Pledge Unconstitutional

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie
So what do you do when your country turns it's back on God?

Bear, gunny, all you navy guys... what do us military guys who have sworn allegiance to this country do when it turns it's back on God?

Are Marines still going to believe in God, Country, Corps, Self?

I really have no opinion on the matter, possibly because I have become calous to the spiritual degradation of our nations populace as a whole. I'm sad but not surprised.

 

The Spanish-American War, WW1, WW2, the Korean War, and several other military actions all took place before the pledge of allegiance was changed.

American soldiers, sailors and Marines fought in all these conflicts - right?

If the extra clause in the pledge of allegiance were all that important, then how did any American soldiers ever fight and win in these wars?  Before the extra clause was inserted, I mean?

Were the Marines or soldiers incompetent before that happened?  Were their oaths of loyalty broken or weak before 1954?

The implications of your statement make no sense. 

 

[coastie]

The implications of your statement make no sense. 

hey... chill.

It's not the pledge itelf, it's this landmark decision. When we edit God out of everything we have in this country, we have then admitted defeat to total spiritual degradation. If you don't believe that spirituality is an important aspect of a people's existence, then, of course, what difference does it make to you?

Why do I disagree with the decision? Because I have a deep faith in my beliefs, and I see eliminating God from a society as potentially detrimental.

You don't agree? I'm so surprised!

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie


hey... chill.

It's not the pledge itelf, it's this landmark decision. When we edit God out of everything we have in this country, we have then admitted defeat to total spiritual degradation.

Still doesn't answre my question.  Was the USA "totally spiritually degraded" before this was inserted in 1954?

If not, then why would it be in that shape now?

If you don't believe that spirituality is an important aspect of a people's existence, then, of course, what difference does it make to you?

Because

1. the pledge is supposed to be for all Americans, not just those who "believe that spirituality is an important aspect".

2. the pledge, as it exists now, does not just support "spirituality". It supports one particular type:  the Christian type.  You are not being honest about the intent behind why this clause was inserted in 1954.

Why do I disagree with the decision? Because I have a deep faith in my beliefs, and I see eliminating God from a society as potentially detrimental.

I know why you disagree.  However, when we pass laws in  this country, we don't do so because of religious views. 

You don't agree? I'm so surprised!

Yep.  That's what happens when one actually reads history, instead of making it up.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by coastie


hey... chill.

Baby, I'm so cool you can hang a side of beef in me.

It's not the pledge itelf, it's this landmark decision. When we edit God out of everything we have in this country, we have then admitted defeat to total spiritual degradation. If you don't believe that spirituality is an important aspect of a people's existence, then, of course, what difference does it make to you?

All the difference in the world. This government is probably more Christian now than it's ever been. Certainly, Jefferson was quite strong on this point and would never have permitted this sorry state. While a somewhat religious man (a Deist), he was adamant about the separation of church and state and said so in no uncertain terms.

Besides, you're not advocating spirituality. You're advocating sticking spirituality in the face of everyone, even if they don't share your belief system.

You thinks atheists aren't spiritual? Darn right, by your apparent definition of the word, which I'm sure means "Not Christian".

 

Why do I disagree with the decision? Because I have a deep faith in my beliefs, and I see eliminating God from a society as potentially detrimental.

So deep, in fact, that you advocate forcing others to suffer under your religion. It's not enough that you have your religion: this whole government is going to pot in your eyes if you can't force every single person on this planet to be Christian.

You don't understand. I don't believe in your God. Putting the "under God" in the Pledge is about the same in my book as putting "under Popeye the Sailor Man". They're both as real to me. The only difference is that Popeye-worshippers don't try to force me to worship him too.

   Jeff

 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

This is starting to feel like a total a waste of my time. I was up until 2 AM the other day fielding these baseless arguments of yours when I should have been working on my book.

All this excuse-making and sophistry doesn't hide the fact that the "under God" was meant as a big "up yours" to atheists. The President said as much when he signed the act, and all the verbal acrobatics in the world can't change the fact that he did this in an official capacity.

The Pledge did not have these words in until 1950-ish (1954, I believe) which means that both my parents are old enough to remember them being introduced. That's how recent this change is.

The President stated his intent quite clearly. There is no disputing that.

Now, since everybody here is moaning and wailing that this isn't discriminating against atheists, here's what I want to know:

What else do these two words add, if not to say that religion is cooler than atheism? (hint: if they add anything to do with religion or "spirituality", then you're discriminating against atheism.)

Until you have answered this question, I'm not even going to bother reading this thread anymore. I think you're all whining because you've been spoiled by the Christian-centric government and all these priveleges that non-Christians have never had, and the moment someone even takes away just one of the most minor of these unfair priveleges, you have the unmitigated gall to claim you're being discriminated against, and that this is a plot to (get this) promote atheism.

(Oh yes, we atheists control so much of the government; didn't you know that? Why in both houses of the legislature plus the executive and judicial branches, there must be at least four or five atheists. It's all an atheist conspiracy, you see.)

So please answer this question. What do these two words add if not to say "We Americans are not atheists"?

    Jeff

 

[edit: typo]

 

[coastie]

[qoute]Still doesn't answre my question.  Was the USA "totally spiritually degraded" before this was inserted in 1954?

If not, then why would it be in that shape now?
[/quote]

No it wasn't, I'm not saying that the US is a complete spiritual void, I'm just saying that this is a step in the direction.

1. the pledge is supposed to be for all Americans, not just those who "believe that spirituality is an important aspect".

I'm all for majority rules, I'm saying that this is a sign, and that I believe that if God were running the show here, things would be better. However, I concede that never won't happen until the second coming anyway.

2. the pledge, as it exists now, does not just support "spirituality". It supports one particular type:  the Christian type.  You are not being honest about the intent behind why this clause was inserted in 1954.

And I don't just support "spirituality" either. I advocate Christianity. I was never dishonest. In fact, I never said anything about the intent of the clause.

I know why you disagree.  However, when we pass laws in  this country, we don't do so because of religious views. 

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Yep.&nbsp; That's what happens when one actually <I>reads</I></B> history, instead of making it up.

LOL... ok. Forgive my ignorance.

Baby, I'm so cool you can hang a side of beef in me.

LOL... I can tell!

This government is probably more Christian now than it's ever been.

That I doubt. I work for the government, I&nbsp;work with maybeone practicing Christian besides myself. The government hasn't been run by Godly men a long time.

Certainly, Jefferson was quite strong on this point and would never have permitted this sorry state. While a somewhat religious man (a Deist), he was adamant about the separation of church and state and said so in no uncertain terms.

Agreed. That doesn't mean that I agree with it. But that's the way it is and I see no need to argue that considering the futility of the discussion that would arise.


More later... I have to go. I'll see you all tonight

&nbsp;

Zach

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet


If you claim that this is not a society heavily biased towards Christianity, then I&nbsp;think you're either lying to me or to yourself, but I can't tell which.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Oh yes, I agree.&nbsp; This society is heavily biased towards Christianity or at least some sort of Theist belief.&nbsp; But currently noone is required to be Christian, under penalty of the law.&nbsp; And believe me I hope that it never comes to that.

So, Jeff. I did not post much yesterday, because I was working on my book too.&nbsp; Apparently I missed alot.&nbsp; Your book is probably alot more scholarly than mine, though.&nbsp; Mine is fiction, and a plain old boring horror novel.&nbsp; Wanna share?&nbsp; I'm interested.

Also, I wanted to ask if you had a chance to respond to my post to you asking about what&nbsp;types of discrimination that you have experienced as an atheist.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Here it is in short:

Has anyone ever asked you to sit in the back of a bus, because they found out you were an atheist?

Has anyone ever told you to drink from a different water fountain because they found out you were an atheist?

Forced you to eat in the kitchen of a restaurant so that the other customers didn't have to look at you?

Give me some examples of what types of things do you go through that you consider persecution.&nbsp; Heck, maybe I'll jump on your bandwagon and we can get a legal fund together.&nbsp;

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie

Still doesn't answre my question.&nbsp; Was the USA "totally spiritually degraded" before this was inserted in 1954?

If not, then why would it be in that shape now?

No it wasn't, I'm not saying that the US is a complete spiritual void, I'm just saying that this is a step in the direction.

So then answer my question:&nbsp; if we got along just fine through five wars, without this extra phrase in the pledge, then why can't we get along without it now?

You seem to think it indicates that we are falling into a moral state of decay.&nbsp; But we're only talking about returning the pledge to its original form.&nbsp;

If we weren't in a state of moral decay 50 years ago, when this extra phrase did not exist, then we shouldn't be in a state of moral decay if we remove it.

I'm all for majority rules,

I'm not.&nbsp;

If "majority rule" were such a good thing, then blacks would never have gotten to vote.&nbsp;

Majority rules is a bad principle, when we're talking about personal liberties and freedoms.

I'm saying that this is a sign, and that I believe that if God were running the show here, things would be better.

This is a sign of what?&nbsp; That we're returning the pledge to its original form, before it got tampered with?

However, I concede that never won't happen until the second coming anyway.

Then why do you care?

And I don't just support "spirituality" either.&nbsp;I&nbsp;advocate Christianity. I was never dishonest. In fact, I never said anything about the intent of the clause.

Then maybe you should investigate the original intent of the clause, before saying that it was only intended to support spirituality, in the general sense.&nbsp;

Because if you *do* investigate it, you'll discover that it was very deliberately intended to support Christianity - which is precisely why this extra phrase is unconstitutional.

 

[MyJhongFist]

Originally posted by Sauron


So then answer my question:&nbsp; if we got along just fine through five wars, without this extra phrase in the pledge, then why can't we get along without it now?

You seem to think it indicates that we are falling into a moral state of decay.&nbsp; But we're only talking about returning the pledge to its original form.&nbsp;

If we weren't in a state of moral decay 50 years ago, when this extra phrase did not exist, then we shouldn't be in a state of moral decay if we remove it.

You are right,&nbsp; we could get along without it.&nbsp; I agree completely.

However you must understand, that to some Christians (myself NOT included) that look at this as a sign that the nation is becoming increasingly anti-god-of-any-kind.

Originally posted by Sauron

If "majority rule" were such a good thing, then blacks would never have gotten to vote.&nbsp;

Majority rules is a bad principle, when we're talking about personal liberties and freedoms.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't democracy an example of majority rules?&nbsp; In a democracy, the law is based upon what the majority votes that it should be.&nbsp; True?

&nbsp;

Originally posted by Sauron
Then maybe you should investigate the original intent of the clause, before saying that it was only intended to support spirituality, in the general sense.&nbsp;

Because if you *do* investigate it, you'll discover that it was very deliberately intended to support Christianity - which is precisely why this extra phrase is unconstitutional.

&nbsp;

Once again, who cares what it was originally meant to be?&nbsp; Most people do not know the original intent of the insertion.&nbsp;&nbsp; I didn't until this thread started.&nbsp; Just goes to show that you learn something new every day.

Growing up, most people probably thought that the pledge was that way all along.&nbsp; Therefore, it was resigned to nothing more than ritual instead of a conspiracy to force everyone to believe a certain way.

(Disclaimer:&nbsp; As has already been stated, I do not care if anyone changes the pledge.&nbsp; It does not affect my beliefs in any way.&nbsp; I am just wondering why everyone is not more easy going.)

 

[coastie]

Alright I'm back... and holy cow! You guys are hostile!

So deep, in fact, that you advocate forcing others to suffer under your religion. It's not enough that you have your religion: this whole government is going to pot in your eyes if you can't force every single person on this planet to be Christian.

I'm not advocating anything of the sort. How dare Christians desire to save your soul&nbsp;to afford you the opportunity to have everlasting life! Shame on them!

I don't want to force anyone, besides, can you really force anyone to love God? Obviously not.

You don't understand. I don't <I>believe</I> in your God. Putting the "under God" in the Pledge is about the same in my book as putting "under Popeye the Sailor Man". They're both as real to me. The only difference is that Popeye-worshippers don't try to force me to worship him too.&nbsp;

I can't stand it hen people say "You don't understand." I understand completely, my arguments mean NOTHING to you because you don't believe in God. How sad that is to me!

I was never forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance except when I was in Kindergarten at a private school. The rest of school I went to public schools and was NEVER forced to say the pledge of allegiance.

I do not advocate forcing anyone to worship ANY religion. You guys really think that I'm some kind of tyrant don't you? Sheesh!

Ok Sauron's turn:

So then answer my question:&nbsp; if we got along just fine through five wars, without this extra phrase in the pledge, then why can't we get along without it now?

I'm starting to think that you aren't reading my posts here. I didn't say that we can't get along without it, I'm saying that it is a sign of the nation's withdraw from Christianity (which I use in place of spirituality to avoid conflict).

You seem to think it indicates that we are falling into a moral state of decay.&nbsp; But we're only talking about returning the pledge to its original form.&nbsp;

You said it yourself. This indicates a state of moral decay. I don't think it is the cause of moral decay, it is just a sign of moral decay that has been occurring for years.

If "majority rule" were such a good thing, then blacks would never have gotten to vote.&nbsp;

Majority rules is a bad principle, when we're talking about personal liberties and freedoms.

I was using majority rules in the context democracy, not in the context that the majority is always right.

Then why do you care?

Because if I didn't and all Christians just sat back and let things happen around them without tryign to spread God's love, then things would be even worse off.

Then maybe you should investigate the original intent of the clause, before saying that it was only intended to support spirituality, in the general sense.&nbsp;

Because if you *do* investigate it, you'll discover that it was very deliberately intended to support Christianity - which is precisely why this extra phrase is unconstitutional.

WHAT!? I never said that it was to support spirituality in general.

You just read whatever you want into what I say. How about you lose the anger and general discontent and try and be a little more tolerant of my beliefs, even if you think that we Christians are the bane of your existence (which is just a guess... feel free to prove me wrong).

Zach

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist

You are right,&nbsp; we could get along without it.&nbsp; I agree completely.

However you must understand, that to some Christians (myself NOT included) that look at this as a sign that the nation is becoming increasingly anti-god-of-any-kind.

I understand that is how some christians feel.&nbsp; But the specific objection raised here, by coastie and the gunny sgt, was that removing this phrase from the pledge made the oath of allegiance weaker, or meaningless, for military members.

My question is:&nbsp; Our military fought and won five wars just fine before the pledge was changed.&nbsp; So doesn't that prove that their oaths will be just fine, without the extra "under God" clause in the pledge?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't democracy an example of majority rules?&nbsp; In a democracy, the law is based upon what the majority votes that it should be.&nbsp; True?

True.&nbsp; However,&nbsp;the USA is a republic, not a democracy.&nbsp; In a republic, the rights of the&nbsp;minority&nbsp;are protected&nbsp;against being trampled by the majority.&nbsp; If that were not the case, then blacks would never have gotten the vote, since (at the time) the majority of whites were&nbsp;against extending&nbsp;voting rights to blacks.

&nbsp;&nbsp;

Once again, who cares what it was originally meant to be?&nbsp; Most people do not know the original intent of the insertion.&nbsp;&nbsp;

It is important to know what the original intent was - especially when someone tries&nbsp;to claim that it's only in the pledge&nbsp;to affirm "spirituality".&nbsp; By knowing the original intent, you can refute such an argument, and see it for what it really is: a rationalization to retain christian favoritism.

(Disclaimer:&nbsp; As has already been stated, I do not care if anyone changes the pledge.&nbsp; It does not affect my beliefs in any way.&nbsp; I am just wondering why everyone is not more easy going.)

Because America already has way too much mixing of church and state.&nbsp; Christians hold disproportionate power in this society, and they use it to their own advantage against other groups who disagree with them.

 

[coastie]

(Disclaimer:&nbsp; As has already been stated, I do not care if anyone changes the pledge.&nbsp; It does not affect my beliefs in any way.&nbsp; I am just wondering why everyone is not more easy going.)

I agree. It doesn't effect anything. It's just a sign of the ever-grwing unpopularity of Christianity. That was my original reason for the response. Some of you really need to take a breather.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by MyJhongFist
&nbsp;


Also, I wanted to ask if you had a chance to respond to my post to you asking about what&nbsp;types of discrimination that you have experienced as an atheist.&nbsp;&nbsp;

No, I'm not fielding any more questions until my question (in my last post) gets addressed. I've been spending too much time here, and it's starting to feel like time wasted.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by coastie


I agree. It doesn't effect anything. It's just a sign of the ever-grwing unpopularity of Christianity. That was my original reason for the response. Some of you really need to take a breather.

It still doesn't make sense.

Why does telling you, "Hey!&nbsp; You can't write the rules for all of us in society" somehow equate to christianity being unpopular?

Do you think that christianity can only be popular, if it gets to set the rules for all of American society?&nbsp;

As far as this pledge thing goes - Christians are behaving like parents who wake up one day and finally discover that their children are all grown up and can think for themselves.&nbsp; All of a sudden, the parents' feelings&nbsp;are hurt that the child won't let them make the rules anymore.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[coastie]

Why does telling you, "Hey!&nbsp; You can't write the rules for all of us in society" somehow equate to christianity being <B>unpopular</B>?

No one's trying to write rules for you. Extricating God from the pledge implies the lack of importance God has in today's society.

Do you think that christianity can only be popular, if it gets to set the rules for all of American society?&nbsp;

No, I think that extracting Christianity from the culture shows the growing unpopularity.

As far as this pledge thing goes - Christians are behaving like parents who wake up one day and finally discover that their children are all grown up and can think for themselves.&nbsp; All of a sudden, the parents' feelings&nbsp;are hurt that the child won't let them make the rules anymore

Really? all Christians? Hmmm...

Jeez... I hate that. But that's not how I feel. I feel sad that Christianity isn't as big a part of our culture as it used to be. You are making A LOT of assumptions.

 

[TheBear]

Show me legislation and laws that make the USA a Christian state....Please, that's all I am asking you to prove.

And, by the way, you can call it what you want, all Presidents say all kinds of things, whether it be reading something his speech writers put together, speaking from his heart, or speaking some off the cuff remarks. NONE of these 'official' words are bound by law. The only time a President can make laws, without congress' due process of the law, would be in time of a national emergency. Even these are but a few, relating to military defense and such. All other laws, or amendments to the Constitution, must go through the arduous process of Congressional review and debate.

I can't say it any more clearer than that. You cannot take a President's words, and claim that he is making law as he speaks. The Constitution is a thing of genius, it does not allow for such things. 'Official' words of any President, don't make it law.


John

 

[coastie]

What <I>else</I> do these two words add, if not to say that religion is cooler than atheism?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ignore your question. Somehow I passed over that entire post.

"One Nation under God"

Well, I guess quite literally that means "under the rule of God."

I assume it's up for interpretation since nobody made a fuss over it in 1954.

I doubt it was meant to say "up yours" to atheists or Christianity is cooler than atheism. That would be like me saying that you were implying "Up yours Christians" when you say "there is no God."

That's not what I get from that. I take it as it is, you stating your beliefs, not intending to insult Christians. But you can interpret it however you want, because your side won. Godo for you, bad for me, oh well.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by coastie


I'm sorry. I didn't mean to ignore your question. Somehow I passed over that entire post.

"One Nation under God"

Well, I guess quite literally that means "under the rule of God."

I assume it's up for interpretation since nobody made a fuss over it in 1954.

I doubt it was meant to say "up yours" to atheists or Christianity is cooler than atheism. That would be like me saying that you were implying "Up yours Christians" when you say "there is no God."

That's not what I get from that. I take it as it is, you stating your beliefs, not intending to insult Christians. But you can interpret it however you want, because your side won. Godo for you, bad for me, oh well.

Actually, long term, it's more likely that you'll win. The government has never been more Christian than it is right now (when's the last time a non-Christian has been President? Abe Lincoln?), and even those in the congress and senate who aren't Christian will cave before their peers and Christian constitutents.

So, even though it's morally an outrage, you'll probably have your Pledge back soon enough:

"I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag of the United Christian States of America, and to the Christian republic for which it stands, one Christian nation, under the alleged Christian god, with indivisible Christians, and with liberty and justice to all Christians."

Boy, does this make me sick.

"Waaah, we want our God back in the Pledge. To heck with all the atheists and people&nbsp;monotheistic religion. Even though they think our god is a fiction, we have every right to make the government shove him down their throats. And if they don't like it, why, they're un-American, and&nbsp;they're just trying to make us atheists, is all, and they're oppressing us!"

I can't even talk to you guys, it makes me so angry.

Varelse.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Jeff

&nbsp;

 

[coastie]

I suggest you don't discuss this topic with us. I was trying to have a simple discussion with you, but you turned to anger instead of simply discussing this.

I'm not going to argue ith you, so I'm ducking out now.

&nbsp;

God Bless,

Zach

 

[TheBear]

Actually, long term, it's more likely that you'll win. The government has never been more Christian than it is right now (when's the last time a non-Christian has been President? Abe Lincoln?), and even those in the congress and senate who aren't Christian will cave before their peers and Christian constitutents.

Hmmmmm....This would indicate that the majority of American citizens believe in God. And, praise the Lord! It is the one true Christian God.