Pledge Unconstitutional

It isn't God's well-being that we are worried about. His personal salvation isn't in question, neither is the survival of His kingdom

It is fascinating to watch an ever metamorphosing nation, being held together by one, strong yet elastic, Constitution. Regardless of what popular opinion decries, the Constitution remains intact, with it's built-in checks and balances. I am truly amazed by this masterfully conceived document, unrivaled by any in the world.


John

Originally posted by user 956
Read Exodus 34:14, my friend.  All shall speak the name of the one God, of the true god.   Your statements show that you are not a true Christian, for you do not wish that the souls of these atheists be saved, that they do not see the light of Jesus Christ. This too is a sin, as much so as not believing in the LORD.  May you all enjoy eternal damnation with each other, for you do not deserve to be at Christ's side.

Click to expand...

I think you need to read the Forum Rules. Flaming and trolling are not allowed.

"May you all enjoy eternal damnation with each other"

This is not an appropriate Christian attitude, whether in public or on this Forum. You need to think before you post, and you need to apologize to everyone of us.

User 956 that was uncalled for. Blindfaith wasn't trying to ensure that we will never believe, he was just saying that no-one forced us to believe. Are you saying that force should be applied? And do you really think that would get us into Heave, praying because we were forced to? In any event, celebrating the prospect of anothers eternal torment is hardly worthy of respect. If that is what your Christianity amounts to, then you have reduced the Bible into a license to hate and nothing more.

Blindfaith, the problem as I see it is that your post doesn't even address the constitutional issues. Coercion is not the central issue with establishment cases. And no-one is preventing individuals from saying the pledge with the words. this is not about individual freedom; it is about an institutional endorsement. If you define institutional endorsement of religious beliefs as an issue of religious freedom, then any restriction based on the establishment clause will necessarily violate the free exercise clause. This effectively eliminates part of the constitution. I'm really getting to the point where I think that's the point for most conservative Christians.

User 956, you have just officially judged whether or not another is damned to Hell.  Better read what that can get you, and you know that you can't carry asbestos suits with you when you go!!!

[SHADOW=royalblue] i am real up set that they tried to take under god
that is amers birth mark and they will answer to go for that[/SHADOW]

Birth mark? The wording was added during the McCarthy era. This isn't some time honored tradition; it is the legacy of one of America's most destructive political movements.

…and once again we have expression of outrage about a constitutional decision, without the slightest attempt to address the constitutional issues at stake in that decision.

You are right and wrong, Brim.  It wasn't a McCarthy move, and while he may have went a little bezerk, the fact thatt here were (are) subversives that are undermining this nation was true and correct.  There have been more destructive times in my book.  But those might be the best of times to you, I don't know.

 

You are correct in saying that the Pledge of Allegiance is not a birthmark of this country; it is realatively new on the scene.  Let's not get carried away, huh, Tom?  As a matter of fact, without the words "under God", I'd say that the pledge is a bad idea.  You would be making a pledge to a corporation that does not see itself below a Creator, therefore would be above the citizen, and would have authority to remove the liberties that, if weren't created by God, must have been created by man.

If you define a subversive as anyone that disagrees with you over political issues, then there will always be subversives. But one more problem with the McCarthy era would be that in defining subversives broadly enough to include the loyal opposition (as in a move to equate America with Christianity, thus disenfranchising all non-Christians), those politicians effectively made it more difficult to identify real threats to national security. This was one of many attempts to define Americanness in such a narrow manner as to exclude loyal Americans. That alone should raise concerns about the need to protect this legacy.

You bring up some good points regarding my post Brimshack! Your points are worthy of consideration, some of which are going to take some deep thought on my part to sort through.

Personally, I can't separate God from politics, whether it be in the Constitution, in the Pledge of Allegiance, or how I pay my taxes (which doesn't please me btw). I can't relate to what an aethiest believes, or doesn't believe because I've never been one. Unlike what #956 said, I don't condemn the aethiests to hades, and I don't believe I'll be spending eternal damnation there. It is my prayer that all people are saved ~ I'm terribly sorry for the hijack!

speaking of #956; who are you to judge my heart? Are you now allowed to play God? And here I thought He was the only one who truly knows whether or not a person believes in Christ or not. Quite a concept, isn't it?

Peace in Christ,
Terri
p.s. I'm a female btw

Hi Blindfaith,

Don't worry about 956. I'm convinced it's a joke. Probably a character from landover baptist or something, but he's said some pretty silly things on this site. I don't think he really believes them. I wouldn't bother responding to him anymore.

I certainly can't ask you to separate your beliefs from the way you vote, etc. What I do expect is that I will not be enlisted into supporting those beliefs myself when I participate in public life. I know, there are lots of tricky questions about how to draw the line. What's bugging me at present is that much of the other side on this debate is avoiding the need to draw that line at all.

Take care.

Originally posted by blindfaith
speaking of #956; who are you to judge my heart? Are you now allowed to play God? And here I thought He was the only one who truly knows whether or not a person believes in Christ or not. Quite a concept, isn't it?

Click to expand...

I am not judging your heart, God is judging your heart, for God is all-knowing. Read the passage I cited, and you will understand.

 

 

Originally posted by Brimshack
Hi Blindfaith,

Don't worry about 956. I'm convinced it's a joke. Probably a character from landover baptist or something, but he's said some pretty silly things on this site. I don't think he really believes them. I wouldn't bother responding to him anymore.

Click to expand...

The Romans felt the same way about what Jesus was saying.  You have closed your mind, and closed your heart to the true meaning of God. It is truly disheartening.  

You must open yourself up, or you will never be accepted into the Kingdom of the LORD.

 

 

You're just too funny User956. Hey why don't you start another thread? I love conspiracy theories. Tell us about the water supply.

Originally posted by Brimshack
I love conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

Then you should talk to gunnysgt and hear about how the "ACLU" is the "Anti-Christian-Liberal-Union".  I speak the truth. If you're not smart enough to understand, then that's God's will.

 

 

Hi Brimshack!

Thank you for your kind words in your post, and an explanation as to where you're coming from . I think I'm going to enjoy posting in here with you!

Drawing the line, aye? That's a tricky one, because I want everyone to believe in what I do, because I am 110% certain that the Lord is the truth and the light....but...I'm not going to shove that down your throat, or anyone else's.

This is what I'd like to see;

*leave "Under God" in the Pledge. If a child has a problem with it (I think it's mostly the parents btw), then the child has the option of not saying it. Kind of like during Christmas or other holiday celebrations. If there's a conflict of religious differences, there's other activities for the children to participate in (did I just open another can of worms?).

*leave the money as it is, with the words "In God We Trust". If someone doesn't agree with it, is it really going to hurt them in any way now? Has it hurt them over the past umpteen years to this point? Why spend all of the extra $$$ re-minting the money when this country is so far in debt now?

*sigh* Not every person is going to be satisfied in this lifetime. There's always going to be someone who's going to be offended. Those who don't believe in God are going to be offended if "Under God" is left in; people like me who will be upset if it's taken out.

Thanks again for your kind words Brimshack, and you have a great weekend!!

Peace in Christ,
Terri

Hello Terri,

I'll grant you that children are being used a lot in this, and Madam OHair as I recall was an extremely abusive example. Her son, the very one about whom she filed a lawsuit leading to a Supreme Court decision banning official school prayer is now a Christian. So, I have my reservations about the way a lot of this may start, but in principle I know which side I'm on. This concern also goes for Jay Seculo and some of the other organized attempts to rally Christian students in the schools. I wonder how much they are really thinking about the students' welfare? And I think some of the institutional policies themselves are less than innocent (the pledge - with or without the words - is after all a means of soliciting loyalty from children who are often to young to understand what all that really means …repeated every day for years!).

Those on either side organizing protest may just be more visible because they are reacting. It's like in football (I never use football analogies, except this one). One player hits another after a play and the ref hears it, turns around just in time to see the second player retaliate. I think with a lot of political issues the guys that are protesting come off as the bad guys because the initial policies get in under everybody's radar.

Oh well, my central concern with your proposal is that you are essentially trying to resolve the problem of coercion for the kids. You are rightly saying that people sometimes have to live with offensiveness, but neither of these is really the issue. The issue is whether or not the government has any business promoting religion at all. Frankly, I'd like to see God off the money and out of the pledge. In principle they are both violations of the establishment clause. They are both government endorsements of religion. The money we can let slide under the doctrine that it is a de minimis violation. In other words, it's just too small to bother withy, and part of the reasoning there is what you bring up; the trouble to change it. The pledge on the other hand can be taken out immediately without substantial strain on material resources.

If I was ever predisposed to let this kind of issue slide, the response to the decision has changed my mind about it. Many have slandered the judges, saying that they are out of the mainstream. But their application of current case-law is perfectly sound. Those saying the judges were somehow way out there don't even bother addressing that, and there is a reason. What bothers most people I think is precisely the fear that this will make American institutions somehow less Christian. In other words, the response to the decision is motivated by precisely the desire to keep a form of establishment that the Constitution forbids. Christians certainly have a right to believe anything they want, and they can pray or pledge to God all they want as individuals (provided it isn't disruptive to the schools), but Christians are not entitled to an official endorsement from government institutions.

Originally posted by Brimshack
What bothers most people I think is precisely the fear that this will make American institutions somehow less Christian. In other words, the response to the decision is motivated by precisely the desire to keep a form of establishment that the Constitution forbids. Christians certainly have a right to believe anything they want, and they can pray or pledge to God all they want as individuals (provided it isn't disruptive to the schools), but Christians are not entitled to an official endorsement from government institutions.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what I believe Brim. There is an exaggerated concern for everything except the educational and developmental well-being of our children in the public educational system. It's like certain Christians care more about whether students are required to utter a series of statements they have low to no understanding of, rather than instilling the basic drive, desire, and passion for learning how to learn, and accomplishing educational goals that yield rewards later in life.

Tell me, is it really so important to coerce a particular religious icon on a child, while that same child is lacking so much in regard to education proficiency? I think the religious right needs to take into consideration the true weight and purpose of public education as a means for instruction in setting goals, accomplishing those goals, and reaping the awards at a later time. A true accomplishment that the religious right fails to recognize, by and large, is that for the most part, the repetition of a single phrase on a daily basis is more or less not going to affect the scholastic achievement of students! Raging to uphold such vocalised statements in public schools is virtually nothing more than a certain religio-political(is that a word?) stubborness and ignorance of far more important, nonpartisan, nonspiritual educational needs. I'm not saying that faith in God can not affect scholastic achievement, but rather that the parents should take the spiritual responsibility and leave the schools free to produce and distribute the raw educational training, unhindered by selfish religio-political games.

What can I say to that except that I agree with …um, all of it, I think. That's a good point Humble.