Should The Words 'Under God' Be Removed From The Pledge of Allegiance? POLL

FIN, that was the way things were intended, but somehow the minority now claims they have the power to subvert the majority.

The Muslims will live in peace with others as long as they aren't powerful enough to rule them. They have a truce called a Hudnah. When they have the power, they break the truce and rule the others and persecute them.

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority!

You mean like what happened when schools were integrated, and the Civil Rights Act was passed?

What if the majority votes to take your gun?

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority!

In my opinion this has less to do with the majority v minority and more to do with the 1st amendment.

Also what trm2008 said holds more water than your comment.

Good food for thought Grish!

Civil Right were given to the former slaves, but the White majority felt that they didn't need any. It took the Freedom Riders in contact with Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and Bobby Kennedy before things got to Parchman prison and President Kennedy called the Interstate Travel people and got the rules changed.

Another part of our nation's history that my 11th grade American History failed to mention.

Scrap it! Or replace it with "under Hecate"! (YES, I'M KIDDING)
(But I still don't think any mention of a God needs to be made in a pledge to a country. It wasn't even in there until 1954; beej mcl at #8 gives the history. )
:) HD

Might I point out that the words "under God" were added in 1953? Taking them out would simply be going back to the original pledge, the way it was written, before Cold War madness caused them to add those words.

God cleared the way for the Puritans to come to America and miss their landing spot and show up where the Natives had died from a disease. The bulk of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians. The Revolutionary War was started by the Pastors of the Churches in the English Colonies.

Fast forward to 2012 and the Church is basically worthless.

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority

How in the world does not having "under god" in the pledge interfere with anyone's rights??? It does not. You have the right to say that pledge about anywhere and anytime you want.

Forcing others to say it is a whole new ballgame. That's when rights come into the equation.

countrygirl78, FIN, that was the way things were intended, but somehow the minority now claims they have the power to subvert the majority.

They do indeed have the power but, and this is important, only because the majority is too lazy to challenge them and soon it will indeed be too late! I have come to the unhappy conclusion that, even as bad as things seem to be, the majority is receiving enough assistance, in their situation, that they do not want to challenge the statue quo for fear that the inevitable retaliation would upset that apple cart. In a word their silence is being bought and paid for and, IMO, by the time that they rouse themselves from this stupor it will be too late and the minority will rule and exact their revenge, real or imagined, for prejudices they feel that they have endured over the years. Payback is always a bitch.

Dennis, we were fighting or staring down the Communists. Now we have Muslims trying to infiltrate and dominate us.

If those in America who are called by His Name don't humble themselves, seek His face and get on their knees in repentance, we will be going down hill much faster than we are now.

"One Nation under Allah" or Hanuman (Hindu monkey god), Zeus, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Chaos, Gaea, Eros... It's now time to throw white man's god into the mass grave of mythology as well.

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority!

Neither do the rights of the majority overpower those of the minority. Besides, no one's rights is being denied. What it does do is violate the constitution, especially the separation of church and state.

It is way past time for the majority to stop letting themselves be stampeded in the name of Political Correctness for we have rights

The majority doesn't get to have it's say over the minority, or over the constitution.

FIN, that was the way things were intended

Not even close!

Or replace it with "under Hecate"!

I like that one better. Especially the 'image' it gives me in my mind. :)

God cleared the way for the Puritans to come to America and miss their landing spot and show up where the Natives had died from a disease. The bulk of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Christians.

None of which makes this a christian nation, as you seem to be implying.

Fast forward to 2012 and the Church is basically worthless.

Good! It's about time people start using some reasoning and common sense around here!

If those in America who are called by His Name don't humble themselves, seek His face and get on their knees in repentance, we will be going down hill much faster than we are now.

I think prostrating before one's deity is exactly why we're "going downhill." After all, why bother doing anything about anything when you can wait for the invisible sky daddy to show up and bail us all out. Not gonna happen though and problems will continue to pile up unless we do something about it.

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority!

You've got that completely backwards. The Constitution serves to protect the rights of the minority from the powers of the majority. The only time in which the majority should be given favor is when it is over something that is not strictly prohibited by the Constitution.

What if the majority votes to take your gun?

Or, imagine that we're many years in the future. What if suddenly there are a lot more Muslims living in America and they want to implement Sharia law (I'm not saying that this would happen, I'm just creating a hypothetical scenario). I'm sure every Christian would be outraged, and they'd bring up the fact that the United States is not about being ruled by the majority.

Dennis, we were fighting or staring down the Communists.

lol. It was a reactionary measure intended to separate us from those "Godless Communists." Stupid then, and stupid now.

Now we have Muslims trying to infiltrate and dominate us.

No we don't. There are no Muslims trying to infiltrate us - but thanks for the McCartyesque statement that was the same lack of logic they used in 1953.

If those in America who are called by His Name don't humble themselves, seek His face and get on their knees in repentance, we will be going down hill much faster than we are now.

Who him? And why is He (and his name) Capital?

"One Nation under Allah" or Hanuman (Hindu monkey god), Zeus, Osiris, Ptah, Ra, Chaos, Gaea, Eros...

Dionysus. The God of wine and debauchery, also known as Bachhus. Not to mention the template for one Jesus Christ. Born of a virgin mother, wise beyond his years, performed miracles including feeding multitudes and raising a guy from the dead, walked on water, was crucified and rose three days later - he was Jesus before Jesus was Jesus.

Did I mention wine and debauchery?

Dennis, we were fighting or staring down the Communists. Now we have Muslims trying to infiltrate and dominate us.

Oh, bull@!$%#. Take a chill pill.

No thanks. I know Hezbollah is in Mexico and intends to continue to build cities just on the Mexico side of the International border and use them as staging areas to move Muslims into Blue states so they can build up to a sizable population and start Sha'ria Law.

I know Hezbollah is in Mexico and intends to continue to build cities just on the Mexico side of the International border and use them as staging areas to move Muslims into Blue states so they can build up to a sizable population and start Sha'ria Law.

Like I said. Bull@!$%#. Hysterical, unsourced, irrational, and might I add bigoted bull@!$%#.

The right wing can't exist without Scary Other People to whip up irrational fear about.

I know Hezbollah is in Mexico and intends to continue to build cities just on the Mexico side of the International border and use them as staging areas to move Muslims into Blue states so they can build up to a sizable population and start Sha'ria Law.

*blink*

Damn. Still there.

OK, I got my bust out laugh today on that one.

Hezbollah doesn't even have enough money to buy an election at home.

I know Hezbollah is in Mexico and intends to continue to build cities just on the Mexico side of the International border and use them as staging areas to move Muslims into Blue states so they can build up to a sizable population and start Sha'ria Law.

OMGosh! Really?.....what blue states border Mexico? One! CA. AZ & TX are deep red. NM is purple.

And, have ya heard about the drug wars going on on the border and it's surrounds? Don't think any one is stupid enough to try and build there at this time.

Gordy, thank you on the sleepy worthless Church comment. :)

The blue states exist in New England and up around the Great Lakes. The elephant has it's trunk so far in the tent and most still can't see it.

So, they are going to enter via TX & other SW states and just make that 2000 mile jaunt to NE? And the Great Lakes..hmm, let's look at that one:

OH-not so blue any longer; IN-again, not so much; WI-getting there; MN-Home of Bachman is blue?? Who knew???

Oh, and check out Maine, you know in NE...not so blue and a deep, deep purple with a very reddish tinge!

You need to find another news source...really...a few to balance one out, at least!

I know Hezbollah is in Mexico and intends to continue to build cities just on the Mexico side of the International border and use them as staging areas to move Muslims into Blue states so they can build up to a sizable population and start Sha'ria Law.

And the government caused 9/11. Sounds like another conspiracy theory to me.

Gordy, thank you on the sleepy worthless Church comment

Specifically which comment are you referring to?

Under NO circumstances should the rights of the minority overpower the rights of the majority!

Then why do we have a Supreme Court?

This is not a matter of minority rules or majority rules. The U.S. has a legislative process to determine the constitutionality of a bill, investigate conflicts with existing laws, precedence, etc...

The very presence of "under god" in the pledge is unconstitutional. It should be removed from the pledge and currency as well.

Because the Federal Government has a super duper law that says every kid across the nation HAS to say this at some point in there life?

We hire teachers to teach, if you are wealthy enough and can decide for yourself what that teacher will be teaching your child, then by all means.

Teachers are given the responsibility to "teach" what they know to be true, right and correct, there is no federal mandate stating that a teacher MUST have their class recite this in their classrooms.. it's a choice by the teacher to do it or not, or their superintendent's decision to issue a mandate stating that they are not to do so OR that schools state's legislator to issue such a decree.

But the Federal Government may at one time asked that persons "pledge" an allegiance ... I don't think it's ever been considered a requirement?

But that's just me guessing ... I don't really know, but If you were to produce a "law" or a valid federal document stating that this pledge is in fact endorsed by the Current Federal Government, then color me shocked...

I just don't think there is.

:( (I've been very wrong so often, this may be one of them times)

I have no problem with word GOD. My problem is that is was put in the pledge by super right wing Joe McCarthy.

In God we trust was a different thing. That was 1863 about Civil War time.

In 1954, several Christian anti-communists urged a bill to change the pledge further by including "God." Another amended pledge came by a joint resolution of Congress in 1954 with the addition of the words, "under God." The pledge now reads:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Unfortunately this pledge does not accurately reflect many Americans who do not believe in gods, and thus it can only stand as a biased an intolerant statement.

Although the first and second pledge offers a far better alternative than the last, has anyone noticed that the pledge first aims its allegiance to a flag and only secondly to the republic?

This gives some reason why the flag presents so many problems with flag burners and with questions of law and the freedom of expression.

However it may upset my fellow Americans, I do not pledge allegiance to any symbol including flags or unproven supernatural entities.

I do, however, pledge allegiance to the United States, our country. I propose the following pledge:

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America: one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let's change the last part to read,

"...One nation, under funded, in debt, with irrespnsibility and social programs for all."

TonyInDallas,

But isn't that the Texas motto?

John from Jacksonville,

I am John from Reno. :)

In God we trust was a different thing. That was 1863 about Civil War time.

Doesn't much matter it is still unconstitutional. How many religions are there that call there "Creator" .....God? Then how many of those are the Majority of religious people in America?

Not for all Texans, JV, not for all.

You're absolutely right, Gordy, by having "under god" in the pledge, and the words "in God we trust" on our currency and hanging over the speaker of the house in the House of Representatives, we are violating the 1st amendment that reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;".

Just explain to me which law Congress passed that respected an establishment of religion when they put "under God" in the pledge.

TonyInDallas,

Yeah I know Tony I grew up in New Caney, TX(18 years) and still want to move back, errrnot for religious reasons tho. Was just being a smarta$$.

I miss tree's and grass, damn stupid Reno.

"This blessed country of free inquiry and belief has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither kings nor priests." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waterhouse, 1822.

excuse me while I put on my tinfoil hat.

#2.3:What if the majority votes to take your gun?

The majority always rules in a democracy. Self-explanatory!

The majority always rules in a democracy. Self-explanatory!

Well, I'm glad that's settled. :-)

MaryEllen Galloway said:

The majority always rules in a democracy. Self-explanatory!

I typically agree with your posts but this statement isn't entirely accurate. Majority certainly has influence but does not always rule. The second amendment, as interpreted, makes that unconstitutional. Please see the first paragraph of post 2.29.

The majority always rules in a democracy. Self-explanatory!

True, but we don't technically live in a democracy. The US government is considered a federal republic. We implement a lot principles from a true democracy; but, when it comes to rights, those are not voted on in a democratic manner.

Yeah, JV, I miss trees, too. Grew up in East Texas. They've pretty much clear cut everywhere around Dallas. Bastards.

I love the smell of pine as I'm driving down to see my mom.

Just explain to me which law Congress passed that respected an establishment of religion when they put "under God" in the pledge.

Here you go: US Flag Code Title 4, Chapter 1, Sec. 4 is where the US government presents the official text of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The majority always rules in a democracy. Self-explanatory!"

Except this isn't a true democracy. We are a constitutional republic, bound by the constitution.

#2.42 and #2.42:

Get a grip; it is not that serious! I did not say we lived in a democracy, I know the United States of American is referred to as a republic.

I am also very familiar with the Constitution, having studied it beginning in the 7th grade of elementary school; I am now 65-1/2 years old and have taught college for over 20 years before retiring 6 years ago.

I was speaking about a generic majority, as alluded to in Roberts Rules of Order (for those familiar with that tome!).

Ruling by a majority (thus the wording, majority rules) was a way of resolving ties and "other hangups" when voting. That's all.

I still think it is the best way to handle a situation. Of course, the minority doesn't get a say, but that's how the cookie crumbles. Someone has to lose!

Gordy your reaching , that doesn't endorse Christianity, Islam nor any other religious group.

It just says under "god" boooooooooo!!!

What religion is the Government endorsing and let's see the documentation.

that doesn't endorse Christianity, Islam nor any other religious group.

It doesn't have to endorse a specific religion. Endorsing religion in general or a religious concept over other religions or non-religion is enough to make it unconstitutional.

O.o mmmm... just read the whole document (the constitution) , and it didn't say anything about endosring any single religion , nor does it even say anything to the effect that to do so, would violate its writings other than the selection of our elected officials not being required to pass any religious testing.

Maybe we're talking about the First Amendment ... and that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bla bla bla...

Nothing about the "pledge of allegiance" is unconstitutional until the day someone forces you to say it or be cast out of the Nation.

Those that believe in "god" believe this nation is under "them".

Those that don't .... well.. it's as empty of a statement as an empty cup.

And it's really that simple.

What offends the offended? That the sugestion of a pink unicorn is protecting them?

or is it that others believe in something , that they dont...

and by allowing us to do so, offends and gives the right to ... impose those ungodly beliefs on the rest of us?

That would be Unconstitutional.

Maybe we're talking about the First Amendment ... and that says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" bla bla bla...

Perhaps you need to be familiarized with the role of SCOTUS?

SCOTUS has interpreted the first amendment to mean that the government cannot establish a religion AND must be separate from religion. In fact, "The Lemon Test" specifically deals with how the court determines if something violates the first amendment or not. In order to pass the lemon test ALL of the following conditions must be met:

1. the statute (or practice) has a secular purpose;
2. its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion; and
3. it does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

What is the secular purpose of "under God" in the pledge? There isn't one. The principle or primary effect of adding "under God" DOES advance religion (removing it would NOT inhibit a religion though as you can still believe and practice the requirements of any religion without this phrase in the pledge).

Having the phrase "under God" violates the first two parts of the lemon test, and perhaps the third. Thus, it is unConstitutional and should be removed.

Nothing about the "pledge of allegiance" is unconstitutional until the day someone forces you to say it or be cast out of the Nation.

Wrong.

And the United States of America's official Religion is....... ?

Does advance religion... no it does not.

it perpetuates the idea that there is a higher authority than that of the United States.

It does nothing for the non beliver. It's being there is not unconstitutional as we will find by the end of the lawsuit.

it is totally up to the individual to affirm or not... to say it or not.

And your contradicting yourself with your argument, What is the secular purpose of "under god" in the pledge, that's right, there isn't one... checking as ... false. advance nor inhibits religion... religion =/= god... checks as false... does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion... will soon check as false when the Courts throw this out.

Nothing about the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS (supreme court) will fully demonstrate soon.

just read the whole document (the constitution) , and it didn't say anything about endosring any single religion , nor does it even say anything to the effect that to do so, would violate its writings other than the selection of our elected officials not being required to pass any religious testing.

Perhaps you should also look at relevant SCOTUS precedents, especially the Lemon Test.

Nothing about the "pledge of allegiance" is unconstitutional until the day someone forces you to say it or be cast out of the Nation.

It wasn't until god was added. Now it can be and is argued.

and by allowing us to do so, offends and gives the right to ... impose those ungodly beliefs on the rest of us?

No one is imposing anything on you. It's unconstitutional for the government to impoose or endorse any religion or religious concept over others or over nonreligion, as that cannotes a preference toward religion. The government must remain secular and religiously neutral.

Does advance religion... no it does not.

Yes, it does.. It shows a government preference of religion over non-religion!

it perpetuates the idea that there is a higher authority than that of the United States.

Do you not recognize that implies a religious concept or nature? And one which not everyone shares.

It does nothing for the non beliver.

It says that the government prefers or favors believers over non-believers.

it is totally up to the individual to affirm or not... to say it or not.

Yes. But it is not up to, nor should it be up to the government to affirm it for you.

And your contradicting yourself with your argument, What is the secular purpose of "under god" in the pledge, that's right, there isn't one

The SCOTUS determined it has a secular purpose in that it carries little religious meaning (ceremonial deism). However, that is not a court decision I agree with and one which can be and is argued.

Nothing about the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS (supreme court) will fully demonstrate soon.

Your opinion, but we shall see.

Wait wait wait... the Supreme court, determined it carries little religious meaning...

they did!? dam (see what i did there) the man.

There goes your argument.

Aliens are a religious concept?!?

Humans more advanced than us are ... a religious concept?

Athorities greater than ourselves don't always have to be pink unicorns.

There goes your argument.

Except it doesn't. Merely because the Supreme Court decides something doesn't mean the decision is right.

There's an Authority greater than the United States Supreme court!?

SAY IT AIN'T SOOOOO....

Some... call .. them.. god.

Dam the man. And his food stamps.

One Nation under god!!! taboot.

Merely because the Supreme Court decides something doesn't mean the decision is right.

Indeed! Which is why such issues can still be brought before the courts, including the SCOTUS itself for review and possible revision.

One Nation under god!!! taboot.

Speak for yourself. Prove there even is a god! That would settle a lot of issues then.

There's an Authority greater than the United States Supreme court!?

There are 3 simple ways their Authority can be overrun. Congress can change the law, independent of the Court's findings. Constitutional Amendments can occur.

Finally, the court can reverse a prior ruling. Example - Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) on the same topic.

And your contradicting yourself with your argument, What is the secular purpose of "under god" in the pledge, that's right, there isn't one... checking as ... false. advance nor inhibits religion... religion =/= god... checks as false... does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion... will soon check as false when the Courts throw this out.

No I'm not contradicting myself.

The Lemon Test states that there must be a secular reason for the law or practice. The Pledge is a practice. The phrase "under God" is religious (and to deny this is to be intentionally blind to the facts of why it was added to the Pledge in the first place). There is NO secular purpose for having this phrase in the Pledge; thus, having the phrase "under God" in the pledge fails the lemon test, making it unConstitutional - there is really no reason to continue with the other 2 items (if it fails at one step, it fails the test).

And the United States of America's official Religion is....... ?

There isn't one - which is why the Pledge shouldn't contain the phrase "under God". That phrase DOES support religion (which, once again, is unConstitutional).

btw - this is really strange having this conversation with you. I have a little brother who shares similar views as you - his name is Jeremiah.

The Pledge is an oath, a promise, your promised word. The respect for " A God " as your witness, and creator with the possibility of there being consequences, for breaking your word or oath is the purpose for containing the word God. God is a code of honor, or integrity one has just by acknowledging the possibility he exists. By that belief you then reflect that honor to the other party in an unspoken way that your word does mean something. With no moral value to anything, and no fear of repercussions for your betrayal to others by breaking your word, what good is any ones word? I guess in a world without a God, or any moral conscience to live up to, lawyers will be in hot demand to write contracts every time someone swears their word. Same thing applies to the Pledge. How do I know you'll defend the words of the Pledge, or anything else American for that matter, because you swore to.? Swore to who?

You don't have to believe in god to have a "moral conscience".

You don't have to believe in god to have a "moral conscience”.

Yes, this is the 21st Century not the middle ages. Welcome to the Age of Enlightenment Christians, you’re late.

"The want or imperfection of the moral sense in some men, like the want or imperfection of the senses of sight and hearing in others, is no proof that it is a general characteristic of the species.

I sincerely... believe... in the general existence of a moral instinct. I think it the brightest gem with which the human character is studded, and the want of it as more degrading than the most hideous of the bodily deformities.

I believe... that [the sense of justice] is instinct and innate, that the moral sense is as much a part of our constitution as that of feeling, seeing, or hearing; as a wise Creator must have seen to be necessary in an animal destined to live in society." --Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1816.

The respect for " A God " as your witness, and creator with the possibility of there being consequences, for breaking your word or oath is the purpose for containing the word God.

I have no respect or belief for "A God." So it's meaningless to me, but also unconstitutional to be in the pledge!

God is a code of honor, or integrity one has just by acknowledging the possibility he exists.

Unless you can prove there is a god, I do not acknowledge or believe god exists.

By that belief you then reflect that honor to the other party in an unspoken way that your word does mean something.

Except people can have different beliefs or non-beliefs, and not just in your god.

With no moral value to anything, and no fear of repercussions for your betrayal to others by breaking your word, what good is any ones word?

Morality is independent of god!

I guess in a world without a God

We'd finally catch up to the 21st century and leave Bronze Age fairy tales behind.

Swore to who?

Myself, my family, my country, all of the above, none of the above. Take your pick. Makes no difference really.

if we did the goofy lemon test again we will see that it "fails" each critera.

as in does not check as true.

The Lemon Test states that there must be a secular reason for the law or practice. The Pledge is a practice. The phrase "under God" is religious (and to deny this is to be intentionally blind to the facts of why it was added to the Pledge in the first place). There is NO secular purpose for having this phrase in the Pledge; thus, having the phrase "under God" in the pledge fails the lemon test, making it unConstitutional - there is really no reason to continue with the other 2 items (if it fails at one step, it fails the test).

let's do this again.....

What is the secular purpose of "under god" in the pledge, that's right it doesn't have a secular purpose, there isn't one... checking as ... false.

advance nor inhibits religion... religion =/= god... checks as false...

does not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. .. checks as false...

=

Not unconstitutional.

Then I'll assume neither does your word make a difference. No God, well I guess that helps explain how some folks were created from farts. The science of creation, just "Brilliant"!

Looook who just got smarter, ffs ffs ffs ffs >:/

Kinda f's up my whole argument doesn't it.... ok I gotcha. my bad.

Under the Lemon Test, for a statute not to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, it must meet the following conditions:

(1) it must have a secular legislative purpose,

(2) its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and

(3) it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.

What is the secular purpose of "under god" in the pledge, that's right it doesn't have a secular purpose, there isn't one... checking as ... false.

The fact that there isn't a secular purpose means it fails the Lemon Test. There really isn't a need to continue to the next two tests - if it fails one step, it fails the entire test.

advance nor inhibits religion... religion =/= god... checks as false....

Having "under God" in the Pledge does indeed advance religion. Again, God (with a capital G) is what is in the phrase, not god (with a lower case g). Clearly indicating that this is a Proper Noun, and refers to a specific god (God) to the exclusion of all other gods - therefore, it is advancing any religion that believes in God. It fails this step, therefore, it again, fails the Lemon Test.

) it must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.

The fact that it fails the first two parts of the Lemon test could be argued as a reason it fails this third part.

It fails the Lemon Test, therefore it is unConstitutional.

:/ the lemon test fails!!

New argument! lol

Na I hear you, but still... disagree.

Take it easy people :)

If we were to take out "under God" and insert "the Earth Mother", would it be "under the Earth Mother" or "over the Earth Mother"?

There is NO ONE WITHOUT GOD. Atheists believe themselves to be God. GOD stays in.

Atheists believe themselves to be God.

Sorry sugar.
I do not believe that I am a fictional, omnipotent, mytho-historical being.

Just saw your other post about the Lemon Test. You're right it does kind of mess up your argument.

Don't get me wrong - I fully support people's freedom of religion. People should absolutely be free to worship how they want to worship. I just don't support the adding of the phrase "under God" to the official Pledge.

Also, you're free to disagree - that is what is great about our country, we don't have to agree all the time :)

There is NO ONE WITHOUT GOD.

That's fine for you to have that opinion or belief - just please realize that's what it is.

The words were added by congress in 1954, after being lobbied by The Knights of Columbus.

Twould not matter if it were "under cheeseburger" then we would have the cholesteral issue. This is about control not about religion not about separation not about anything honorable at all. It is about control.

We're keeping the words, no matter how many third world country immigrants, complain about it.

Nope, Americans are a melting pot.

Daniel A. Hallo

Nope, Americans are a melting pot.

Your analogy is a little off.

The United States of America is the melting pot, and American citizens are the metals that are supposed to alloy into something stronger.

Buy a Book.. People have been referring to America as a melting pot for about years now so I don’t think it can be called “Mine”.

Daniel A. Hallo

Buy a Book.. People have been referring to America as a melting pot for about years now so I don’t think it can be called “Mine”.

By misusing the analogy, it became yours.

You incorrectly called Americans the melting pot. Americans (as in the people) are what is supposed to melt. America (as in the nation) is what they are supposed to melt in.

Sorry buy I didn't misuse it, America is a melting pot.
I am not responsible for anyones Xenophobia.

We are multicultural.

Daniel A. Hallo

Sorry buy I didn't misuse it, America is a melting pot.

...really? You should reassess you post at #2.75.

Nope, Americans are a melting pot.

You wrote that Americans are a melting pot, not that America is a melting pot.

You absolutely did misuse the analogy. You should learn to accept criticism and admit when you've made a mistake.

Yes we are a melting pot. Are you a Pure Boold, a Blue Boold?.., then you are a minority, And even minorities are seldom pure bloods. Get over it, you are most likely a mut. As well, so no, I'm not going to accept someone else's narrow mindedness.

Daniel A. Hallo

Yes we are a melting pot. Are you a Pure Boold, a Blue Boold?.., then you are a minority, And even minorities are seldom pure bloods. Get over it, you are most likely a mut. As well, so no, I'm not going to accept someone else's narrow mindedness.

You are demonstrating an amazing lack of reading comprehension. If you can neither understand the plainly written words of others, nor convey coherent thought through your own writing, you should seriously consider staying out of the conversation.

Choosing to misattribute an argument to me makes you appear unreasonable and uneducated.

Dictating to me the meaning of what I myself have said, disregarding my reiteration is an act of tyranny of conscience. Arrogance is no proof of intelligence regardless of how much you whine.

Or is this simple concept beyond the range of your own understanding that Americans are the product of a melting pot.

Welcome to the Human Race.

We're keeping the words, no matter how many third world country immigrants, complain about it.

Where the hell did you get THIS from???

Just a another xenophobe.

*Facepalm

Summer.....do you know some thing the courts (the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) don't know? In 2010, March, "In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words (under God) were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion" in the case of " Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.".....might as well make lemon aide out of your lemon laws on this one.....

Yeah I was barking up a similar tree, but I don't think anyone who would like it's removal, will hear that argument, and they'll just dismiss it as some religious dimwits being inserted into the position to make that decision...

I'm content with the Governments stance on it, but would understand if everyone had their way and had it removed.

I'll just continue to say it with the words, opposed to without, keep teaching it with the words instead of without, and perpetuate a belief in something opposed to nothing as long as I breath :) , keep in mind I'm not a religious person per say, I am not an atheist, nor an agnostic, but it would take an hour to explain what it is that i do believe ;)

No disrespect to anyone who've I've already made a fool of myself to, that's just the way I feel. :)

Summer.....do you know some thing the courts (the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) don't know?

Your link is broken. Brings up a "Oops, that page doesn't seem to be there any more."

In 2010, March, "In a 2–1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words (under God) were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion" in the case of " Newdow v. Rio Linda Union School District.".....might as well make lemon aide out of your lemon laws on this one.....

Been adjudicated at the SCOTUS level yet?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/11/BAS71CEC9F.DTL

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/in-god-we-trust-will-stay-on-us-coins-after-supreme-court-rejects-appeal

i think those work, not to what he wanted us to look at but it's of the same flavor.

U.S. supreme court won't touch this, until they get money to fix the money and the buildings that have "god" plastered on them.

I think that the fact that they won't hear the case, gives merit to the reasons it needs to stay.

and that's just the way it is.

Kaviaq

Where did I get this from? Experience. Now that we have that settled. We are sick and tired of the attack on Christians. Instead of focusing on the ills, we focus on removing God, yea that sounds real smart. SARC

We have children graduating from schools, and they cant read or write, and teachers complaining that 109K a year is not enough. How are they going to compete with the Chinese and Japanese, and for crying out loud, will someone teach them how to pull up their pants, and tie their shoes. So to help them out, they put Snookie, Southpark, Tia Tequila, and on the radio, songs, about yo momma, being a female dog, and yo sister, the same.

These malcontents, crack me up, complain and blame is what they teach. Try looking at the man in the mirror. We will vote out all the libs, in house in senate, and when we donate property, for public use, we will use as long as, the Ten Commandments is prominently displayed

lol

Can you trace your ancestors back 14 generations and say of those 14 generations they were never on a boat traveling across an ocean?

if not....

I think your picking a fight you can't win.

EVERYONE'S AN IMMIGRANT ... if you ask the right people. :D

teeehhheehehehe immigrants lol.

Rac....My apology, I was not posting a link, I just didn't want to type the whole court line so I copied and pasted from some where. My bad.....That happened in march 2010 and appealled(?) in June 2010 And the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.

LCS, your post #2.91 is a bunch of rambling totally unrelated to your original post.

We're keeping the words, no matter how many third world country immigrants, complain about it

Why are you talking about "third world country immigrants"?? Your follow up post doesn't explain why you think immigrants are to blame.

I fail to see why a person's origins are relevent...since Americans come from all over the world and, as Jeremiah says above, we are ALL immigrants. But, just so you know, MY family got here in 1640 and fought in the Revolutionary war and I STILL support the Separation of Church and State. Everyone who values religious freedom should. Without the separationwe cannot HAVE religious freedom. I also don't fit any of your following diatribe of the type of person who you "blame" for trying to remove god from the government. I have been able to read since I wa 2 years old (thanks Mom), started kindergarten at 4, and sent myself to college (I have 2 Master's degrees). My parents generously paid for my undergraduate books, but none of my tuition and none of my graduate school....and I did not expect them to.

sorry my bad but I just can't resist this.......with all that education, if only you hadn't eaten the pages of your typing book your post would have been perfect....LOL

And the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case.

So the answer is "No. It has not been adjudicated in front the SCOTUS."

(pssst- I knew that but it really needs to be pointed out when this is brought up. Kicking the can down the road has no stare decisis implications or weight so someone can bring a case up again and if they decide to grow a pair of balls and do their job, the outcome could be different.)

Rac....Again I messed up, another case was brought up and ruled on by the 1st District court in Boston and the upheld the ruling of the lower federal court in NH, and then in June 2011 The Supreme Court Denied its appeal

kaviaq

Well if you study history. The Persians invaded Europe, from the east, Turkey, then on to Greece, then called Macedonia. Hence we have the early days, before Christ, the Spartans and their great battles.

Then from the west, they invaded Spain, being only 30 miles across the Strait of Gilbralter, to Northern Africa. El Cid, fought of the Muslim hords. After his passing, the Muslims, took the Christian churches, and change them to Mosques. Look at the result, Greece and Spain, are failing do deal with their entitlement society. They say 25% of the people in Greece work, while the others live of the government. To put is simple they have to many sitting in the wagon, and not enough pulling the wagon.

Now I lived in Europe, and could travel to 3 countries in one day, I was stationed there in the Air Force. The demigods, use race bating for profit, and division. Their is but one race, the Human race.

Don't be so easily brainwashed. Don't sell your ancestors short. How do you know what you are? Surely our ancestors traveled, and had relations in different countries.

Jesus said their will be many false prophets, you will know them by their fruit. Tieing bombs, on to children, is this good fruit? Teaching hate to children is this good fruit? The bible says God was with Ismael, 40 days and 40 nights, he is blessed. The Bible also says he said you will be like a wild ass in the desert, you will be against all man and all man will be against you. This is said both in New and Old.

The strife between the Jews and the Muslims, is a fight between two brothers, on birthrite. This of course does'nt matter, because Christ said the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Wtf?

Welcome to the bat@!$%# crazy comment from LCS. At least we don't have to suffer through the pathetic reference to his "stogie and tea" signoff anymore.

RAC0129

That was a hurtful thing to say. Not to worry, I forgive you. Hey ya wanna sing a song, I wrote it myself, using a score from, a Roger and Hammerstein production, South Pacific. It's called the Obama blame game.

Ok ready a1&2&3&4&

Happy talk keep talking happy talk.

Talk about things you like to do.

Obama's got a dream.

Make Larry Sinclair scream.

Now he wants to do you too.

Talk about Obama, he should be ashamed, all he does is play the blame game.

Talk about the libs, telling all their lies, now its time to tell them good bye iii

Happy talk, keep talken happy talk, talk about things, you like to do.

You've got to have a dream, if you don't have a dream Obama is going to do you too.

Let's sing it again!!!

Welcome to the bat@!$%# crazy comment from LCS.

Oh good....I thought I was cracking up. His post of #2.98 makes NO sense and not only doesn't back up anything he said in the post I was asking about...it seems to refute his point entirely!

Jesus said their will be many false prophets

Well he would know....being one himself.

The Church is supposed to be engaged in society, not being pew potatoes and chair chips getting their itching ears tickled.

The separation of Church and state was designed to keep the state out of the Church, as it was in England.

Our leaders are not the head of the Church.

Erroneous. Sure there were some Christian Protestants that helped found our country but there were a fair share of atheist or, at the very least, agnostics that helped found us as well. And it does violate the first amendment.

Let's put to rest the myth of this country being a Christian country founded by Christians for Christians.

the reason i say other is because of who founded this country protestant Christians.

That doesn't make this a christian or religiously based country.

they you have atheist and an pagan saying that it fails to honor the separation of church and state

That is true. It shows favoritism to a god or religious ideology over other religions or non-religions, which is unconstitutional.

The Church is supposed to be engaged in society

As long as they stay out of the government and law!

The separation of Church and state was designed to keep the state out of the Church, as it was in England.

It also keeps religion out of the government. Separation works both ways.

Let's put to rest the myth of this country being a Christian country founded by Christians for Christians

Indeed! Such a myth is demnonstratably false and a flat out lie.

It's not a myth. Even Benjamin Franklin, who never claimed a relationship with Jesus called for prayer when they couldn't see eye to eye.

America was founded as a Christian nation under Almighty God.

America was founded as a Christian nation under Almighty God.

You must be talking about some other America, because the United States was founded on British Commonlaw and the Principles of the Enlightenment. Put down the Bible for a minute and pick up a history book.

you have atheist and an pagan

Isn't that something, how they always lump us together? Good thing I luv ya, gordy!
:) HD

and your POINT IS? How about SLAVERY? Lots of the blacks were muslim... didn't exactly give them a choice, eh?

America was founded as a Christian nation under Almighty God.

If a major tenet of Christianity is evangelism, then why no mention of Yahweh in the constitution or declaration of independence? If we were intended to be a Christian nation then why aren't all of the 10 commandments laws? Open your eyes and drop the myth.

America was founded as a Christian nation under Almighty God.

So since when are freedom, equality and democracy Christian values? They are not. If you want to know how nations are ran if an Abrahamic religion is in charge, there's some you can move to check. Be prepared to give up a lot of rights when you do, k?

You might want to reread the Declaration and Constitution. Jefferson spoke of the god of nature and the word "christian" is not before creator either.

Read Genesis.

Read Genesis.

Why? I have a wonderful book of Pagan myths right here...

countrygirl78,

It's a bit short but I thought 'illegal alien' was a great piece of work, but what does a rock group's song have to do with anything relating to god?

Read Genesis.

You don't read Genesis, you listen to Genesis. Well, until Peter Gabriel left.

Read Genesis.

I prefer Harry Potter myself.

America was founded as a Christian nation under Almighty God.

Unless you can provide some piece of original documentation to support that claim, it's demonstratably false! I challenge you to prove your claim! Otherwise, you're just talking and have no credibility!

Read Genesis.

The bible does not form the basis of our laws or government, nor is our constitution based on it. Besides, I prefer the J.R.R Tolkein version of "genesis."

I prefer Harry Potter myself.

Lord of the Rings for me! I just spent last weekend watching the extended DVD trilogy. Time well spent! :)

Lord of the Rings for me! I just spent last weekend watching the extended DVD trilogy. Time well spent! :)

WOW Good movie, but about 14 hours in front of the TV, I would pass out long before then.

I remember from the fine public education that I received, (that did have me recite the pledge of allegiance) ....

that there was a Mayflower, and on that Mayflower were persecuted by their homeland Brownist English Dissenters (what the hell is that!!?) , and they were Christians, lol who kinda got mad about being fined for not going to church on sunday if you can believe that, and that their purpose for leaving their homeland was religious freedom to believe in the god as they saw fit (not going to the english church was a crime at the time in england)

and then from the same public education I've learned that the "birth" of the United states of America as we know it was basically people not wanting to pay their taxes imposed upon them by their former form of government.... I guess it would just depend on how you defined beginning, ... because really the English established Jamestown originally and ... I'm pretty sure the french were here before them, and the Spanish before them... why they came?... to get rich of course.

Why did the United States deem religious freedom a necessity for a stable form of "democracy" is a good question.. but i'm rambling here, either way...

Religious Freedom was a reason some of the people that were here before the birth of the Nation "the United States of America" came. Not all, some were just greedy, some wanted a lawless land to pillage, in any case, they came they conquered and the rest is history.

Be sure to visit your Locally owned and operated Native American Casino to Learn More.. O.o ok, maybe not, but they'll make sure it was worth the trip :)

but about 14 hours in front of the TV, I would pass out long before then.

It was more like 9 or 10, spread out over 3 days. But I lost track. And that didn't include the bous features.

I guess it would just depend on how you defined beginning,

The signing of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution.

Why did the United States deem religious freedom a necessity for a stable form of "democracy" is a good question

Because without such freedom, the US would not be a democracy. But rather more like England at the time.

Works for me Gordy...

Back to the Pledge, .... why the heck not, ... I mean the basic premise of the thing is to get kids or pledgers otherwise, to declare themselves a part of something greater than themselves yeah? they were part of a nation...

Under, ... g...o...d yeah that part does come off a little , weird.. but then again it's on our money, it's in the cool recital they make people swear into public office, (and i hear you can use your own religious book..) ...

I guess it boils down to Athority yeah? and the Pledge needing some credence?

or credit? so who else to validate something that really isn't validateable (did i spell that right?) other than by something greater than what we're pledging to ... yeah?

And for most people, who are religious or just plane ol god, mullah, Allah, budah fearing people.... that would be their ultimate authority yeah? Given they're not afraid of the U.S. government after their dead... assuming they're belief in the higher deity/ power was valid, to pledge before "it" would ... give the pledge more credit to a feeble mind like a child, who knows, mom, dad.. .and often as a byproduct, god... as ultimate authorities in their lives ..

is that the basic gist of it?

yeah I voted it stays :)

Nothing wrong with Indoctrinating Loyal American Citizens opposed to the Politically correct Mindless mob of gen X who seem hell bent on going against the grain just becuase they posess the right to.... uggghh hhh h h h h h hehehe.

but .. just my opinion on that ;)

I mean the basic premise of the thing is to get kids or pledgers otherwise, to declare themselves a part of something greater than themselves yeah? they were part of a nation..

It's more like taking an oath of loyalty to the nation.

but then again it's on our money

Also unconstitutional and not originally there.

it's in the cool recital they make people swear into public office, (and i hear you can use your own religious book..) ...

Not a requirement though.

that would be their ultimate authority yeah?

That is their belief. But the government cannot validate an individual's beliefs or endorse them over others.

assuming they're belief in the higher deity/ power was valid

Sounds like a version of Pascal's Wager.

yeah I voted it stays

Nah, it should go!

countrygirl78 said:

Read Genesis.

I'll paraphrase a quote from another viner...

Using the bible as evidence to support the existance of god is like drawing a picture of a unicorn to prove unicorns exist.

*giggles

O it's like that is it... well , in that case...

It's there.

It's probably not going anywhere, and I'll continue to perpetuate it's being there. :)

Have a Great day.

Using the bible as evidence to support the existance of god is like drawing a picture of a unicorn to prove unicorns exist.

Love this!!!!!

American Spirit, I'll try to identify the author of that quote. It's just too good to not share.

Mr. G, loved the quote.

The original quote was posted by sky dog in a discussion on the seeded article "Einstein wrong again! New experiment confirms doubts over his speed of light theory"

No it wasn't and Muslims aren't trying to take over America either. Come on now.

No it isn't Muslims that are trying to take over the world,

Seriously, I can't believe people really believe that BS.

It is......................................COCKROACHES< they will prevail./sarc

You must be talking about some other America, because the United States was founded on British Commonlaw and the Principles of the Enlightenment. Put down the Bible for a minute and pick up a history book.

Yeah, well...you do realize that the first written laws in England were written by Aethelbert, King of Kent in Anglo Saxon times before the Norman invasion...and dealt solely at the time with punishments for molesting the property of the Christian Church?

That the "founder of Representative Democracy", Simon de Montfort, based his Oxford Provisions (widely regarded as England's first written Constitution) on the advice and counsel of his mentor, Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, who taught him the difference between monarchy and tyranny and set the course of his political life? That he himself was a very devout Christian?

English common law...is, in part, founded on Christian principles.

I've read my history.

English common law...is, in part, founded on Christian principles.

English Common Law predates widespread christianity in Europe by about 200 years. Also, there is nothing to suggest our Constitution was in any way based on any religious ideology at all. In fact, the Founding Fathers themselves alluded to that fact.

English common law...is, in part, founded on Christian principles.

I've read my history.

Well since Christianity....is, in part, founded on the Jewish Religion you could say we were founded on Jewish Principles.

Just saying :)

also the civil code is just as much a part of christianity as common law.

Aethelbert, according to Bede, was the first British king to convert to Christianity...about 590 AD, if I remember correctly, but Christianity had already arrived on the shores of England long before that...many had converted to Christianity under Roman rule, and the Frankish people had brought Christianity with them also.

Well since Christianity....is, in part, founded on the Jewish Religion you could say we were founded on Jewish Principles.

Yep, that is correct. Go back far enough, and you have the Code of Hammurabi.

But to deny Christianity had any influence on American law... is as ridiculous as it would be to say that the Constitution was derived from the Bible.

Christianity and the Church have shaped many laws and mores in many different countries over the centuries. It seems as if today there is a feeling that this should not be acknowledged, in an attempt to rewrite history and only focus on the negative aspects of Christianity. That is as dishonest as to focus only on the positive aspects.

It also keeps religion out of the government. Separation works both ways.

But it doesn't, nor should it, keep the religious out of government, although I'll wager there are several viners of a certain political persuasion that are adament about opposing some of the more vocal religious candidates. Just as there should be no laws establishing a religion passed by Congress, neither should there be laws which prohibit the free exercise therof.

jim,

there should be no reason why a deeply religious person should not be in government, they are after all, a part of our society. However, when that deeply religious person tries to impose their religious views on others, like Santorum does, that in my mind makes that person VERY unsuitable for office. It isn't Santorum's religious convictions that is the problem, it is his imposition of those views on others that is the problem.

Absoulutely correct, Jonathan.

Be as religious as you want to be, just keep it to yourself and don't try to control others with it.

The moment someone trys to influence our laws and way of living, based on their "holy" book, it's time for them to be removed from ANY position of authority/power.

The moment someone trys to influence our laws and way of living, based on their "holy" book, it's time for them to be removed from ANY position of authority/power.

Well said. Now go tell that to Joe Lieberman with his dual citizenship since, when I see him pledge allegiance to the flag, I'm not at all sure if it is the United States, or Israel, he pledges his allegiance to.

for most of his career, Joe Lieberman didn't try to pontificate (yeah I know the irony of that word) from his position, but once he shed himself from the Democratic party, he did in my mind violate my principle that I stated.

and you forgot 'the republican party' in that questioning.

Gordy...actually the US is a Republic and not a Democracy, And "IN GOD WE TRUST" was just re-reaffirmed in 2010 By the US Supreme Court to be constitutional so it will remain on all US Currency and as our Nation's motto

And "IN GOD WE TRUST" was just re-reaffirmed in 2010 By the US Supreme Court to be constitutional

No it wasn't. That was the teapublicans in congress.

Pay attention...there will be questions afterwards.

Sorry I should have said Congress......so now I suppose someone is going to tell me "Our Lord" isn't in the US Constitution......

Sorry I should have said Congress......

Common mistake...congress, SCOTUS...they even sound alike. I'm sure it was an honest mistake and not a deliberate attempt to mislead or misrepresent....even though congress can make a law about anything....and SCOTUS can overturn it if it isn't constitutional.

so now I suppose someone is going to tell me "Our Lord" isn't in the US Constitution......

Uh....yeah...in the date.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth

That was the standard form at the time. Comes from having the church providing all the education for years.

Here...I found something that explains it far better than I could:

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg10c.htm

To be sure, the Constitution could have avoided the words "Year of our Lord" in the date (as it does elsewhere when it refers to specific years), but it's hard to imagine why. "The Year of our Lord" was the standard way of dating important documents in the 1700s; its use was ritualistic, not religious. It is doubtful that anyone, Christian, deist, or otherwise, would have given the words a second thought, or ascribed to them any legal significance. And if the intent of the Constitution was to signal a favored status for Christianity, it could have done so in a thousand less ambiguous ways than including the words "in the Year of our Lord." That some accommodationists appeal to these words is silent testimony to how little evidence there is for the idea that the Constitution embodies Christian morality or thought.

NotKiddinng....the three post before that one I was discussing SCOTUS and I guess I had a brain.....hic-up (bet you thoughtI was going to say phart).....and the our Lord I was just messin with you....I like to use US Constitution dot org

NotKiddinng....the three post before that one I was discussing SCOTUS and I guess I had a brain.....hic-up

Ok....but if you meant congress....why would you say that it was re-affirmed as being constitutional when we all know that congress doesn't decide what's constitutional? We also know that when SCOTUS did hear a case on the pledge they actually ruled that it wasn't constitutional...that it violated the first amendment...even before religion was added to it....so it couldn't be re-affirmed anything....except unconstitutional.

NotKidding......Now corrected....Gordy...actually the US is a Republic and not a Democracy, And "IN GOD WE TRUST" was just re-reaffirmed in 2010 by Congress. The US Supreme Court has ruled it to be constitutional so it will remain on all US Currency and as our Nation's motto.

"...why would you say that it was re-affirmed"...I didn't say that. If you want to be such a stickler on accuracy of a post then you should also be just as accurate when quoting me. What I said was, it was re-reaffirmed.

"We also know that when SCOTUS did hear a case on the pledge they actually ruled that it wasn't constitutional...that it violated the first amendment...even before religion was added to it....so it couldn't be re-affirmed anything....except unconstitutional."...??? Again accuracy in your post, I said In God We Trust was re-reaffirmed so where in the Pledge of Allegiance are you finding In God We Trust? If you want to point out my errors fine, no problem, if you are going to nit pic...then maybe you should get your duck all in one row first.

AND BTW....with all this nit picing nothing has changed The statement that was made by gorgy is still incorrect. In God We Trust is still NOT unconstitutional and it will remain on our currency and as our National motto........

NotKidding.....The US Supreme Court has not rule the Plege of Allegiance to be unconstitutional....They ruled the schools could not force the students to say it or stand up while other students said it......Quick get a rope,your ducks are drowning....blub,...blub...blub....

lol i guess thats reason enough

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands

Basically it's swearing an oath to the country and its constitution not the state. Whether it be under god or under the Moon makes no difference. By saying this oath you are relinquishing any other allegiance to any other country. That is why this is mainly said during citizenship ceremonies. It is unfortunate that so many people overlook what this pledge actually means. I personally don't think it should be recited in schools on a daily basis. My reasons for this have been proven on this string over and over again. When you say something too many times it begins to lose its meaning. It becomes more of a chant then a pledge.

Another example would be the word "racist", it has been used so many times that it has lost its meaning and impact.

If I remember my history correctly - the pledge originally came about because of the influx of new immigrants(from non Wasp countries) and people's fear that these new citizens were still loyal to their homelands. This was part of a whole indoctrination practice to make sure the children would be loyal to the U.S.

That said, I like saying the pledge. It has meaning,deep meaning for me when I say it. As far as the in God we trust- Not that concerned one way or the other. Probably prefer the original indoctrination!

There is no separation of Church from the state

The Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS disagree!

Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists when they queried him in a letter about America having a ruler that was also the head of the Church. Jefferson replied that we wouldn't. There was no acknowledged church in America-people worshipped where they felt fed the word of God.

Therefore, there is a seperation of Church and State and what the Supreme Court found was not in the original documents.

fine - you DO understand the principle of what is called "settled law"? IF you feel so strongly, then TRY to get SCOTUS to change their position. Remember to bring a LUNCH...

Rick Santorum has already stated that he would like the Supreme Court to revisit some of their decisions.

Far out!

Rick Santorum has already stated that he would like the Supreme Court to revisit some of their decisions.

Ah, you do understand how the three branches of Gov't work; "checks and balances", yes?

Rick Santorum has already stated that he would like the Supreme Court to revisit some of their decisions.

Rick Santorum couldn't get elected as dogcather.

Yes, I do understand those checks and balances you speak of. That was changed in 1803 with Marbury v Madison.

Now it's mostly check-mate.

Therefore, there is a seperation of Church and State and what the Supreme Court found was not in the original documents.

You do realize SCOTUS precedent is established constitutional law, don't you. The first Amendment implies a separartion of church, as the Founding Fathers intended, and state and the SCOTUS Affirmed that intention. But if you still think separation is "not in the original documents," as you say, here's what James Madison has to say about that:

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Note that Mr. Madison declares the separation is IN the U.S. Constitution. Shall I also include John Adams or James Monroe?

Come on Countrygirl. We've been over this before and I've repeatedly demonstarted to you through valid original references and historical facts, from the Founding fathers themselves and the SCOTUS, that there is a separation of church and state, what it means, and that we are not a christian nation. And in all that time, you have yet to provide any valid documentation or references that supports your position in the least. Continuing to peddle your same rhetoric at this point is either willful ignorance or flat out lying on your part. Which is it?

Rick Santorum has already stated that he would like the Supreme Court to revisit some of their decisions.

Which is meaningless rhetoric and lip service to the conservative base. It by no means means the SCOTUS will actually do that, much less reverse any previous rulings unless a real good case can be made.

The First Amendment said the Federal Government shall not interfere with the state in-I can't remember what I have socked away in my brain because I had about 90 minutes of sleep last night and haven't eaten since 9:00 PM yesterday.

Being sleep deprived and hypoglycemic is SO FUN!

countrygirl78 concludes:

Therefore, there is a seperation of Church and State and what the Supreme Court found was not in the original documents.

The phrase "Separation of Powers" is nowhere in the Constitution either, but thinking people understand the implication.

The First Amendment said the Federal Government shall not interfere with the state

That's the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Maybe American children needs more American history (real history of course) and civics classes and less propaganda in their day?

lol

Go go No child left behind, and "thank god" (an arbitrary saying isn't it) I was out before it went into effect.

These are important documents that every U.S. citizen should read. They are priceless.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con001.pdf

D.P.M. Are you the same Dennis that allegedly retired from Newsvine? Can two people have the same name on this site? Just wondering because somebody with that name said they were leaving Newsvine because of all the bickering. I think it was on an article by somebody named Tyler which ended up leading me to a farewell article that turned out to be two years old.

Getting back on topic, I think if anybody says the pledge of allegiance they should have the option to put in "under God" at their discretion and shouldn't have to worry about offending anybody. This country was founded with the guarantee of freedom of religion. Those who are against those words being in the pledge don't need to recite them. Individual choice is a wonderful thing is it not?! But when you get a group of people trying to dictate what others are allowed to say or not say then you end up with political correctness gone wrong. Political correctness is an abomination against the United States constitution and its use should be discouraged at every opportunity.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!

Two years ago I left. Not because of any bickering, but because I was critically ill. I spent most of the next six months in the hospital. After I recovered, I returned and opened a new account, per instructions from Newsvine. And no, I never said I was leaving. I said nothing at all. I simply sent an email to management and asked them to delete my account. The article by Synthesis was an after-the-fact farewell to me that he wrote when he found out I had left.

My first account was paperdragon.newsvine.com. This account is kwisatz.newsvine.com Same screen name, as it's my real name, though originally I had a period after the P and now I don't.

Rick Santorum also believes birth control is dangerous. And we're supposed to take him seriously?

The Logical Truth

Are you the same Dennis that allegedly retired from Newsvine? Can two people have the same name on this site? Just wondering because somebody with that name said they were leaving Newsvine because of all the bickering.

Enough already!!!!

Let it go

This country was founded with the guarantee of freedom of religion.

Ok I am atheist, and what about Wiccans, or any other religion besides Christianity? Where is our Freedom?

Those who are against those words being in the pledge don't need to recite them.

And those that put them in there just to link their god to our country violated my rights, yes?

Individual choice is a wonderful thing is it not?!

Funny that Christainsforced it on us, but if we want it removed it should just be a personal choice to not say anything about our rights being violated. How about we go back to the original pledge and if you want to you can say it, but it won't be in there. Now that is an individual choice is it not?

Individual choice is a wonderful thing is it not?!

It sure is when used in line with the constitution.

DPM, thanks for clearing that up. I was starting to get confused thinking that there was more than one of you. (twinns) Glad you're feeling better and I hope it wasn't anything serious or permanent.

No problem. Yeah, I'm better. It was serious, but luckily not permanent. Permanent would mean I wouldn't be here any more. Or anywhere else for that matter.

MJL-3

Enough already!!!!

Let it go

Hmmmm that's funny I don't recall asking you anything. Isn't the purpose of Newsvine to get smarter here? I had a legitimate question and I was not addressing you. My question was answered and that was it. Your interloping was not necessary. Moving on.............

Dennis is better then most even when he's sick.

Our petty and worldly divisions exist because we let the Supreme Court take God out of school and given women the right to abort children just for starters.

Our petty and worldly divisions exist because we let the Supreme Court take God out of school and given women the right to abort children just for starters.

so...the division of people into nations was caused two US supreme court actions? that's your contention?

I'm not the foremost historian around, but I'm pretty sure your sequencing of events is a bit off.

Our petty and worldly divisions exist because we let the Supreme Court take God out of school and given women the right to abort children just for starters.

Okay, now that's just absurd.

In 1962 the Supreme Court removed Prayer from Public Schools. In 1973 Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton gave women the right to abort children.

Christians are supposed to be the salt of the Earth and the light of the World. The present Church in the West is about as worthless as a tit on a boar hog. The persecuted Church is more pure and as such, shines more of the light of Jesus Christ into the dark world they live in. The Westerners think persecution is not being able to say Merry Christmas on 25 December, when that is actually a pagan festival.

Reality is coming and most of the Church in the End Times is asleep, apathetic, mediocre, complacent and spiritually blind.

Christians are supposed to be the salt of the Earth and the light of the World

According to who? 77% of the people on earth are not christians, so the majority wouldn't agree with you.

Jesus Himself in the Book of John.

In 1962 the Supreme Court removed Prayer from Public Schools. In 1973 Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton gave women the right to abort children.

right, and nations existed long before that.

Christians are supposed to be the salt of the Earth and the light of the World.

ok, I'm with you.

The present Church in the West is about as worthless as a tit on a boar hog.

whoa! a bit too salty, there. Lighten up, huh?

The Westerners think persecution is not being able to say Merry Christmas on 25 December, when that is actually a pagan festival.

that's arguable, I mean, the church can designate religious hollidays if it wants and when it wants. Jesus did give Peter the keys and all. There's no doubt that the timing and most of the traditions are pagan in origin, but it is celebrated mainly as a religious holiday by christians, with respect to intent if nothing else.

Reality is coming and most of the Church in the End Times is asleep, apathetic, mediocre, complacent and spiritually blind.

riiiiight, ummm... if you say so, I guess. Good luck with that.

The New Testament is full of instances where the Apostles cast evil spirits out of people; healed them or raised them from the dead.

Have you seen any of that at a Church near you?

JEEEZUS hisself? OK ... from one book of fairy tales to another MYTH, eh?

Jesus Himself in the Book of John.

The book of John was written in AT LEAST 90 ACE, there is no way it contains any word for word quotations of Christ.

The New Testament is full of instances where the Apostles cast evil spirits out of people; healed them or raised them from the dead.

It is also full of holes and inconsistencies. Even the gospel writers disagree on a lot of things. Have you ever actually read it yourself or do you just have it read to you in church?

Jesus told His followers that His Comforter, The Holy Spirit would bring things to mind that they needed.

They don't so much as disagree as they overlap. Matthew, Mark and Luke are the Synoptic Gospels. John is in a class by himself. He shows us the Divinity of Christ.

Hence-Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were all written well after the fact.

The New Testament is full of instances where the Apostles cast evil spirits out of people; healed them or raised them from the dead.

The "Exorcist" was awesome too.

The New Testament is full of instances where the Apostles cast evil spirits out of people; healed them or raised them from the dead.

Have you seen any of that at a Church near you?

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers out of Nebraska. Seen any tigers in Nebraska?

Another example of how far the Church has slouched toward Gomorrah.

Gomorrah, Nebraska? Are there tigers?

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers out of Nebraska. Seen any tigers in Nebraska?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/08/your-morning-adorable-endangered-amur-tiger-cub-makes-her-debut-at-nebraska-zoo.html

FALSE PROPHET, I call thee! your God is FALSE! or your rock, or magic, or gung fu, or whatever! ;-)

(yeah, that's right, I called you "thee." That's some real serious biblical sh*t right there...)

Gomorrah, Nebraska? Are there tigers?

And Lions and Bears, no doubt.

Could someone give me the chapter/verse the United States in mentioned in the Bible?

They don't so much as disagree as they overlap. Matthew, Mark and Luke are the Synoptic Gospels. John is in a class by himself. He shows us the Divinity of Christ.

False, they decidedly disagree in many places, this is evidence of a severe lack of knowledge in your own bible. Go and read the birth of Jesus (which curiously only shows up in 2 gospels Matthew and Luke), there is no way that they are both correct, they vary A LOT. I'm not going to walk you through it here, do your own reading.

Also it's curious that John was the last one written when you look at his message. Mark, being the first book written, is where Matthew and Luke derive much of their stories about Jesus but they differ plenty. In fact, in Mark (as well as in Matthew) Jesus tells his disciples multiple times that end times will come in THEIR lifetimes. When taken in this context, and you understand John was written many, many years after Mark (and therefore Matthew) you see why his story is so much different. Most, if not all, of the people Jesus was telling that to had long since died and the world was still ticking. Uh oh, time for plan B, enter John!

There are many other examples where they aren't "overlapping" but are completely inconsistent.

I didn't even mention that these books were almost certainly written pseudonymously and the people who wrote them had no idea they would be combined with other "versions" later. This is why you see the differences, they weren't planning on being fact checked against other people.

This, to me, is even more evidence that they are purely mythical portrayals.

Your magic rock must not be working very well. Nebraska does have tigers.

http://www.neall-startigers.com/

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=chr-hp-psg&va=Nebraska+tigers

Puurrrrrrrrr(hot babes)rrrrrrrrrr

And I assume they have the striped fur covered four legged variety in zoos.

Nah, the rock only keeps out the four legged variety and has a zoo exception.

I also have a magic coin that keeps wombats from invading Washington DC.

I have a magic rock that keeps tigers out of Nebraska. Seen any tigers in Nebraska?

Dennis, reminds me of something my friend told me. Now, my friend doesn't force his beliefs on others. He believes in Norse Gods and a Christian was bothering him (the whole convert, you are living in sin, Jesus is more powerful things). The latter pissed him off and he said, "Your god is nailed to a cross. My god carries a hammer. Enough said."

lol

yo Dennis - you lose - the DINGBATS invaded, occupied and decimated DC a LONG TIME AGO!...

ohhh - you said WOMBATS... dingbats cousins? Flying dingbats? Louisville Sluggers? Maybe?

Wait - that's santorum womb ats whatever "ats" is if it has to do with a womb santorum is in favor of it -... wombats. yup, perfect for Ricky...

No, wombats. These guys.

If you see them running all over DC, let me know. I'll stop believing in the magic coin. Until then, I'll continue to pray to it on the third Tuesday of every month that contains an R, as the book of the coin commands.

trm - #6.5 - 2/3 rds of the world are Christian. Just trying to help.

sugarmae,

the largest religion in the world today is Islam, not christianity.

trm - #6.5 - 2/3 rds of the world are Christian. Just trying to help.

There are not 4 billion Christians.

trm - #6.5 - 2/3 rds of the world are Christian.

No they are not. That is a false statement. 2/3rds of the US may be Christians but definitely not the world. The numbers I have seen show Christianity cming at at 33%. It is the single largest denomination but the rest of the world's religions make up 67% so your numbers are flipped. 2/3rds of the world are NON-Christian.

Just tring to help.

When you post bad information you definitely do not help. Try harder.

Like a liberal. 1/3rd then if you prefer.

Like a liberal. 1/3rd then if you prefer.

So what the @!$%# was that supposed to mean? You post stupid bull@!$%# that was incorrect and then you pull some liberal labeling crap? If you mean that "like a liberal" I have to correct the falsehood neocon bull@!$%# then yeah - glad to be of service.

Got any other stupid @!$%#ing falsehoods we can help you correct?

Like a liberal. 1/3rd then if you prefer.

yes, JUST like a liberal; liberals prefer their facts to be factual.

Jonathan-1917156

sugarmae,

the largest religion in the world today is Islam, not christianity.

Sorry to burst your bubble Jonathan but you are absolutely wrong! You really should do some research before you post your opinion as a fact.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_world%27s_largest_religion

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-worlds-largest-religion.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077272/Christianity-largest-religion-world-despite-shift-away-Europe.html

http://www.blurtit.com/q891386.html

sugarmae, you are correct. There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians, that's about 33% of the world's population. Islam is just over one billion followed by Judaism at over fourteen million.

sugarmae, you are correct.

Hmmm? Which statement of sugarmae is correct regarding the number of Christians? I may be missing something but please, enlighten us.

It was added in 1954.

Which generation did you grow up in?

Well said Boat.

I am a mid-late-boomer; born mid-50s.

I'm a little after you. 1960 fer me.

What does generation have to do with anything?

The Greatest Generation is more patriotic in thought that later generations. The Baby Boomers split over Viet Nam and Generation X is more likely to not want legalized abortion.

The family and generation we grew up in does affect our worldview.

so you equate religion and patriotism? strange bedfellows...

I was born in the mid 20s and what you are seeing here is the generational shift of time. What I strongly believe in, as is my right, has generally been laughed at, and denigrated, by others, as is their right. What was/is important to people of my generation is considered by today's generation as irrelevant. The challenge ultimately is going to be just who is right! Getting old is not for the faint of heart, as you all will find out and gratefully I will not be here to watch that.

The Greatest Generation is more patriotic in thought that later generations.

Pretty broad brush there. Maybe it's just idealizing.

If you were to ask people their generation, religion and views on war, it would indicate that my fellow Baby Boomers are not as patriotic as the Greatest Generation. The youth of today and more likely to want to reverse Roe v Wade and give gays and lesbians the same rights as straights. Baby Boomers were more interested in finding the reason for PTSD and Agent Orange, along with receiving recognition for serving in Viet Nam, and the Greatest Generation for Korea.

When Japan bombed Pear Harbor, men lined up to enlist. When Kennedy decided to go around the rules in Viet Nam and then got us involved, the whole country erupted in protests, fires and bullets.

One little generation was all it took.

I do not equate religion and patriotism, nor do I attach any patriotic value on the basis of generation. I mentioned mine merely to illustrate the enforced PoA that school children were subjected to every school morning for decades.

and the Greatest Generation for Korea.

countrygirl78, with the greatest respect here, since I participated, it was WWII. The Korean War was considered the Forgotten War mostly because it was designated as a UN Police Action at the time and while we bore the brunt of all of the action, and still are, the men who participated, in that action, were pretty much ignored. The people involved in Nam bore the brunt of our own people's unhappiness which was criminal then and now for they took their rage out not on the government that precipitated that conflict but upon the military which as you know follows orders.

You might not, but I do.

I was 14 when Siagon fell. I now know that our leaders lied to and used our military. I support Veterans rights and thank them and welcome them home when I see them flying the clothing that got them disrespected when Viet Nam was over.

The youth of today and more likely to want to reverse Roe v Wade?

You mean more likely that the percent of youth that want abortion outlawed is 23% versus the percent of the generation about being at 17%?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126581/generational-differences-abortion-narrow.aspx

The youth are firmly on the side of Roe v Wade with that other 77% you fail to speak of. That 23% will fall as they experience life when fertile. It'll be a reality check.

If you were to ask people their generation, religion and views on war, it would indicate that my fellow Baby Boomers are not as patriotic as the Greatest Generation.

My dad is 91, served in WWII and holds no such views. Like I said--broad brush.

and give gays and lesbians the same rights as straights.

How dare they! Liberty and justice for all? How un-American! Oh wait...

When Japan bombed Pear Harbor, men lined up to enlist.

The same thing happened in 9/11.

When Kennedy decided to go around the rules in Viet Nam and then got us involved, the whole country erupted in protests, fires and bullets.

The same thing happened when Bush invaded Iraq.

well, country - pop participated in WWII - USAAF. He was in line enlisting 12/8/1941.

You have to remember that there was wee bit of difference in WWII and 'Nam (that's MY generation). Aside from the fact that the US had been attacked WITHOUT WARNING at Pearl Harbor (not the same in Tonkin) there was also the declaration of war by der Fuehrer that took the USA into a 2 front war.

The "old guys" (now passing on the tales of WHY they were called "The Greatest Generation") did what they did - fought and some died - to preserve YOUR ability be be here, speaking ENGLISH. That was the last JUSTIFIED WAR. The recent actions have been wastes of MONEY, LIVES and TIME.

I would use "under Canada". I like to keep things real.

Ha ha!

American Spirit That is perfect. I'd vote you up 100 times if I could.
LOL!!! HD

american spirit,

didn't you hear, the Keystone XL pipeline is really just a sewage pipe, where the CRAP from alberta is being flushed down to texas.

Does that mean my car has been running on @!$%# all this time? I think I would prefer Canadians @!$%# over Middle Eastern @!$%#.

oh but the middle eastern crude is sold as 'sweet @!$%#' but the canadian stuff is CRAP.

American, add this: One nation under Canada and above Mexico.

Checkmate-983933

American, add this: One nation under Canada and above Mexico.

For abortion and legalized marijuana we stand.:)

Why do you think that the Christian god is referred to as "God"? He has other names, but by far he is most commonly known as God. It's like naming a new breed of dog as "Dog", and getting free advertising every time the word "dog" is mentioned.

Zeus - toss a lightnin' bolt and zap this one...

It appears that you are the one that thinks "God" referrs to the Christian God as nothing in my statement referred to any speific belief system. Defensive?

nah - just being flippant - I can flippant every "believer" at once

Why do you think that the Christian god is referred to as "God"?

Because we're speaking English. In Mexico, the same god is Dios. In Germany he's Gott. In Italy he's Dia, and so on.

The limitations of language and perception are really coming through here. The statement "Once someone decides that it (The word God) only relates to their (own) belief system it becomes an issue." only means that if any group can use the word to advance the agenda of a specific belief system or religion then the words in the pledge can become a tool to use against others in our society. I hope this helps clear up the statement the original comment. If not, then I will leave it to others to try to help.

Because we're speaking English. In Mexico, the same god is Dios. In Germany he's Gott. In Italy he's Dia, and so on.

In Iowa it is MJL-3