"In GOD We Trust" ......ILLEGAL???

[Yellow Jeep Chick]

Have you guys heard about how no one is allowed to say "in god we trust" or "under god" anymore. I'm schools they want us to say "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice..." They want us to just skip over the part that says "Under GOD" b/c it is offensive to some people. But this is what our country was founded on....it doesnt make any sense to me...

Sorry if this is a repost

[mrblaine]

I disagree that our nation was founded on the UNDER GOD part. I do agree that it was founded on the premise that I do not have the right to impose my beliefs upon you, nor you I.

The fact that it is a religious reference and one that is followed by what I would guess is the majority of the nations populace, does not make it the belief of everyone.

I have the right to not believe in God and I should not have to listen to you expressing your belief over mine in a manner that suggests that I am wrong for my belief.

This country was founded on freedom, not comformity. We accept and tolerate all forms of stuff and are proud of that fact.

We all have what we believe in. I don't think that a mantra that does not encompass everyone, should be a required excercise anywhere.

This country was built on the fact that you and I have the same rights. Me, to disagree with pushing something in the public school system that not everyone adheres to religiously, and You to wish it would stay the same.

I truly thought that is where the "EQUAL" part of our country came into play.

[JeepKat]

http://wilstar.net/OverCoffee/oc-pledge.htm

[TJRON]

YJC,
Under God was added to the pledge of allegiance when I was in fourth grade in 1954. Why it was added, I don't have a clue. Probably because commies were ungodly.

[Tumbleweed]

There you have it folks-proof that I am not nearly the oldest geezer on this board.

Yup I agree Ron must shurly be the geeser arond here.

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by JeepKat
http://wilstar.net/OverCoffee/oc-pledge.htm

If I where that guy I'd have my photo removed from my byline - cripes!

I agree that this nation was not founded based on god - however most of the "founding fathers" were religious (I think everyone was back then - or you where a witch!). Still this nation was built on true civil liberty and all men being created and treated equal. Freedom is the key word in our nation..

Anyway - God is just a word that means "holy spirit" and the such - so it can be anyone's god - or satin - or whomever you want in your mind, it is always ASSUMED we mean the christian/cathloc god (you know - the hippy god).

I do agree with Blaine that people need to respect other people's right to believe what they want.

I think this whole thing was a parent's idea to make some excuse for their lack of parenting skills - you know - blame the government and the school system for little Sally's discipline problem, etc.

It is kinda silly frankly - to me at least.

Almost as silly as our incompetent president and the GOP having a problem with a puppet on Sesame Street. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...aids_usa_tv_dc

Jeff

[TJRON]

Some info on a few "founding fathers" views on religion:
http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march96/morris.html

[William]

They raise a stink about this, yet, what do we have in the streets? Problems with crime, traffic congestion, etc. We can spend thousands of dollars on words, yet not have enough for a community center.

It'd be very nice if we got to the important things.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by William
It'd be very nice if we got to the important things.

heh, that would intimate that our government actually had its priorities in order.

[BlueJeeper]

Originally posted by TJRON
YJC,
Under God was added to the pledge of allegiance when I was in fourth grade in 1954. Why it was added, I don't have a clue. Probably because commies were ungodly.

That is right. Several years before Ike signed it into law in 1954, the Knights of Columbus started adding "under god" to the Pledge when they recited it before their meetings. As part of the backlash against and fear of communism going on at the time the Knights eventually successfully lobbied Ike and Congress to add it to the Pledge. It is funny, as if you read some of the things Eisenhower said about it at the time, he makes it quite obvious that it was intended to be a reference to the Christian god. Makes me chuckle when proponents of the "under God" phrase claim that it's intent is to be a general reference to anyone's god (which is rubbish anyways, as it implies monotheism).

[Paradiddle]

Originally posted by Robert J. Yates


heh, that would intimate that our government actually had its priorities in order.

But see, guys - they are focused. The economy is in the toilet and they want to stop a puppet with HIV (broadcasted in a nation where 1 in 9 has HIV)

Shrub got lucky with 9/11 - that was the people could be focused on something other than what a crappy job he and his cabinent are doing.

rant rant rant rant rant!!!

Jeff

[TJRON]

You don't think 9/11 had something to do with the present economy?

[Art Welch]

Originally posted by TJRON
You don't think 9/11 had something to do with the present economy?

I don't mean to go off topic for the thread but while I think 9/11 is part of it, my take is that a good part of it is due to the FOMC's not completely effective management of rates. At the end of the market boom in late 99 and early 00 they seriously overreacted and raised rates to the point that a significant economic pullback was inevitable (in my opinion as a non-economist).

The other part of it (again in my non-economist opinion only) is that any economy is naturally cyclical and attempts to manage the cyclic nature only lead to exaggerated booms and busts. I read a great book years ago about this concept (I think it's called the "Austrian Theory" or something like that - I'll dig up the title of the book if anyone is interested).

Neither political party does a good job of managing the economy. They both just need to get the hell out of the way and let the free market work.

[William]

Originally posted by TJRON
You don't think 9/11 had something to do with the present economy?

But who here is doing anything about it?

People (esp me) yak all day about whats wrong, but what do they do?

[Daless2]

I don't think it is any big secret how I feel about this, as I have added for the first time, a trailer in my sig for all my posts. It reads:

"The Pledge of Allegiance" Is NOT Un - Constitutional to Me!!!

That said, if I allow myself to do some honest critical thinking about this I'm no long so sure.

Is my position that ""The Pledge of Allegiance" Is NOT Un - Constitutional " Really True or is that just what I want it to be.

I really don't know the answer to that. But it does raise in my own mind many differing points, all of which I can understand to one degree or another.

On one side I have this belief that the driving factor behind the founding fathers "separating Church and Sate" was to ensure that a situation like the "Church of England" could not re-occur here. While many folks came to the colonies for many reasons, some noble, some far less then noble, a large number came here to escape religious persecution. By ensuring the government could not sponsor religion they in effect ensured the free practice of a religion of anyone's choice.

I believe this was the intent and in reality, this was the interpreted intent up until the late 60's and early 70's.


Do I want to force anyone to practice my religion?

Of course not, but I am equally sure there are some who would jump at that opportunity. I think it is wonderful that we separate church and state, and we can each practice the religion of our choosing, or choose not to practice at all.

Yet I am not sure use of the word "God" in the Pledge violates this separation, regardless of how it got there.

Now if you said to me everyone is "required to say the Pledge", then you would get a different answer from me.

Are people required to say this?

It is my understanding that people are not required, that it is optional for many years.

But even being optional, does that present a problem to a young child who's parents don't want this said? Perhaps it does. I certainly can see where someone could be ostracized as a result of this.


As I see it, the Constitution is Strawman model that works far better then anything else this world has ever seen, but clearly it is not an infallible map to perfection.

You don't have to be too old to remember when Woman and African American's were not allowed to vote, yet for decades the denial of the vote was held to be Constitutional. Fortunately, as times changed, as people became more enlightened so did this interpretation.

Nor is the Constitution all guaranteeing in rights.

My right to free speach does not allow me to scream out "Fire" in a crowded movie does it?

What it does allow is my right to freely express myself within the bounds of normal human behavior, and normal does not necessarily mean "Tasteful". It also gives me the right to "Not Listen" if I don't like what is being expressed.

Did you know there is no law against using the "N" word? Or any number of other incredibly offensive words!

And I don't want any laws against this either. For the next law after that one will take your freedoms becuase someone else determines that freedom is offensive. Then the next and then the next, and before you know it we will have "Thought Police".



I'm on a soap box now, watch out, but I do have two more things I would like to share with you.

Many years ago when I was young I had a young Navy Medic (Corpsman) assigned to my Marine Unit in Vietnam.

To say I was a little under-enthusiastic about this young man would be a mis-statement. Not only was he assigned the status of "Conscientious Objector" but he so proudly let it be known he was an "atheist" as well.

I was sure then I didn't need this.

Today I am more sure that I have never been more wrong in my life.

I can honestly say I have never met a finer man in my life.

As great as this country is, as great as it will be, none of it's root core values can be found in peoples words. The roots are in deeds, in doing.

In losing the label "Human Beings" and replacing it with "Human Doings".

There are many adults today who would never have been here if this young "conscientious objector atheist" wasn't DOING what he believed in.

He risked is life over and over and over again for their future Dad's so they could become fathers, and raise their children, and hopefully grow to some nice old age DOING what it is they do.

For what it is worth, I have only three people in this world I believe to be Hero's to me,. This young conscientious atheist objector, who I was certain I did not want let alone need in my unit is one of them.

And you know what?

My God knows who he is, and I can't imagine my God cares very much about his non-religions beliefs either.


The last think I would like to share deals with the daughter (8 years old) of this man who brought this case to remove the "Under God" phrase from the Pledge.

This is shameful to me.

Some over zealous idiots, so upset with this court ruling concerning "words" seem to think it's right to go after her and scare her. In some cases even threaten her well being. You would think someone was denying them there right to freely practice their religion!

This, like our zero tolerance of the use of the "N" word can not be allowed to be.

Disagree with what her Dad is doing is fine, but you don't go after children, not ever.

I am ashamed of this behavior, and if you believe in God as I do you would agree with me this is sinful.

But even if you don't believe in God it doesn't take a whole lot of moral character to recognize this and beat it to a pulp before it ever has any chance to germinate and go to seed.

I believe America's greatest days are coming up, they are in our future, but these days won't be driven by any words of mine, or the words of politicians, or yours or your neighbors. These great days to come will be driven by what we choose to DO.



Frank

[Blue Rat]

Originally posted by William

But who here is doing anything about it?

People (esp me) yak all day about whats wrong, but what do they do?

William,
You do something everyday. As a member of the Armed Services you serve the current administration to whatever means it sees fit. There are plenty of individuals who do nothing as service for this country. Be proud to "yak" about anything you choose. Remember, "A happy sailor is a bitching sailor."

[mrblaine]

Darn it Frank, I wish you hadn't brought the Constitution and the guarantee of any rights into this. I realize that these are at the heart of the matter, but those "inalienable" rights wherever they were touted are being stripped from us daily in a frightening manner.

Freedom of speech- Ask the FCC what they do and don't allow to be spoken freely over our highly regulated airwaves. This isn't even a theater.

If you think you own property rather than lease if from the government, just try not paying your taxes on it sometime. If I truly own something, I should not have to pay for it.

Right to bear arms- The courts are steadily beating up the anti-gunners. I don't know if it will be enough or too little too late, but it appears that the tide may be turning.

I do agree with your thoughts on the thought and word Police though, and have to ask myself if the right to not listen to something I may consider offensive, is worth the little crack in the dam that the pro gun control people used. You know- they got up there, held up an automatic weapon whose sole purpose was to kill people and asked the question. Who here would not want us to have this kind of weapon taken out of the hands of criminals or it's use restricted and tracked? Of course the answer would be yes. And on it goes with ever more increasing restrictions placed on what kinds of weapons will be taken away next.

I also don't think that it is necessarily the word "God" in the pledge as much as it is the phrase "under God" which implies less of a separation of church and state than actually exists.

[Yellow Jeep Chick]

Sorrrry, it looks as if I've stirred up some stuff.

[Robert J. Yates]

Originally posted by Art Welch


I don't mean to go off topic for the thread but while I think 9/11 is part of it, my take is that a good part of it is due to the FOMC's not completely effective management of rates. At the end of the market boom in late 99 and early 00 they seriously overreacted and raised rates to the point that a significant economic pullback was inevitable (in my opinion as a non-economist).

This wouldn't be the first time this was done either - thats what took George the 1st out of office and alot of bond holders with him. I also took at it all as a conspiracy of the bankers - the Fed is independent after all. You don't vote for any of them nor are they responsible to any government official. Yea, Greenspan was appointed as were the other Chiefs but who does he really work for?

[Art Welch]

If you haven't read it already Robert you would probably really enjoy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...404165-3892657

It provides a great perspective on stuff like this starting with the early 1800's.

The other one I mentioned above (this one is a little more geekish) that you could possibly like is:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...404165-3892657

[BrackneyC]

Originally posted by Yellow Jeep Chick
Have you guys heard about how no one is allowed to say "in god we trust" or "under god" anymore. I'm schools they want us to say "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice..." They want us to just skip over the part that says "Under GOD" b/c it is offensive to some people. But this is what our country was founded on....it doesnt make any sense to me...

Sorry if this is a repost

The state has not mandated that an individual "must" recite any, or all of the pledge. It is written that the states will not decide for you what, if any religion you will partake in. It is not written however that the word "god" will be stricken from the language, ensuring that those who choose not to practice a specific religion will never be exposed to the word "god." If a person is strong enough to ignore religion, they sure ought to be strong enough to just ignore the word god where it appears. I do not practice, nor subscribe to any religious beliefs, but I am also not insecure enough, or selfish enough to deny the rights of those who do. I feel a little sorry for someone that would take issue with the word "god" in the pledge, as if it mattered one way or the other. Just don't say it, no one has a gun to your head.