I pledge allegiance

[flatfloor]

An appeals court in Ca (where else) ruled the words "under God" unconstitutional.

John, you seem to have a good working knowledge of the Constitution. Maybe you can answer this for me.

I firmly believe separation of church and state was meant to prevent the formation of a national religion such as the Church of England which would have excluded and possibly persecuted all others. At that point in time the religious persecution practiced in Europe, especially Cromwell's England, had to have been very much on their minds. The Constitution, Declaration of Independance and even our currency all frequently refer to God.

Wrong, right? Your answer in 25 words or less.

[Sponsored Links]

[Boltguy29]

The Constitution does not allow the Government to for a religion on its people. It does not however, say that there can be must be no mention of God. People are free to pray to what ever god they want to. This can be Allah, Mao, Lenin
Trees, cucumbers, grass, or dogs. That is what the Constitution gaurantees. Unfortunately, it is not PROPER,
to pray to the one true God anymore.
Although I still do.

[Hobbit]

Since the question was directed at John, I'll defer for the moment.

I've seen the other thread. I'm glad we can still agree to disagree in this country. This will make for a lively debate----John?? John??

:confused: :confused:

See John.

See John help.

Help John help.

:)

[flatfloor]

This column is written by a lady I rarely agree with, however this time.....

We're still 'under God'
By Denise Civiletti

Independence Day, 2002, is a special one for America. It is the first celebration of our birth as a nation since the day that changed everything last fall. Sept. 11 did strange things to us. We are suddenly patriotic again. Flags are flying everywhere. The terrorist attack galvanized the American spirit, which had been flagging since the dog days of Vietnam. We are, once again, one nation, under God, indivisible --

Hold it! Stop the presses!

Under God? Can we print that? Is it legal? Is it politically correct?

It's almost amusing -- and so very American -- that on the eve of this special Independence Day, we find ourselves debating the constitutionality of our Pledge of Allegiance because it mentions the name of God. The U.S. Supreme Court decided long ago that the Constitution prohibits a school from requiring pupils to recite the Pledge. Now, a federal appeals court tells us that the Constitution prohibits any of us from reciting the Pledge in school, or at any government-sponsored activity. The court says that saying the name of God in school is an unconstitutional establishment of religion, and violates the First Amendment.

Revisionist historians maintain that the founders of this nation -- the men who wrote the great, living blueprint for the longest-surviving democratic republic in history, our Constitution -- had an agnostic society in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights. The revisionists want us to believe that, when the framers debated "freedom of religion" they really meant "freedom from religion." Hogwash. They never imagined anything other than a society solidly grounded on principles of monotheism -- the God of Israel, specifically. They were reeling from fresh memories of persecution at the hands of men and women who used war and murder to enforce their own particular brand of Christianity, and they included the "establishment clause" in the First Amendment to prevent that same sort of state-sponsored religious persecution from taking root here.

But, nearly to a man, our Founding Fathers acknowledged the role of their Creator in the society and government they worked so hard to mold. Here are some of their own words, taken, fittingly, from the very Declaration of Independence whose anniversary we celebrate on this day:

"... 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 ... 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 ... with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

Thomas Jefferson, author of both the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which became the inspiration for the First Amendment, wrote: "... Almighty God has created the mind free ... All attempts to influence it are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who, being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do ... Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall he otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument maintain, their opinions in matters of religion ..."

The First Amendment itself states simply: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The mere mention of God, in the view of revisionist historians, atheist organizations, the ACLU and much of the case law decided by the federal bench in the last 30-odd years, is just such a prohibited "establishment." I think the converse is true: prohibiting the mention of God is itself an establishment of religion. Atheism is a religion in the truest sense of the word; it is a system of religious beliefs. Since the 1960s, the federal judiciary has worked diligently to establish atheism as our national religion, first by banning prayer in school, and most recently by banning the utterance of the words "under God."

Other governments have adopted a mandatory national atheism, notably the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. God survived in the USSR despite the state-sponsored religious persecution in the name of "no religion." God will survive here, too, in a country founded on a strong and passionate belief in God and in the natural law, of which God is, in the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson, the "Holy Author."

May God bless America. But, first, America, bless God.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2002, Times/Review Newspapers. All Rights Reserved.

[Cami A]

Bah. I see no reason why pledging your allegiance to your country and your flag should also include a reference to God. We are not supposed to be a country that forces religion on anyone- at least in theory.

Think about what the phrase "one nation, under God" means in the full context of the pledge. So- if I don't believe in God, that implies I should not pledge allegiance to this country and my flag?

Yes, yes, of course I could leave out the phrase. Actually, the last time I pledged allegiance to the flag was many moons ago. Who recites the pledge the most? School children. I thought we decided to keep school and religion apart a quite a while ago, and to let the parents indoctrinate the kiddies with the religion of their choice.

More reading (http://www.nofaith.org/a_founders.shtml) on the founding fathers and religion-

[John Bridge]

I've written on this subject. I love this subject. What better subject could there be?

"Revisionist historians maintain that the founders of this nation -- the men who wrote the great, living blueprint for the longest-surviving democratic republic in history, our Constitution -- had an agnostic society in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights."

The author of the piece Jim posted obviously has a hard-on for anyone who does not agree with her position in the matter. She thus brands them "agnostic" by inference.

The majority of the prominent founders were neither Agnostic nor Christian in the modern sense of the word "Christian," which infers that Jesus was/is the "Son of God." All of the guys who signed the Declaration and the Constituton proclaimed themselves (at one time or another) to be "Christians." There's little argument about that among historians.

But . . . , being a Christian had a very different meaning to Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams and many others than it does now. Jefferson, for example, who professed to be a Christian, compiled his own version of the Gospels, according to his belief that they had been sophisticated by other men down through the ages. He did not believe the Bible to be the word of God, and he certainly didn't buy into the idea the Jesus was the "Son of God."

I'm an agnostic. I'm not an athiest, because I maintain the possibility that I'm wrong and others are right. Maybe there is a God. I just don't know. I don't see anything wrong with this approach to religion.

Atheism, on the other hand, seems to me to be as obnoxious as shoved-in-your-face-organized-religion. Just as the perveyors of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and the rest feel the need to proslytize, so do the Athiests, it seems.

I always wonder why that is if they are comfortable with their beliefs. Why do they have to try to convince others that they are right?

The site Cami posted is okay as far as it goes, but the guy is a "cherry picker." He takes things out of context and prints only the words that seem to agree with his point of view.

That's not history.

There is no argument that the words "under God" are unconstitutional in the Pledge. The only argument concerns whether this country is religious.

Officially.

[Cami A]

Of course the guy's a cherry picker, John. So's Ms. Civiletti. :D From what I can surmise from reading personal correspondence vs public, our founders may have not been so different than today's public servants- things said for the benefit of the masses may have a more popular slant to them, so both sides can find plenty of ammunition.

Anyone taken the the belief-o-matic quiz (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html)? Turns out I'm a unitarian with strong pagan leanings- and here I just thought I was undecided about the whole 'god' issue... ;)

[cx]

I like this subject, too. I find myself in agreement with John and Cami it appears, and think the writer of the article Jim posted is way off the mark.

She says, in part: " The revisionists want us to believe that, when the framers debated 'freedom of religion' they really meant 'freedom from religion.' Hogwash." Well, I don't know about "the revisionists", but I certainly want us to believe they meant both of those freedoms. Unfortunately, it has proven difficult for those of us who choose not to base our lives upon a particular superstition (I am a devout agnostic) to find a full measure of the freedom "from".

I have long accepted that those who harbor strong beliefs in any organized religion cannot grasp the concept that the rest of us don't care what they believe for themselves, we simply don't want to be forced - in any way, large or small - to be required to participate in their thinking, rituals, celebrations, or any other aspect of their belief. But our founding fathers, despite their own deist beliefs, seemed to have a very good handle on that, bless their little God-fearing hearts.

It is my personal opinion that the "Pledge" itself is an abomination, a meaningless bit of drivel penned by an avowed Socialist, for reasons I think I've been told but now disremember, and has no business being forced upon our children or anyone else. But that's another argument, eh?

I think the phrase is clearly unconstitutional as an official government position, as is the "In God We Trust" on our coin of the realm and other such places.

And I think the answer to John's proposed argument of whether this country is officially religious is also clear. It's just difficult for religious adherents, especially Christians, to accept.

My opinion; worth price charged.
CX

Also gotta agree with John about that site Cami posted being "cherry picking". But I don't think he's a very good picker - There's one quote in there I read twice and it still looks like it makes the opposite point. So much for cherries.

[JC]

To me it really does'nt matter what tghe origenal framers of the constitution were thinking they were obviously two sided in the whole approach anyways.

Washington was sworn in as the first president using a BIBLE!

So you see there is not and never was a true separation of church and state in this country.

However the bottom line is that Religion is a very dangerous thing!!

I could not begin to count how many wars and prosecutions and atrosities have been commited over the ages in the name of God.

Way back from the beginning of recorded history and beyond this has been the case.

It behooves us to allow any religion to become powerful enough to inflence the goverment.....Regardless of what denomination we are..surely one can see potencial problems with this set-up.

ie. The mid-east crises....it is really that differant from the crusades? Don't be fooled thinking that in this day and age that "educated intellectuals" are above religious wars and prosecution..look around it is everywhere.

[John Bridge]

J.C.,

I don't agree that there never was a separation, but I don't have time to go into it. There was and is a separation. It's just that a bunch of folks don't want to accept it.

Just want to point out to anyone who wanders in here that we have a similar discussion going on in the "Mud Box."