"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
So reads the opening for our "Declaration of Independence"---for the United States of America. Our Supreme Court opens with a prayer to God. "In God We Trust" proclaims from our coins, has for nearly a hundred and a half years.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor forbiding the free excercise thereof, nor abridging the freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor of the right to assemble peacably and to pettition Congress for a redress of grievances". So reads the First Ammendment.
The "Pledge of Allegiance" has had "under God" in it for nearly 50 years. No one, until now, has considered it a "breach of constitutional intent".
The most fundamental right of a free people, ANY free people, is the RIGHT TO OFFEND. In totalitarian governments the right to offend does not exist. "Free Speech" has, in all of time, only been suppressed when it offends. In America, historical law HAS NEVER CONFERRED THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED.
Again, for impact: "YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO NOT BE OFFENDED"
Is saying, "under God", in public schools, a CONGRESS ESTABLISHED RELIGION? No. "Religion: a system of beliefs, explaining man's origin and relationship to the Universe; including proselytizing, worship, faith." Where is the system in the Pledge? (The description does seem to apply to "evolution"...)
An atheist professes to be offended at the Pledge. Is that logical? Atheism does not believe in the existence of God. Thus, what occurs in their hearts towards "poor religious deluded idiots, following delusion and emotional crutches", is PITY. Where is the offense from that which is viewed as delusion? In its arrogant self-absorption, the atheistic view is to smile to themselves at the poor, unintelligent pathetic emotional cripples, clinging to their superstitions. But to be offended, or afraid? By/from WHAT? If it is not REAL, where is the DANGER? And even if it OFFENDS, where is the legal preclusion to that offense?
In 1999 Ohio was banned from its hundred-year-old motto, "With God all things are possible". The attack on the Pledge is but another page in a concerted, orchestrated, well-funded campaign to "rid America of any vestige of religious influence".
Our flag salute is to be changed, to remove the terrible words, "under God". If this is allowed to stand, many other changes must be made. There is no choice. If this one thing is offensive and need be changed, then so do the others:
Our money is to be changed, to remove the terrible words, "under God".
No public displays at Christmas are allowed. Private homes must not be allowed anything religious in public view, "lest one observe and be offended". Children can no longer have parties, must call the December recess, "Mid-Winter-Break".
Our Declaration of Independence must be changed, or removed from record, to remove the offensive words.
Our Constitution must have its first ammendment re-written, to allow "the forbidding of the free excercise of religion", and to include "the right to not be offended".
"O! thus be it ever when free men shall stand,
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land,
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
And conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And THIS BE OUR MOTTO_'in GOD is our TRUST'";
And the star spangled banner, in triumph shall wave,
O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave."
So goes the 4th stanza of our very own National Anthem. Alas, no more. It shall have to change, all of it, to a NEW AND DIFFERENT anthem---lest someone HEAR the later stanzas and become offended...
Removed from public consumption will be testaments by all of our Founding Fathers, notably George Washington---who said: ""Of all the habits and dispositions that lead to political prosperity, none are more crucial than religion and morality. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education upon minds, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism that would labor to subvert these great pillars! Where is the security for life, for reputation, for property, if the sense of religous obligation desert???" (He used "religion" synonymously with "Christianity") Virtually ALL of the Founding Fathers expressed sympathy towards Christianity---all of their writings must be purged from historical records!
We will change the offensive names of cities like, "Corpus Christi, Texas" ("Body of Christ"). Any public mention of Jesus will become as punishable as it is now in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
We will likely need-rewrite of the entire Constitution, because: "Isaiah 33:22 gave the inspiration for 3 branches of government, Jeramiah 17 inspired "separation of powers". Tax exemption for churches unique among nations, Ezera 7:24. Deuteronomy was favorite book; 1892 "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and must include the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind---it is impossible for it to be otherwise; in this sense, to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian" --statement by UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT!!!!! Sixteen pages long, but this case gave EIGHTY SEVEN REFERENCES from our Founding Fathers, court said it could CONTINUE making references!!!---all of that, of course, will need-be-gone.
Our entire history must be scrapped, our charter replaced, our Founding Fathers dismissed---IF we are to uphold the "Banning of the Pledge's Offense".
When the campaign is over, when no child ever hears "GOD" or "JESUS" again, where will we be? What will be our purpose? What will define us?
It will be a country far afield of where our Founding Fathers intended. We will have reversed the charter, the foundation, the intent of our very heritage. We will have excised the complete substance of our existence.
That's a long rant on a strawman. If it was really about the right to "not be offended", why do so many Christians agitate against Gay Pride parades, or BDSM groups?
And frankly the biggest logic hole here is that there's a difference between the Government and a citizen.
You're free to do all sorts of offensive things. Worship Satan, join the KKK, be an obnoxious street preacher, sell you religon door-to-door, whatever. Even if you're a teacher or government employee, you're certainly welcome to be offensive. Off the government clock, of course.
And how burdensome is that? They won't let you get drunk or high on the job, either. They require you to be clean and well-groomed.
Sorry. The right to be offensive is in no danger here.
Shorrrre. As LONG as they're not CHRISTIAN. Several years ago some students met before school to pray around the flagpole. Police were called. They were detained in squad-cars, in handcuffs, for several hours. Threatened with EXPULSION, not suspension. Word of their plight spread, and the event became annual. For the SECOND ANNUAL prayer meeting, hundreds of schools notified their students that "the prayer meetings will not be allowed". The American Center for Law and Justice was contacted---they sent fliers to every school district in America, explaining that "failure to allow the students' excercise of their First-Ammendment rights, they (the school districts) would face prosecution. Several districts STILL REFUSED. Only direct, personal telelphone calls, delivering the absolute: "You interfere with these students' rights, and you will be IN COURT. Not next month, not next week, TOMORROW. We have funding to FLY TO YOUR CITY and file suit TOMORROW. DO you UNDERSTAND?!
Only under such direct threat was the prayer meeting allowed.
Of COURSE it's "not really about being offended". That is merely an excuse to remove Christianity from the public arena. Changing America into a secular nation. The "offense" is merely pretense for the agenda...
The "title post" in this thread only lists PART of the attacks. Do you really believe there is no "funded, organized campaign to abolish God from America"?
I can point to an organized and funded Campaign to force christianity down our throats: Jay Seculo's organization. And I love how the story is told as though the meetings were spontaneous. He has been using pseudo-student-led initiative to get a foothold in the schools, and his goal is to reinstitute public prayers in the schools.
And you have misconstrued Morat's response. The point is that the right not to be offended is not the basis for the complaint. The basis is the notion that government institutions are not supposed to promote religion. We can debate that all you want, but to represent the issue as a right not to be offended is misleading.
The fact is, the government is not suppose to establish a religion by making a denomination (sect, or cult, as they called it back then) the official state religion. I never was the idea to keep references of God out of the country, and it was never their (the Founding Fathers) idea to make this a multi-cultural nation with many different gods.
While the notion taught in school may mean freedom from religion, it is inconsistent with history as it happened, as compared with history as it has been revised by the left.
__________________ "It is as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of God as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science" Werhner Von Braun
You are right people can offend, private citizens have the privilege, the government does not. The actions of government are kept less free then the actions of private citizens for good reason.
I would like to see the word God,Bible or Jesus in the constitution...but if you search for them you will do so in vain. It seems kind of strange that our Founders would leave out reference that important in our constitution.
I would also like to see a link to that statement concerning the supreme court's endoresment of Christianity. As I find it to be rather dubious especially in light of this:
MYTH: The Supreme Court has declared that the United States is a Christian nation.
FACT: In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church v. United States decision Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Brewer's statement occurred in dicta, a legal term meaning writing that reflects a judge's personal opinion, not an official court pronouncement that sets legally binding precedent.
Historians debate what Brewer meant by the statement, some claiming that he only intended to acknowledge that Christianity has always been a dominant force in American life. Research by Americans United shows that five years after the Trinity ruling, Brewer himself seemed to step away from it in a case dealing with legalized prostitution in New Orleans.
The New Orleans dispute arose when a Methodist church sought an injunction to bar implementation of a city ordinance allowing prostitution in one zone in the city. The Methodists argued the measure would "destroy the morals, peace and good order of the neighborhood."
Citing the Trinity decision, church officials insisted that the ordinance encouraged prostitution, an activity inconsistent with Christianity "which the Supreme Court of the United States says is the foundation of our government and the civilization which it has produced...."
Writing for a unanimous court, Brewer completely ignored the church's religious argument and upheld the New Orleans law. Brewer's bypass suggests that he did not mean to assert in the Trinity case that the United States should enforce Christianity through its laws.
In any case, the Trinity decision is a legal anomaly that has been cited by the court only once since then. And obviously the opinion of one obscure Supreme Court justice does not amount to an official decree that the United States is a Christian nation. If a Christian republic had been the goal of the framers, that sentiment would have been included in the Constitution.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? -James Madison
We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same, if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstruate against the said Bill,-James Madison
The fact that the Federal Government may insert inappropriate religious slogans into other areas of public life does not justify any violation of the separation of Church and state. As two wrongs don't make a right.
In the end, despite the paranoid allegations, no one is trying to outlaw Christianity. Atheists, agnostics and such only want Christians to quite using government functions to force their beliefs on ourselves. That's all. Christians can still have the right to worship,practice and even preach as they wish. They will just have to do so without government aid.
__________________ "Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov
Hello, Brimshack. The atheists complaint, was "that his daughter was offended". The wording of the Pledge of Allegiance, containing the words, "Under God", is no different in construction and application than the "Declaration of Independence", the "God save this court" with which the US Supreme Court opens, or Ohio's "With God All Things Are Possible" motto. Do any of these establish a religion? No.
In "The Humanist Manifesto" of 1933, precept #1 proclaims: "This is a RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE". Thus in the vacuum of godless education, humanism flourishes. Is this not hypocritical, to teach one religion over another? Atheism itself can be classed as a "religion". If "belief-in-God" is religion, why is "non-belief" not equal in status? Children who do not wish to say the pledge, or a prayer, do not have to. But they also do not have the right to "forbid the free practice thereof", for the rest of the students. OR are you prepared to argue "the PRAYING in CLASS or SAYING the PLEDGE" constitutes "ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION"---ignoring the fact that these things persisted for 185+ years of our country (and long before)? Did our FOUNDING FATHERS really INTEND for God to be BANNED from schools? Did they object to or endorse teaching Biblical principles in public education? They WERE the ones who WROTE the Constitution---isn't it valid to discuss WHAT THEY MEANT???
Have you ever read anything by Fisher Aimes? How about Robert Winthrop? Patrik Henry? Benjamin Rush? Noah Webster? John Jay? John Adams? Any of them?
I loved what Dennis Praguer said on his TV show: "I am not a Christian. However, when you expose children to the possiblity of there being a God, then they become responsible to something other than themselves. And isn't that what our kids are LACKING nowadays?"
The PLEDGE is NOT "an establishment of religion". The First Ammendment does NOT grant "the right to not hear another's religious expression", but DOES grant "the free excersize thereof". For fair and just application of law, to maintain banning of the Pledge, we must also ban the Constitution, the Declaration, the writings of our Founding Fathers, the National Anthem---in short, much of what we hold sacred in American history.
Also many Xians on this board should remember when they are soaking in their delusions of being persecuted that it was Xian President that said:
I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God. - Former President Bush
Not an atheist president who spoke out against Xians.
__________________ "Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov
Ben you are misrepresenting the issue on at least three points :
1) Nobody is trying to ban religion from schools, only state sponsorship of religion. Children can still pray, they will just not be given special time by the school with which to do so. People can still salute the flag, the teacher will just not lead a flag ceremony that uses the phrase "Under God". God or Christianity will not be banned from schools, only government favoring of Christianity. Students may still practice their religious beleisf in their free time.
2) Even if students do not have to make the pledge, the government is still supporting religion by leading it via school officials. That can be seen as establishing a religious preference in public schools. To say that it does not...fools no one looking at the issue objectively. I've heard Christians many times argue for forcing ouely Christian beliefs on the rest of society under the justification that this is "One nation under God". Imagine if instead it was "One nation under Marxism"....I bet you'd be crying Chruch-State violation then....even though the government would not be establishing a religion, according to your standards.
3) To call secular humanism or atheism a religion is ridiculous(They are secular philosophies and negative positions). Same thing with evolutionary theory. (Which is science...not religion). They are clearly not religions, as they do not qualify as a religious belief under the most widespread definitions of the terms.
re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
Think of this: If secular humanism, atheism, and evolution can be considered religions....then what can't? What belief system cannot then be seen as religious? Probably none, meaning your definition of religion is probably too vague.
__________________ "Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."
-- Isaac Asimov
part of are heritage 
Linear Mode
