No it doesn't you cockless pinfuckle. The Declaration cites a Nature's God, and a Divine Creator, but this isn't Christianity'd god, this is Deism's god, a much more benevolent and loving fatherly figure than the judeo-christian yahweh ever is.
Okay, then what is the point of taking this to court? I mean I understand what you are saying, but this is all about changing personal views. I may even agree that saying "under God" is really not necessary, and may even say that it should be removed; but to say that this is not about changing personal views is selling the movement short. There is no separation of church and state, nor constitutionally has there ever been. It is not found anywhere in the Constitution. It is only found in the penumbras of activist judges. Again, I see your point. However, at the same time we live in a free society. It would then be encumbant on me to explain to my child, my blood, that it is respectful to allow others to say the pledge. And, if they make you say it then do it out of respect of the view of others. However, you do not have to believe it. Another thing I might also do is explain, in the case of Allah, that Allah is the same God of the Bible. Of course, I can always home school or take my child to private school. Dude, all I am saying is that I am tired of hearing the reasons for the argument by those who do not want God in public. I am not talking about forcing anything on anyone. In fact, it seems the attempt at forcing is coming from the side that wishes to eliminate God altogether. Think about the names that christians and believers get called on these boards? How many times has a person been totally disregarded and called illogical, or incapable of being logical simply because they believe? Okay, I grant that this did not come out the way I meant it. My point was that saying words is not what matters it is action that matters. I have not said otherwise. I agree with you. I have read some of your other posts on other threads. I have found you to be an intelligent person. But my question is do you really believe the branches are equal? Do you really believe the Supreme Court has not overstepped it boundaries? Rather than allowing a special interest group to apply pressure on judges and congress, how about suggested these issues get voted on in each individual state and let that vote stand? Of course, even that is not safe think Texas v Lawrence! I have no idea why this happened, but I can assure you that not everyone gets treated in this fashion. Refer to above reply for my answer.
I disagree. This is about not appreciating the fact that these words were added to the Pledge (arguably as a subtle form of subversive anti-Communist propaganda) in 1954, and never should have been. It not only alienates Atheists, but many other forms of religion who do not refer to their diety/dieties as "God". By restoring it, it will alienate no one. Either the Pledge does what it is designed for (instills a sense of awe and revernce), in which case the "Under God" should be taken very seriousy. Or, as Baron argues, it does not do what it is supposed to, in which case what's the big deal about removing it? There is a plethora of data, including very specific letters and even acts of Congress, dating back to the founding fathers that would resoundingly disagree with that. Is that what you would honestly do? Come on. I think we have very different views on what "Free Society" means. Also, most people can't afford private school, nor do they have the meanbs to home school. Even if they are valid arguments? But you are. Option 1.) Include the words "Under God", which narrows the sentiment down to a specific group and makes others feel disregarded, at least. Option 2.) Remove them and have it open to all. The way of a "Free Socitey". Did you know that the Pledge was written by a Socialist? An ideology perhaps for being staunchly secular. I agree that actions matter more, but words meana GREAT deal. Especially in what amounts to be official government doctrine. At times it has. Just as the Executive and the Legislative has. I do firmly believe that this is a violation of the intention of the First Amendment, however. I'm not touching that one in this thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think it happens more than you think, and even more importantly, as I pointed out, they want to please teh teacher and not be harassed by other children. What do you think would happen if you didn't stand and remove your hat for the national anthem at a ball game? You stand a damned good chance of getting your ass kicked. Whether it is deserved or not is not the point, knowing that it may happen is.
You tell me. My answer: Terrorism is simply a means of war. Your answer: War is.. [fill in the blank]. - N
I would argue that any legal adult who has a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance aside from the "under God" issue (which is not an inherently important aspect of the pledge) and refuses to state it, ought not to live in America. The second half of the pledge - that is, "And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisbile, for liberity and justice for all" - enshrines the core principles upon which the American government's social-contract is rooted in, and thus to be against them is to be against America in what can only be construed as a semi-treasonous manner. It becomes a matter of personal integrity, logical consistancy, and the interests of America as a whole, for all persons not willing to pledge such allegiance to leave the country for one more suiting to them.
Interesting. So, do you think that people on the Left, who do not agree that the federal government should be a Republic, rather a democracy should be banished?
I think if you could convince the government to help finance the move and arrange for citizenship etc. youd see a suprising lot of people go do it. I really appreciate where I live, but I admit I appreciate it a bit less when people expect me to acknowledge CONCEPTS in order to be considered an acceptable member of society. I wouldnt dream of causing harm to a person or thing in my country or in other country for that matter, but then I see the anger at from the people where the national anthem is being done at my disinterest.Ive noticed that for some people standing up and saying theyre a christian, or singing loudly the anthem, gets them in a position to fully screw the their country and its citizens.. As far as Im concerned if its country where freedom is its greatest claim and highlight, Im free to live right by every appropriate standard of action expected of a citizen , but to tell people to fuck off when they hassle me for not reciting the oath or statement of allegiance. Im doing it for their own good. People have lost the ability to judge correctly apparently. Its ok to be a fuck as long as you say you arent, but its not good enuf to be righteous and loyal if you wont say you are. Thats the kind of reasoning that allows bush and his like to disable this country in whatever way he choses while being a true patriot and hero in some peoples eyes. Blinded by concepts.
Well I guess the Declaration of Independence is invalid. All Hail King George! Might as well burn/melt all our money while we are at it.... I guess all court convictions should be tossed out to being that the witnesses swear on a bible. Face it folks, this country has a Judeo Christian history and its not going to change. No one is forcing anyone to say a pledge. This whole lawsuit is ridiculous. Especially the claim that he was concerned for his daughter- while the entire time his daughter believes in God and has no problem saying the pledge. This has nothing to do with kids and schools. It is this guys vendetta against God.
Wrong, terrorism is a political tool used to influence a political society. Such actions committed in war is simply war. What war was being fought on September 11, 2001? If you think terrorism is a means of war, what war was being fought? Now again I ask you, do you not think terrorism is evil?
I've been saying that for years, but all I get is odd glances. Go fig. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You would be incorrect in believing the founding fathers disagreed with the argument that there is no separation of church and state. Lefties use Jefferson as the model as they incorrectly analyze his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson's point was not a separation of church and state as it is viewed by leftists and atheists today, but rather that the state cannot make any preferences either for or against religion. The truth to the matter is that it probably should not have been instilled in the first place, but we live in an entirely different cultural atmosphere today then when it was placed in the pledge. Most definitely. In our society the beautiful thing is you can say anything you want, but I do not have to listen to it or believe it. That's my free society. That and a less intrusive government. I still think there are far too many laws. Case in point: Gun laws. My point was not about other people, but your question about what I would do. The words are already there number one. Thus, my position is not based on force. Number two the term God does not necessarily narrow anything down to a specific group. God can mean what you want it to mean. I personally believe in God and God's Son. But I do not believe in the same God most Christians do. My God is All Inclusive. My God is not some supernatural being that seeks out disobedience and strikes that person for eternity. In fact, I am not sure God needs our obedience to substantiate him/herself. That type of belief seems very silly to me. But they are not valid arguments, and both sides are guilty of making invalid arguments. Because both sides want to force the other to assimilate. Both sides are arguing from a side of weakness mentally. As one who has been to several football games at all levels, I can say I have plenty of people not take off their hats during the Anthem. I can also say I have never seen any of them get their arses kicked. You have a point about school children aiming to please. But the greater problem is not the children, it is some of the adults who teach the children. Some are weak and can only vaildate their existence by bullying children. Of course, that is not a universal thing. It only applies to a few.
one_raven: A Republic is a general term for a kingless state, specifically with one with some democratic practices, and thus "Democracy supporters" are not against the American system of government. VossistArts: Do you? Although I am not sure how appropriate it would be for the government to greatly finance the move, being that the desire to leave is not rooted in the government, but rather, the people who no longer desire to be Americans. Your disgust for the Bush administration notwithstanding, the Pledge of Allegiance is not about presidential politics, but about your beliefs about the properness of the American form of government. If you find it so disgusting to announce that you pledge allegiance to your country and to the principles enshrined, then you do not belong here.
Onefinity: Technically, it is all ready illegal via a law passed in congress about seventy years ago. Whether this should contginue to be so, I would argue resoundingly yes, rooted in the contempt for the American government and principles demonstrated in the act. Rarely is a flag burning anything but "down with America!". crazy151drinker: It isn't Judeo-Christian, it is Christian. There is no "Judeo" in it. Jews have never been a large part of American culture until the 20th century. Moreover, I would argue the CHristian claim as it regards government, as it is well known that the founding fathers of greatest importance were Enlightenment Deists. Radicand: The war which Al'Qaeda repeatedly declared against the US, Israel, and their allies.
Prince, are you American? The only reason I ask is that you spelled color "colour" on another thread. In any event, I am surprised at your political views, given your highly intellectual nature.
Onefinity: Yes, I live in New York City, although I prefer British English for aesthetic purposes. Tell me, though, why are you surprised? Can not a sane degree of patriotism be part of one's politics? I assure you, I am not one of those "America! Love it or Leave it!" types, but when one would refuse to state a pledge of simple allegiance to one's country, or not deface the flag which has great symbollic meaning, it seems logical to conclude that you not only wish no longer to be in union with that country, but are even borderline hostile.
Here's a history lesson: Our Nation was uniquely founded in legal allegiance to the People. The Constitution spelled out the vow. Therefore no pledge is appropriate in the other direction. I pledge allegiance to American Liberty.
But you see, PJ, an American can do either of those things and still be an American, with all the rights and privileges of other Americans. Whether they want to live here or not is not your concern. Your only concern is to (a) protect those rights, against people who think like yourself BUT who would take the additional step of deporting them, firebombing their house or killing them. Now, when all Americans can feel safe to speak their minds fully regardless of what retribution they previously feared, then may we be more assured that, as a society, (b) we can air concerns fully, share ideas, and overcome potential obstacles to the best possible lives for all people. But I'm only paraphrasing wordage from the Constitution.
