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

Which might actually mean something if that were suggested by someone other than your chaotic insecure delusions..... Tool reference. lol

 

It might come up again, but, for now (and I suspect afterwards), it's good to go...

 

I got some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing numbers wrong...

Why don't you focus on the facts of my argument, troll?

 

I did, and they were wrong, as I pointed out.

 

No, they're not. The Constitution prohibts the federal government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. The phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance does neither. I said the Pledge of Allegiance in School and during my short tenure in the Boy Scouts. I never had to say it in the military and I was never required to say it at any government function.

 

A socialist created the pledge in the first place. It just shows the power of propaganda that we are forced to say it because he thought that we should.

 

There we disagree. It turns the Pledge of Allegiance into a prayer, specifically to a monotheistic god. If you're a Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist... you're not welcome here. That's the message, that's why it should go. Thomas Jefferson would be ON FIRE if he saw this mockery of the religious freedom outlined in 1st amendment.

 

The power of the words of the Pledge of Allegiance have nothing to do with the ideology of its author, making mention of his ideology completely meaningless.

But let's entertain your insinuation nonetheless: if this Pledge can fit people with such widely diverse viewpoints, there is no reason whatsoever to object to it in any way, shape or form.

Take from it what you wish; you're free to do so, or ignore it entirely. This makes the call to alter the Pledge because of contrived offense itself offensive - and justly ignored.

 

I think they did as well. If not for fear of "Communism" and the popularity of Christian religion... I don't think it would have been done.

The coming generation (people who are in their late teens to mid-forties) will make some important changes in the next 20 years; bet on it.

You hit the nail on its head!! Bravo!!

Yes! As many should certainly realize... the 1923 wording of the Pledge was better (more inclusive) than what we have today.

 

No, it doesn't, as this very thread illustrates. Everyone has a different definition of God; there is no official Government demand to worship a God of its description.

Baloney - and anyone can alter the Pledge any way they see fit. There is no Government law established here, which is all the 1st Amendment restricts.

Sorry; wrong. Because you claim offense does not obligate the rest of us to accomodate your soft feelings.

Um...you mean the Thomas Jefferson who said these things?

See, electron? TJ could understand the application of the word God to many, one or none. Why can't you?

Since Thomas Jefferson himself believed that God has provided us our Natural Rights, and is the foundation of our country, and pleaded for you to Adore God, and love your country more than yourself, I submit that you know as much about him and his ideals as you do about the Constitution itself.

That is to say: nothing.

 

Worship your idol.

 

What's that supposed to mean?

 

I think you'll notice that people will ignore these other Jefferson words and just go by the mistaken ruling the USSC made in 1947 when they ruled 5-4 for separation. The First Amendment never meant separation. Jeffersons words to the Danbury Baptist was about interference between church and state, that is all.

 

Wrong. It does not say which god nor does it say the one god. It does not say that there are not other gods. It does not say that your god is not yourself, the cookie monster or the internet. You really have to be one anti-religious bigot to get too upset over such a general statement.

 

Agreed - and leftists who cite Jefferson's quote regarding "a wall of separation between Church and State" are ignorant to what he was referring.

 

Jefferson may not have ever mentioned those words if it had not been for the letter written by the Danbury church worrying if Jefferson's new administration would come out with laws restricting the church. His reply was to assure them that it wouldn't. It would be like a wall of separation. Which he meant neither would interfere with the other. That Congress would make no laws establishing a state church as England had. The USSC got it wrong and atheist have taken advantage of that ruling ever since .

 

Kids do not have to recite the Pledge if they do not want to. The 1st Amendment gives them this right. They can, however, choose to say it with or without the part mentioning God.

 

The USSC did not get this issue wrong and I honestly do not understand why christians feel the need to inject their religion into our government. A government that is neutral on religion best guarantees freedom. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for the religious to understand. Clearly atheists understand the concept, that's why they're not trying to make the government acknowledge that there is no god.

 

Correct. I may not have always agreed with the rulings of the USSC (on guns and Citizens United); but surely maintaining Separation of Church and State in various rulings hasn't been arbitrary or capricious.

It IS surely worth debating when questions about it arise.

That is VERY obvious. Many Christians won't get that, until something they don't 'believe" in, is literally imposed upon them. Better to have government be hands-off concerning religion, and to protect individual rights above all else.

I'm a "Christian"; and I agree. No one has ever proven to me, that being self-centered or oppressive toward others are particularly 'Christlike' behaviors.

In a world of human beings where each mind subjectively possesses 'nuanced' perceptions of right, wrong or "God" etc... it isn't wrong to afford others freedom and grace, according to the dictates of their own hearts.

All too often, people FORCE religion rather than LIVE by what they themselves believe; and THAT has surely been a big problem in this world.

 

What does this nonsense have to do with reducing the size of government so the economy can grow?

 

Voted no.


While not religious myself..I recognize that the USA is made up of a huge Christian majority. The phrase has meaning to the majority of my fellow Americans, and the phrase will not keep me up at night.

No need to slap 90% of America in the face.

Even if you are a religion other than Christian, you still have a God..and since the pledge doesnt actually name which God it is...it seems that it could be for anyone.

 

Actually, I think we need a "slap" sometimes. There is no reason to hold to a "Pledge" installed as late as 1954; the wording from 1923 is just fine.

So okay, we may not have to "slap" anyone, but I think "tapping" American on the shoulder to get its 'attention' is just fine. This nation isn't "majority" rule; if that had always been true, free slaves and civil rights would never have happened. Now, fighting AGAINST the majority may certainly be difficult or ugly in the eyes of some, but defaulting to greater individual rights for all, is NOT a bad thing.

That simply isn't true for all human beings. (Can you show that is reality?)

Just go back to this:

That is fine for ALL (religious or otherwise).

 

Non sequitur. You've made that up. If you think that is the case, then Thomas Jefferson himself did more "injecting" than anything we're talking about.

Unless, of course, you want to ignore the Thomas Jefferson quotes that do not align with your inaccurate preconceptions.

Thomas Jefferson's words on "a wall of separation between Church and State" were in response to the attempts of Congregationalists to pass a tax on the citizens of Connecticut (IIRC) that would have forced them to support their church with tax dollars.

Here is the complete text of his letter:

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

That is completely FABRICATED BULLSH!T. A Government which PROTECTS FREE EXPRESSION of religion best guarantees freedom.

You don't have a single effing clue about which you're talking.

Then I'm happy to explain it to the atheist, who seems utterly ignorant to the actual words of the Constitution.

A Government which mandates protection of religious freedom IS NOT A GOVERNMENT WHICH HAS DECIDED TO BE NEUTRAL ON THE SUBJECT.

I'm not sure why that is such a hard concept for an atheist to understand.

Um...atheists understand the concept? No:

ATHEISTS INVENTED the concept.

 

Just curious but where in "under God" is there a Christrian influence as opposed to Jewish or Moslem or whatever religion acknowledges a god. That wouldn't be Black Liberation Theology churches, obviously.

 

Hey Leftist Atheists/addled misunderstanders of the 1st Amendment:

If you are so correct about this topic, please explain this excerpt from the history of the Danbury Baptist letter:

So tell me: how exactly could "Separation of Church and State" mean what you all are claiming it means, if Jefferson himself freely attended a FRIGGIN CHRISTIAN SERMON GIVEN AT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BY INVITATION?????

Thank you in advance for your cowardly retreat from this entire topic.