Pledge, Charter, History...

[Ben johnson]

"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.

Will we still call it, "AMERICA"???

 

[Morat]

  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.

 

 

[Ben johnson]

You're free to do all sorts of offensive things.

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"?

Really???

 

[Brimshack]

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.

 

[TC]

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.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

?No man shall be compelled to frequent
or support any religious worship.?
Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.html

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.

http://www.au.org/myths.htm



As what I have found concerning that issue does not seem flattering to your case:

As it sounds rather fishy to me given what was said in the Treatise of Tripoli.

And yes, by supporting a religion the government is in essence establishing a religion.

The Founding Fathers were probably deist. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html

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

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/james_madison/memorial.html

More by Madison on the issue of Church and State found here: http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

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.

 

[Ben johnson]

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.

Fair is fair...

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

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

http://www.skeptictank.org/gbush.htm



Not an atheist president who spoke out against Xians.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

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.

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=religion

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.

 

[tom]

the pledge of allegience is part of our in heritance and there

four should remain in place .

 

[TC]

Fact.  Reality.  Non-myth:  John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court:  "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Maybe the first Chief Justice was wrong?

 

The non-believers among us seem to be getting mixed up on what is not established by our government - the church.  That does not mean that this nation, historically, ever intended to to keep God seperate.

 

One nation under God, not One nation under church.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by TC
Fact. Reality. Non-myth:  John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Maybe the first Chief Justice was wrong?

He was entitled to his opinion. Unfortunately for would-be Christian theocrats, there is a ban on religious tests for public office in the Constitution. As for the "Christian nation" bit, see the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and the entire Senate. America never was a "Christian nation." That's a lot of hooey. America is a secular nation. Read the Constitution. 

The non-believers among us seem to be getting mixed up on what is not established by our government - the church.  That does not mean that this nation, historically, ever intended to to keep God seperate.

Actually it's the religious fanatics that are mixed up. The 9th Circuit struck down an unconstitutional 1954 Act of Congress, that's all. Show us why it was mistaken, with references and precedent please.

 

[TC]

Christians, friend are not theocrats.  America has never been a theocracy; look to the Arab states to find that.  America never had a problem understanding her Christian heritage, either, until it came under attack in the 60's, the anti-Christian, history revisionist lies have been spread, even taught in tax-payer sponsored public schools for so long that it is taken as truth.

 

Fact, history, non-myth: The Supreme Court asserted in 1892, after an exhaustive study  of volumes of historical documents that the united states of America is "...a Christian nation".  In 1932 Chief Cjustice Douglas reviewed the 1892 decision in reference to another case and and affirmed that "we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".

 

The left-wing movement's whole basis for removing any reference to the Creator is a letter, written by Thomas Jefferson to Nehemiah Dodge, Ephram Robbins and Stephen Nelson of the Danbury Baptist Association.

 

The fact that Jefferson approved the government's role in the "propagation of the Gospel among the heathen,", and that he wrote that the students at the University of Virginia, which he founded, should be "expected to to attend religious worship at the establishment of their respective sects," suggests that whether or not he believed in Christianity and/or God, he publically supported both.

 

Why?

 

I imagine he felt the same as Benjamin Franklin, who was not known to be a Bible-thumper either, who stated that the only way this "experiment in society" would survive was with Judeo-Christian ethics and morals.

 

Ben also made one of my favorite sayings:  "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

 

[Ben johnson]

TC, awesome posts!!!

Anyone who believes there is not an orchestrated, dedicated effort to "rid America of any vestige of Christianity", is either blind, or deluded. A true athiest is not offended by the public display of Christianity---as I said, the substance of atheism, is non-belief in God. One is not afraid of nor offended by that which he thinks does not exist. Rather than "offense", he feels "pity for the superstitious dullards".

But the reality is that which our Founding Fathers embraced and approved is being systematically removed.

I am actually PLEASED at the California court's ruling. Liberalism and its agenda is EXPOSED. The reaction by the public was swift and strong. But, alas, the "wearing away of our rights" has been slow and continuous, like water slowly crumbling a block of sandstone. Our citizenry is spoiled and lazy. The patriotism evinced after last September has begun to wane. So too will reaction on this incident.

You see, if a frog is thrown into hot water, he will quickly jump out. But if you put him in a pan of cool water, and turn up the heat gradually, he will blithely ignore his demise...

We are the frog. THIS time the water was heated too quickly---next time it will be more gradual...

...until the salute is gone, the motto is gone, all Christian trace will be gone...

Will we still be called, America?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

TC I would like some links to this info. Just saying it is "fact, reality, etc" does not make it so.

As for America being a Xian nation, read the Treatise of Tripoli.

If you really think it is, find me some pro-Xian references and pro-Xian statements in the U.S. constitution. The fact is there are none, and if the US system was really built on Xianity, the Founders probably wouldn't leave something that important out.

Despite your ill-concieved allegations:

1) The lef it not trying to outlaw or remove references to a creator. The "left" is just trying to get rid of government support of religion. This based partially on a letter Jefferson wrote:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/letter_to_baptists.html


And the fact that if taken to its logical conclusion, there can be no freedom on the question of religion if the government supports religion. Notice that Jefferson said that religion is a matter between a man and god, i.e. are a matter of opinion to which he only owes an account to his faith and worship (not government) and that legislative power only effects actions.....not opinions. I.E. that government should not tell you what to believe. By supporting religion and gospel writing government would be doing just that.

If you want Supreme Court decisions read here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

Remember that not only did Jefferson write the Wall of Seperation bit, but:

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

Remember that Jefferson and Madison, are the writers of the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the Establishment Clause.Look at how the law says that a government that may establish christianity in general may be able to establish a paticular sect of Christianity.

You guys keep saying that they only meant it in reference to the "Catholic Church" yet there is zero evidence for that claim. Or at least you haven't shown any evidence for that, and if one thinks about it, doesn't it seem like the Founding Fathers would be perfectly capable of saying that for themselves?

"The purpose of the first amendment is to prevent the establishment of a national or catholic church".

That would have been pretty easy.

If this was really meant to be "one nation under God" then why did the phrase have to be added in the 1950s?


TC asks rhetorically "maybe the Chief Justice is wrong" riding on the supposed authority of a Chief Justice while ignoring the fact that a latter Chief Justice supported the wall of separation, given TC's standards....it would be silly for him to imagine Chief Justice J. Black is wrong.

and BTW just because the fundies are not yet as opressive as their breathren in Pakistan, does not mean that they do not strive to be. Nor that their practices and version of government they would set up ( a government based on Judeo-Christian law) would be any less theocratic.

Ben and TC say that liberals are trying to remove and violate the rights of Christians, when in fact they only act in order to make it so that Xians cannot force their beliefs on anyone else, using some of the most blatant forms of doublespeak I have ever seen. Basically they are saying that they can force another person's kid into a Xian based religious school, where the kid would be forced to sit through prayer, a religious pledge and view the ten commandments under the justification that this is "one nation under God", and say that it is the liberals that violate THEIR rights by not allowing this.

That's like if a marxist wanted the communist manifesto on a plaque in public schools, wanted kids to engage each day in a support of marxism and put in a pledge that included the words "one nation, against religion" and then claimed that Marxist rights were "violated" by not allowing this in public schools.

Perhaps the Marxists could defend their position by saying such a policy is not as bad as that of China. However such a policy, like that of its Xian counterpart, is obviously a form of opression which can easily lead to an authoritarian state.

 

[Morat]

Fact, history, non-myth: The Supreme Court asserted in 1892, after an exhaustive study  of volumes of historical documents that the united states of America is "...a Christian nation".  In 1932 Chief Cjustice Douglas reviewed the 1892 decision in reference to another case and and affirmed that "we are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being".

  References please. The specific cases for the 1932 and 1892 decisions will work, although it would be nice to reference whether these cases were overturned later.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

The 1892 case is Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. David Barton never shuts up about it. It's an obscure opinion written by a forgotten Justice who remarks in passing that a lot of Americans were Christians at the time, a remarkable insight. It has nothing to do with the decision and it has no relevance to any legal precedent whatsoever. If this is the best evidence the "Christian nation" crowd has, they're in pretty rough shape.

I would like to know what the other case is too.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by Ben johnson
Anyone who believes there is not an orchestrated, dedicated effort to "rid America of any vestige of Christianity", is either blind, or deluded.

So you're admitting that "under God" is a reference to Christian "God." Hmm.

A true athiest is not offended by the public display of Christianity---as I said, the substance of atheism, is non-belief in God. One is not afraid of nor offended by that which he thinks does not exist.

No, we just like to see the establishment clause respected by the government, that's all. 

Rather than "offense", he feels "pity for the superstitious dullards".

That is often the case as well. But it's just a fringe benefit.

But the reality is that which our Founding Fathers embraced and approved is being systematically removed.

The founding fathers embraced and approved the establishment clause, that much is certain.

I am actually PLEASED at the California court's ruling. Liberalism and its agenda is EXPOSED.

The Judge that wrote the opinion was appointed by Richard Nixon. So much for your "liberal agenda."

blah blah blah ...until the salute is gone, the motto is gone, all Christian trace will be gone... Will we still be called, America?

I find it very interesting that you think the Pledge of Allegiance is an ode to the Christian "God." That's pretty funny. You're supposed to deny that vehemently and claim it's merely an expression of "ceremonial deism." C'mon, get your legal argument together.

 

[TC]

The Treatise at Triploi is in no way contradictory to what was undertsood for well over a century; that we are a Christina nation, yet we are not a religious theocracy.

 

All the things that the leftists and the non-believers assert, just a few decades ago would have been thought of as ludicrous.  The findings of the Supreme court is totally ambiguous our a small, obsure finding, unless it is the finding of the new, liberal-left courts appointed by the recent, left leaning presidents. 

 

I have an idea, why don't you show me the all-powerful words wall of seperation or seperation of church and state in the constitution.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was found, pencilled in, after the past few years of treasonous creatures inhabiting D.C. and their legacy sitting on some of the strongest courts in the nation.

 

Anyone who thinks that Americans were complete dolts, until the 60's came along with all it's enlightening left-thinking activists who, much to the Christians discredit, hijacked the system without even a shot being fired.  While Thomas Jefferson wrote that letter to friends at Danbury, no doubt, the words have been interpreted to mean much more than the obvious meaning, considering who he was writing to, where the new nation came from and what it was afraid of happening to us here.

 

Once again, make no mistake, this anti-Christian push is new to the nations history, having started in the 60's, and being aggressively pushed by the left.  Anyone who denies this is either deluded about present-day history as well as the older history of the nation, or they are flat-out lying in order to further their cause of elimintaing the Christian heritage of this nation.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by TC
All the things that the leftists and the non-believers assert, just a few decades ago would have been thought of as ludicrous. The findings of the Supreme court is totally ambiguous our a small, obsure finding, unless it is the finding of the new, liberal-left courts appointed by the recent, left leaning presidents.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think I get the drift.

Here's your assignment, TC. Go to oyez.nwu.edu and tell us how many of the last 25 or so Supreme Court Justices were appointed by "left-leaning" Presidents. I'll give you a little head start. One of them, Byron White, appointed by JFK, was one of the most conservative Justices in recent memory.

Also, tell us how many of the current nine Justices were appointed by "left-leaning" Presidents. While you're at it count the number of times the phrase "wall of separation" appears in establishment clause cases, starting with Everson in 1947, in an opinion written by that "left-leaning" radical, Hugo Black.