Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

Gordon, except...
<a href="http://www.scz.org/animals/g/mdgecko.html"><img src="http://www.scz.org/animals/g/pic/mdgecko.jpg"></img></a>


the decision is neither revolutionary nor a step in the right direction.

Any coward can say, 'God is not allowed.' This mealy mouth will not pay for his little opinion with his life and wealth -- in fact, he's merely echoing a fad that is popular among some fringe element.

Hmmm. I doubt you'll find it in the history books any more, but there were some real revolutionaries once...the sort guys who gave their lives to form a new country, the sort of guys who said things like 'All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...'

They were men of courage.

It is the fruit of their courage that you enjoy today. And if you will not see it for what it is, you will lose it. Enjoy it while it lasts.

It takes a backbone to say, 'God not only belongs, God rules. And if this venture is to survive, it must be dedicated to Him.'
 
chasinfla,

if in our pledge we had, "one nation, under no god" and if on all our money we had, "under no god we trust," how would you like that? you wouldn't like it would you? well the exact opposite is the current reality for non religous people. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE LIKE THIS! THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR COUNTRY AND OTHERS!
 
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko
THIS IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR COUNTRY AND OTHERS!
More...

Precisely. And when we finally become like them, we'll be just like them.

But it's been an awesome 250 years of being God's, at least while it lasted.

During that time we rose to moral and economic leadership unmatched in the world. The residue of this is what has given you, for example, smooth roads to drive your nice car on.

Interestingly, the great decline in America's fortunes began to be manifest with a similar decision: that the bible and 10 commandments weren't allowed in the public realm (1962, I believe).

I love the guy's argument -- he didn't want his daughter being forced to get religion. So, let him homeschool her. It's his choice. Should one person be able to change the code of conduct for an entire nation? Well, yes, if you think like you do....

It turns out that the majority of American citizens believe in God, and support the pledge of allegience.

Couple a well-financed minority with an activiste judiciary, and you have a Marxist revolution. O, but first you need to create a compulsory public education system that is completely secular so that future generations will be 'divorced from their country's history.' This, obviously has been decisively accomplished (witness, your argument).

As I said, enjoy the fruit while it lasts. Because the document that defined this great nation, the Constitution, has been trampled on and perverted. And, because nothing good ever comes from rejecting God.
 
Chas, perhaps you misunderstand the point, not only of the court decision, but of the historic principles that undergird our republic.

Our society and its culture has a large place reserved for religion
But our republic is a secular one, with secular government institutions designed by the framers of the constitution to operate separate from church. The court found that that pledge, which emerged not so incidentally during the 1950s godless red scare hysteria, violates the separation.

My guess is that you don't miss the point, but understand it very well. You are part of a larger group that deliberately seeks to blur the separation and create of greater encroachment of Christianity into public institutions.
 
Originally posted by dgabriel


My guess is that you don't miss the point, but understand it very well. You are part of a larger group that deliberately seeks to blur the separation and create of greater encroachment of Christianity into public institutions.
More...

Quite an accusation. What 'separation' do you refer to?

I don't read the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founders and earlier leaders from each branch, as well as early influential thinkers, to be 'secular.'

Does the Republic, in its earthly majesty, allow for individual rejection of God? Absolutely. Was it intended to be national policy? Never, and they knew if and when it became so, it would be the beginning of the end.

So, buckle up. The best thing that will come from this is that the lines between truth and lies will become yet better defined, and that is always a good thing, because then people can choose with complete awareness.
 
Originally posted by chasinfla


"Quite an accusation. What 'separation' do you refer to?"

Church and state. There are primers out there on this concept.

"I don't read the Declaration of Independence, the writings of the founders and earlier leaders from each branch, as well as early influential thinkers, to be 'secular.'"

That's my point. You wish to impose a theocratic foundation when in fact there is none.

"Does the Republic, in its earthly majesty, allow for individual rejection of God? Absolutely. Was it intended to be national policy? Never, and they knew if and when it became so, it would be the beginning of the end."

If you mean the founders, they meant for the devices of government to operate free of religious bias.

"So, buckle up. The best thing that will come from this is that the lines between truth and lies will become yet better defined, and that is always a good thing, because then people can choose with complete awareness. "
More...

I agree!
 
There's something you aren't being told about that off-the-wall Clinton era remnant in Cali.

I think it's the 9th Circuit Federal Court. He's been overturned by the Supreme Court more than any other district (I believe, something like 60+ times? -- I don't recall the #'s but they are record breakers).

They guy is obviously on the lunatic fringe, and the whole suit is obviously a set up, with the venue handpicked probably by the ACLU or some similar agitating organization.

I case you don't realize this, there are strategic methods for taking over a nation from within, taking advantage of activist judges, well financed groups like the ACLU, and puppet plaintiffs. A case in point is Roe v Wade and if you don't believe me, please read the words of the man who organized it.

I'm not trying to stir up the abortion issue again, but <a href ="http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html">this</a> is the only testimony I know of that describes the strategy of legislation by lawsuit.
 
I'm sorry, but can you please explain by what you mean by "Church and State?" Is that a doctrine? A law? Can you tell me from whence, and precisely in what context, that phrase originates, and what bearing it is to have (if any) on the Constitution of the US?

And since you won't find it anywhere except as an aside in a letter by Thomas Jefferson, please tell me why, if it was so all-important to the founders, it never found expression in their seminal document, the Constitution? (Hint: It's an out of context straw man, plain and simple).

I wish to impose nothing. You apparently are ignorant of or in denial of the minds of the founders (you can read their writings, their theological perspectives, their ideals).

There are lots of secular nations that would love to have your tax dollars, and tell you how and where to live and work. Have thought of moving to where you'd be happier?
 
I am sorry I ever answered Chasinfla, whose statements and fears are curiously similar to certain nutcases from yesteryear.
This is my final post on this thread and I won't read any followups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top