"Under God"... should be removed from the "Pledge"

The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

 

yep!

atheism, human secularism are ALL establishments of religion!

and it really bites that the supreme court agrees!

We have been forced to accept and promote atheism et al under the guise of separation from other religions.

 

Jefferson is talking about laws made by Congress, that they apply to what men do, not what they think. I don't see how Jefferson's presence at a sermon held in the House is supposed to somehow reverse or in any way dimish the meaning of what he said so clearly.

 

so you cna believe in whatever you want to believe and you can have whatever religion you want as long as you do not exercise it.

If you do not act upon your beliefs it is no longer your religion.

add that all up and clearly we can see something smells.

 

While I agree, this isn't an example of that. This is an example of a choice of referendum - about which the majority will always win.

What you're speaking of is election.

 

It doesn't diminish it all, because it is not in contradiction of it. That was the point, actually.

If holding a Christian sermon in the House of Representatives is not a violation of the First Amendment, can you explain to me how putting the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to be?

Without making something up, please.

 

Then use it. The rest of us - the vast majority - wish it to say something else.

Sorry that bothers you, but grow up. It is our free expression, and you have no right to change it.

Nor do I have any right to force you to acknowledge it.

Use of the word "God" is not an example of Congress making law with respect to any religion.

In fact, if you walked into a room, and in that room was one wall with the word GOD on it, what religion would that room represent?

Answer carefully.

 

The Constitution speaks of the Individuals Right's which are given to them from their 'Maker'. They reinforce that it is these Individuals Right's which the Constitution is 'guaranteeing'. They are not, in any way shape or form guaranteeing the Rights of the 'masses", which would be the definition of Democratic Rule, if they were.

And hence the reason we are in fact a Republic, period.

My reason for agreeing with it not being taken out is the same as their reason for taking it out, you can either say it or not and it doesn't chage the basis for the Oath itself.

 

With you so far - but this isn't about that. This is about objecting to a minority which attempts to superimpose its wishes on the remainder of society.

One can acknowledge the construct of a Representative Republic and simultaneously understand and appreciate the will of the majority.

My reason for leaving it in is because the majority wishes it, and it is a free expression of belief. My reason for objecting to removing it is that doing so would harness Government to suppress the free expression of some in favor of the will of another.

 

you can have any form of government you want within a republic. how about the russia? china? korea?

 

no it dont, you are thinking of the declaration of independence

 

And hence the reason we are considered a Democratic Republic.

We use Democratic principles to administer our Republic, as I said.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Constitution guarantees the Individuals Rights over the will of the majority, does it?

Again, we are a Republic for a reason. Because we use Democratic principles to administer it, doesn't make us a Democracy.

 

kool and what gives 51% the authority to have sex with the wives of the remaining 49%, should they so vote it into law?

What gives anyone the right to impose their crap on me by vote.

so the other guys are dictator-republics, and monarcho-republics? and dictatorship and monarchy is just the way of administering it?

and that constitution does not guarantee any such thing. All it is, is a piece of paper. How thick your wallet is and how good your attorney is and how honest the judge is determines your rights.

then you are forced to GO TO COURT and prove that some politician had not right to have sex with your wife when the congress voted it into law.

That and the constitution only covers citizen (civil) rights not ALL your rights

that and you are NOT a contracting party regarding the federal constitution, that is a contract between the states!

 

They're both violations, no question.

PS - lighten up on the smug punk act, it's wearing thin.

 

Nothing. In a Republic the Individuals Right's are first and foremost, like I have been saying.

Yep.

You are wrong on all counts. They say that anything not specifically granted to the Federal Government in that Constitution goes back to the States AND THE PEOPLE!!! WHy do you suppose I ask people where the Government is specifically given that Right, in the Constitution, on many of the Issues I discuss?

Maybe you should read it sometime, so you understand what it says...

 

Say it SILENTLY then... if your "God" or the mention of it, him or her must be a part of your 'devotional'.

If returning the "Pledge" to its properly-inclusive wording is some impossible thing for you and others so offended that it doesn't mention "God"... then give all those who aren't 'included' or properly represented in that pledge... a place to be free of what is essentially a "prayer".

BTW, when it's about "rights" such as this issue brings up, it isn't merely determined by "majority". Remember, this is a Democratic Republic; majority does not necessarily rule.

 

government does not give you rights, rights come from God. All the government can give you is government authorized immunities from prosecution and special privileges.

why would you want to pledge (pawn) yourself to the government? You into slavery or something?

 

First off government in this country has no rights. they are authorized to carry out certain functions for the people. Only the individual has "rights" if you ant to get all technical n (*)(*)(*)(*).

I can prove me right and you wrong with court cases and I know you cannot do the same.

 

now before you jump all over me and tell me I am full of it, the word rights and privileges and duties are often times simply stated as "rights" in court cases.

just one of those little distinctions the courts like to sort of let slide since it empowers the gubafia and people tend to accept crap decisions because they do not know they are incorrectly litigating their matters and attorneys really could care less because they get paid either way, judges could care less because it extremely difficult to sue them and win to protect yourself from this sort of thing. lovely world of law

 

Which "God"? Who DEFINES this "God"? And what are those various "rights"?

I've seen evidence of the "God of Santorum", the "God of Robertson", and the "God of (Jim) Jones"...etc. And with a massive amount of CERTITUDE (spiritual and/or otherwise), I can tell you that I want nothing to do with them; and surely want no possibility of honoring the same together with those who do, because of a "Pledge" which compels most (especially children) to do so.

Get it? If you don't, then people like myself, era-after-era (going forward)... will remind you that is a problem to be addressed; until something truly reasonable and fair is done.

If YOU don't believe that your "rights" are actually defined by government laws... I don't know how to convince you of that. I would admit that our lives/humanity all cry out for or clamor certain individual liberties, but sorry... I don't see where any particular "God" or "gods" have determined this/that right. In fact, I could likely name a few gods that you'd want NOTHING from (much less that god's concept of freedom).

The "God" I worship is not necessarily ruling your life or anyone else's. The God you believe in, is believed-in by all others. The God of another, many literally HATE your God (and the list goes on).

So I ask, which God is it people are referring or praying to in the current (altered) version of a "Pledge", one which certainly made more sense universally prior to 1954?

You into not thinking for yourself, indoctrination, compulsion and foolishness or something? (You tell me.)

BTW, in so many words, I've just illustrated exactly WHY we need to hold strictly to the principle that PEOPLE have the freedom and liberty to NOT have themselves be repeatedly or overly influenced by the "religion" of others. That is, it should be CLEAR to all why strict "Separation of Church and State" is reasonably imperative.

 

Correction; I wrote:

That should have read:

The God you believe-in, is NOT believed-in by all others.

 

If you want to understand that word keep in mind people means "community" not individual. Otherwise it would be stated "one of the people". That said the "People" describes the deMOBcracy, not the individual.

You may want to do a bit of research and upgrade your definition of religion, as it means belief what ever that may be that you use to govern yourself. Thats not the exact definition but paraphrasing how it would apply here.

That statement is only to prevent establishment nothing else that you may choose to read in to it.

Separation of church and state is fine but they went far beyond that and abolished it.

If you study the evolution of laws of nature you will find that religion and government are inseparable.

That said the word establishment only refers to one over all others, in other words they could include all religions which as I said earlier they are not doing, they only recognize ecclesiastic establishments.

 

In ANY case... there is no need to subject American citizens to a "Pledge" which is as "exclusive" as it became in 1954... when the words "under God" were added. And it is as "American" as anything to advocate for restoring the "Pledge" to its previous 1923 wording:

 

The Constitution is the Governing Document of our nation. Article VI section 3 reads as follows

3 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of
the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States.

There can be no religious requirement of any kind, positive or negative to hold office under the Constitution.

and

the First Amendment reads

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.



That simply means that Congress (and through extension as of the ratification of the 14th amendment) nor the States, cannot establish a national church nor can they give preference to one set of religious beliefs over another since doing so would be establishing one set of religious beliefs as the "preferred) religion.

That is all the Constitution has to say regarding religion. The DoI is not a governing document of our nation nor does it have any force of law. The first governing document was the Articles of Confederation (and a complete disaster) which was replaced by the Constitution.

 

Thank you for sharing those facts. It was very refreshing.