• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court OKs ‘under God’ in Pledge of Allegiance

springerdave

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
665
Location
Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
marshaul wrote:
I'm content not to say the pledge of allegiance, both because "god" is silly, but more importantly because my allegiance to the ideals of liberty is far greater than my allegiance to any government or symbol thereof -- government no longer deserves my allegiance when it fails to serve liberty, whereas if government enhances my liberty it will not need a pledge to gain my allegiance.

Some people probably won't like me saying this, but there was a period whenif I was some place that would have everyone stand for the National Anthem, I would remained seated.

I wasn't trying to disrespect anyone, its just that I felt this was something pushed on people by the government, and I didn't/don't like what the government (of today...not when our country was founded)stands for. It was my way of protesting it.
T, I wish to say that I respect ANYONE'S right to stand or not stand, to join in or to refrain from reciting The Pledge of Allegiance. There was a time when I would not recite the Pledge with the word God in it as I did not believe at that time. Even as a non-believer, I still held firm the idea that others had the right to do so. There was never any disrespect intended. Things are different now.springerdave.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
Seperation of church and state....
Show me.


This is what is in the Constitution:

Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.





This prohibits the gov't from forcing you to practice "X" religion, as well as prohibits gov't from forcing you NOT to practice "X" religion. It does NOT say that the gov't itself can't have religious slogans or pictures, icons, images, etc. in or on buildings, currency, correspondence, etc., or that the gov't itself can not abide by or practice "X" religion.

Our country was founded on Christian principles, and while I'm probably agnostic, I believe that Christian values are good ones, worth teaching, and worth hanging on to. I grew up in and around Christian families. What was taught is worth knowing. It is a solid groundwork of moral character that I hold dear. When enough people started crying about religion vs. state, I think we lost a lot of moral ground as a country.
 

mikestilly

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
1,869
Location
Macomb County, Michigan, USA
imported post

T Vance wrote:
Seperation of church and state....

Nowhere in the constitution is there a Seperation of church and state. It's a fact that the liberals have takenn the concept to an extreme to say that we should remove god from our lives in relation to our government.

The fact is the founders were religious men whom built many basic principals and concepts and backed them up with their religious views. If you dont believe me I suggest you read the full text and underlying notes the founders published to explain their principals.

Liberalism has taken separation of church and state to an extreme which was contrary to the founding principals of this country.
 

JeffSayers

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
629
Location
Do you really wanna go there with me?, Michigan, U
imported post

Wasn't the Bible a standard textbook in this nation's early years?

And before that fact gets dashed, consider this: How is that wrong when today we study evolution in schools? Isn't evoltion the opposite of religion? To be equal wouldn't it make sense to study both so each person can make their own educated decision?

Uh oh... I think the anti christian liberals union "ACLU" is knocking on my door now...
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

mikestilly wrote:
T Vance wrote:
Seperation of church and state....

Nowhere in the constitution is there a Seperation of church and state. It's a fact that the liberals have takenn the concept to an extreme to say that we should remove god from our lives in relation to our government.

The fact is the founders were religious men whom built many basic principals and concepts and backed them up with their religious views. If you dont believe me I suggest you read the full text and underlying notes the founders published to explain their principals.

Liberalism has taken separation of church and state to an extreme which was contrary to the founding principals of this country.
Considering that religious freedom is still protected in this country, I wonder what "extremes" you could be referring to.

What individual religious freedoms of yours have been infringed thanks to a separation between church and state?

Do I insist that every government function be replete with references to the lack of any divine being? Hmm?

Anyway, while Jefferson was in his time concerned primarily with the coercive aspects of having a single, mandatory state religion, it's clear from his writings that the would have supported a "separation between church and state" much more akin to what we have now than what I suspect the lot of you would like.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
Now, as to what Jefferson meant by his "wall", that is up for debate. But pretending that the notion is some "liberal" creation simply because it wasn't mentioned in the constitution is quite disingenuous. Jefferson's writings are way closer to the constitution than you'll ever be. ;)
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

JeffSayers wrote:
And before that fact gets dashed, consider this: How is that wrong when today we study evolution in schools? Isn't evoltion the opposite of religion? To be equal wouldn't it make sense to study both so each person can make their own educated decision?
Honestly, no this wouldn't make sense at all.

We might as well tell the creation myth of Hinduism while we're at it.

Have you heard that one?

http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm

School doesn't exist to teach religion or religious mythology. There is no objective basis to "creationist" theory (although "intelligent design" which does not preclude evolution may be truth, teaching it in school is absurd because where such a theory differs from evolution is where it becomes superstition).
 

cvogtmann

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
17
Location
Kalamazoo, MI, ,
imported post

I guess it is just my personal opinion that the government should just remain impartial. Jefferson's opinions should be taken into account.

I completely understand that our great country was founded on Christian beliefs but we the people of this great country and not all Christians.
 

Taurus850CIA

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
1,072
Location
, Michigan, USA
imported post

cvogtmann wrote:
snip'

I completely understand that our great country was founded on Christian beliefs but we the people of this great country are not all Christians.
That's right, hence the 1st amendment, limiting government's control over individuals' beliefs. Practice what you wish, it's your right. Enumerated, no less.;)
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

I'm another atheist who doesn't have a problem with traditional and ceremonialreferences to deities on our national/stateflags, buildings, currency, pledges, songs, etc.

Oh, and everyone's an atheist by the way. If you have a faith or belief system, and youdon't believe in the 99.99% of the other faiths/belief systems, then you are atheist with respect to those faiths/beliefs. I just go you one better and I don't believe in yours either. So, whether it's 100% atheism or 99.99% atheism, you see that there ain't really all that much separating us. :D
 

Lionheart

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
20
Location
, , USA
imported post

For shame, 9th Circuit! This nation was founded on freedom of religion, not your religion.

9th Circuit, you have spit on the graves of all the troops who have fought and died for this country without believing in the God of Abraham, like Corporal Pat Tillman, by approving a "patriotic exercise" that declares these soldiers to not be good Americans.

You have disrespected the troops, and the freedoms this land was founded on.
 
Top