lady fumbled in her purse for the exact change while the person behind was indignant because they had to wait and extra minute.

If we could respect one another views and priviledges more there would be less issues like this making the news. Each of us views these issuse through the eyes of thier own convictions. Hopefully things do not esculate to the level we see between Palestine and Israel.

BTW Harv, I really enjoy the things you do with metal, and the fact that you share them with the rest of us.

Randy