Pledge Unconstitutional

[seebs]

Our nation was founded by people who wanted to ensure that people whose religions were different from the state religion would not have to put up with it. They were right.

It's easy to say "we were founded on Judeo-Christian values" (although it's only partially true)... but what happens a hundred years from now, if the Hindus outnumber the Christians? Would you feel the same way if the pledge said "Under Vishnu"?

Or, if you want to try a different version, imagine that it was a black person suing because the pledge said "under whites". Still totally silly?

America is a free country, and that includes freedom for the minorities, even the ones you and I may not be part of, or may not be real comfortable with.

 

[TheBear]

Originally posted by Sauron

The question is motivation - why did they enact this law? What was the goal?

And you're wrong about the comments not being part of the body of law. When Congress passes laws, and when individual members address the floor, those speeches are permanently entered into the Congressional Record. During a dispute about what the intent of a law is (perhaps years after the law is passed), the Congressional Record can be searched to try and figure out what the goals and expectations of the lawmakers were back when they first passed the legislation.

All true, but also irrelevant to the discussion. The question on the table is "why was this inserted into the pledge in the first place?"

Why was there no stink, when, "Alternative Lifestyle Tolerance and Understanding", was forced into the Public School System.......yeah, throw a few condoms at 'em, while your at it.

Also note my comment above, concerning the admissibility of items such as the Congressional Record to divine the original intent of a law.

There is a huge distinction between Congress passing a Law, and Congress debating a Bill. But, you are right about how to rightly decipher the intent of a law. We are in agreement on this. I will use this agreement as a reference point for further discussion.


John

 

[TheBear]

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

Thomas Jefferson

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by humblejoe


Rufus, that's absolutely disturbing.

Can you give the names of the states?

Humblejoe,

Try this link.

 

[Starscream]

Why was there no stink, when, "Alternative Lifestyle Tolerance and Understanding", was forced into the Public School System.......yeah, throw a few condoms at 'em, while your at it. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/images/smilies/mad.gif" border=0>

You and I both know there was plenty of stink and that there still is.

 

[TC]

Seebs, you are simply giving your opinion of what you would like the founding fathers to have said.&nbsp; I have stated what they did say, I have given numerous examples, and will repeat what Ben Franklin said, and that was that the only way this experiment in society will succeed is with Judeo-Christian&nbsp;ethics morals and principles.

&nbsp;

The nation was not intended to be a multi-cultural experiment.&nbsp; It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that divisions in culture and moral code weaken a civiliztion, not strengthen.

&nbsp;

The fathers believed that theis was Divine Providence; I don't think they were confused, and they lived long before the left movement was around to tell them what they really meant when they said something.

&nbsp;

Again, why was there no confusion about what this country was founded on, and what ethics and morals were those used by this society, until the left began its push to cloud and twist the truth?

&nbsp;

I stick with the plain facts when it comes to the Constitution and the history.&nbsp; If you are saying that we should alter the nation regardless of the actual origins of it, tell me why this nation will survive when others that went down that road crashed and burned.

&nbsp;

Personally, the nation that I want to leave to my children and theirs is the vision that the founding fathers had, and the one that God, I mean the real God, the God of Abraham, had when He guided and shaped the young nation.

&nbsp;

And, if the Hindus would like to pray to their god, they can go to India, where filth, disease and poverty rule the day.&nbsp; Vishnu and Kali had nothing to do with building or guiding this nation, so they may return to that nation and enjoy all that their gods built for them.&nbsp;&nbsp; Satanists have no nation as Satan is a destroyer, not a builder, and the Muslims may feel free to live in one of the thriving capitalist Islamic states where veryone has the freedom and liberties we do and the ability to be as prosperous as your willing to strive for as we are able to do here in this nation that God built.&nbsp; I'm sorry, where is that nation?&nbsp; You get the point.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by TC
I stick with the plain facts when it comes to the Constitution and the history.

You do know the US Constitution never mentions God, right?
&nbsp;

Personally, the nation that I want to leave to my children and theirs is the vision that the founding fathers had, and the one that God, I mean the real God, the God of Abraham, had when He guided and shaped the young nation.

Oh, but wait!!! I thought "God"&nbsp;was a ceremonial reference, and not the Christian God, but a general reference to a supreme deity?!?

That's the defense the right is using to keep&nbsp;"God" in the&nbsp;pledge and the currency!!!

And, if the Hindus would like to pray to their god, they can go to India

Essentially TC, you're claiming that people&nbsp;that practice other&nbsp;religions have no right to be in America. Are you sure you want to retain that statement for the "land of the free"?

And&nbsp;where are you really implying&nbsp;"they can go to" TC? I hope it's not where I'm thinking.

(By the way, Hindus are polytheistic, which means they have gods, not a god.)

Tut, tut, TC...&nbsp;you've shown very little compassion on those of differing nationalities&nbsp;in this thread. Do you think the common people, the poor and the suffering of these countries, and the immigrants and their children&nbsp;can be held accountable for&nbsp;the actions of&nbsp;other nations'&nbsp;government's founders? It seems as though you do.

 

[TC]

After studying Constitutional law and the history of the U.S. and the documents supporting the founding fathers' opinion and reason for the Constitution as it is, the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence being formed as they were, and the Articles of Confederation and it's shortcomings and why the ol' boys had to go back to the drawing table to do better, I've got a bit of a notion why what was written and what it meant.&nbsp; It's been 10 years of studying as most people come home and watch the TV.&nbsp; I believe, therefore, that I know that the word "God" is not used in the constitution.&nbsp; I do, however, know what their intention was with the first clause of the first amendment.

&nbsp;

Do not try and twist my words into being hate slurs against those who immigrate to this land.&nbsp; I was plain and clear, and I did not mis-type.

&nbsp;

As far as the other cute little garbage you posted and attempted to imply I said, you are, once agtain, trying to twist and play with my words and imply I said something that I did not say.&nbsp; That makes you a liar.&nbsp; I will thank you not to make false claims against me, and not to assume you have a clue what I mean to say or what I think.&nbsp; Your knowledge of the topic is apparently inadequate and you can only assume as a child can assume to know what a teacher is thinking.

&nbsp;

I will, however, humor you with one more response to an absurd writing of yours, and that is the statement oabout those who inherited the other nations:

&nbsp;

My concern is not the other nations, those who live there and their inheritance from their forefathers.&nbsp; My primary concern is the inheritance from my forefathers to my children.&nbsp; The only way there will be anything of worth to pas down is to protect it, as we are suppose to do.&nbsp; Those who want to come here and assimilate may do so, at our conveniance and needs, not there's.&nbsp; It is not a right to relocate to this nation.&nbsp; And once you relocate, assimilate.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Leave your failed gods and traditions in the old country.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

A melting pot, not a mixing bowl.&nbsp; One culture, not a weakening multi-culture.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 

[Starscream]

And once you relocate, assimilate.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Leave your failed gods and traditions in the old country.

Wow!&nbsp; And you call humblejoe's post trash?&nbsp;

Maybe the Christians should of left their failed gods and traditions in the old country when they stole this land from the natives?

Perhaps, that's what the founders were trying to do?&nbsp; They were very aware of what religious tyranny is capable of.

What blind and raged prejudice you have within you.&nbsp; IMHO, opinions like that are destroying your religion.

&nbsp;

 

[Starscream]

I invite everyone to check out what the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs has to say about this, here.

In part:

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]The decision of the Ninth Circuit is something of a tempest in a teapot. It will most likely be overruled by the full panel of the Ninth Circuit, even as politicians and others continue to misuse the case for political purposes. Let us use this opportunity to discuss our basic civil and religious values, not as an occasion to engage in divisive name-calling and boorish behavior that belies the best of what it means to be an American.

[/font]

[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]Not too shabby.
[/font]

 

[Brimshack]

"And, if the Hindus would like to pray to their god, they can go to India, where filth, disease and poverty rule the day._ Vishnu and Kali had nothing to do with building or guiding this nation, so they may return to that nation and enjoy all that their gods built for them.__ Satanists have no nation as Satan is a destroyer, not a builder, and the Muslims may feel free to live in one of the thriving capitalist Islamic states where veryone has the freedom and liberties we do and the ability to be as prosperous as your willing to strive for as we are able to do here in this nation that God built._ I'm sorry, where is that nation?_ You get the point."

Well as long as we are shipping Hindus off to india if they wish to pray, I guess we better forc the last Native American hold-outs to convert, and if they don't what then? Assimilation isn't just for immigrants after all is it. But allowing people to make up their own minds is apparently too much to ask. It is clear from your posts TC that you do not regard even the free exercise clause as applying to non-Christians. When do they ship all the rest of us out?

 

[TC]

Once again, what the founding fathers were attempting to do is no mystery to me,&nbsp; whereas you say "maybe they..."&nbsp; I quote to you exactly what they said.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

What is the matter with Christians is not knowing and speaking the truth; what is the matter with them is that they are not willing to stand up and be counted anymore.&nbsp; They have bought the lie that was sold to them, beginnning in the 60's and they have kept quiet and let everyone else determine the landscape of this nation.&nbsp; You say everyone else has a right to be as they want, express the opinions of their groups, but only the Christians&nbsp; are told they have no business in government.&nbsp; Once again, I know the truth and the truth is not raged prejudiced.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, to not understand that multiple cultures cannot rule one government, and&nbsp;numerous concepts of morals cannot rule the ethics of the courts is being totally naive.&nbsp; That is not from theh founding fathers, that is from me, after studying history, and seeing the demise of nations that reached their pinnacle and were taken down, not from outsiders, but from the inside.

&nbsp;

Liberal destroyers have been theh ruination of not just this nation, and have been the builders of....(hold on, I'm thinking)....; you'll have to let me get back to you on that as I can think of nothing they've built.

&nbsp;

BTW, when those who hate God decide to speak their mind, or throw a parade of sickness, it is called pride.&nbsp; When a Christian speaks of the facts of this nations roots, and why he opposes the neo left attack against the nation, he is rage with prejudice?&nbsp; Seems you are another who feels the need to lay false claims against another.

&nbsp;

Maybe I shouldn't get too uptight about the way H-J came across.&nbsp; I'm sure Joe feels certain that the few hours of revised history we all receive is factual and concise enough to be all that is necessary.&nbsp; I understand that, and I understand that the continuous media assault of reinforcing misinformation takes its toll.&nbsp; My terse manner of confronting this misinformation, at least when perpetuated by fellow citizens, is wrong, and I apologize to HumbleJoe, and you.

&nbsp;

Just so you won't think that my studies were that of a concerned Christian citizen, alarmed that the first amendment and a few words by T. Jefferson were being used to ban the mention of God from the country, I'll tell you now that it wasn't.&nbsp; My initial research and study was due to having to enforce gun laws upon citizens that had no reason not to be allowed to carry a firearm.&nbsp; The second amendment seemed pretty straightforward to me, so I wanted to see how it had come about that the American citizen was weighed down with firearm restrictions.&nbsp; From there, many constitutional problems surfaced, the twisting of the 1st clause of the first amendment just one.&nbsp; Now, after several years and many dollars spent on books (you'd be surprised how much a text from West Publication costs!), I am certain that the founding fathers would be very disappointed in the American citizen.&nbsp; On the other hand, however, they really didn't think this experiment in society would last nowhere this long!&nbsp; So, I guess all in all, the fact that we have made it somewhat in tact this far is a testement to the founding fathers that are now considered evil white men and the God that some are now attempting to force out.

&nbsp;

But, while I apologize for my lack of patience with my fellow citizen, I make no apologies for the truth; it needs no apologies.

 

[Gunny]

One Nation Under God

&nbsp;

GySgt James

 

[Brimshack]

Was part of your post offered in response to mine TC? I'm not that worried about the tone of your pots, but I do disagree with your position. I think you are dealing in rather high levels of generality, and thus presenting a bit of a false dichotomy. I for one do not say that Christians should hve no say in the government, what I oppose is official government endorsement of Christianity. If there is really nothing in between these positions, then the estabishment cluse is meaningless.

"Multiculturalism" is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. All empires are by definition multicultural entities, and it's multiple conquests have long since bought America into the list of such entities. One doesn't need the latest left wing buzz-wrods to address the issue. If the constitution affords no rights to anyone but the conquerors, then our country is not so much a Christian Nation as it is a fascist nation. It is a might-makes-right formula, and I hope this is not the case. But it is better to deal wirth specifics.

Let me go back to my original point. YOur position sems to be that America is a Christian nation, and that neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause were meant to extend rights to anyone who is not Christian. So, when I teach an introductory course in the U.S. Constitution next fall, I will have a number of students who practice traditinal Navajo ceremonials rather than attending Christian churches, and many others will do both. I'll leave out the NAC altogether here so as to avoid a digression on peyote. My qustion is what do you think I should tell the traditional students about the religion clauses of the First Amendment?

Do I tell them that the free exercise clause doesn't apply to their ceremonies and beliefs? …that the policies banning such practices should be enforced again? …that the Constitution does not protect their Blessingway prayers, their sweatbaths or the traditional puberty ceremonies? Do I tell them to trust that they have nothing to fear from a Christian establishment in government policy? Can I say this with a straight face, knowing that such Christian-government policies organized mass kidnappings in the name of education up through the 1970s, knowing that some of my own students will have been through this? …that some may have been forced to stop speaking Navajo while they were help up in boarding schools, precisely because it could interfere with their assimilation? Do I tell them that Christian authorities will make the best government officials, knowing that the most corrupt agents sent to the Navajo reservation were in fact staunch Prebyterians appointed by the church directly to government positions? Do I tell them that any concerns they might have about Christian bias in America are nothing more than a passing fad called 'multiculturalism', and that they must accept that this is a Christian country and assimilate as soon as possible?

If it sounds like I m laying it on heavy, it is precisely because I want to make it clear that this is not an abstraction. I couldn't acare less about 'multiculturalism' as such, and academic buzz-words are easily dismissed. The problem is I know people that have been harmed personally by those enforcing the Christianity of American government. Next to these stories, the loss of two words in an official Pledge just doesn't impress me much, and I am getting real tired of hearing the latter constitutes some form of oppression.

Frankly I'm not sure how much I care what the founding fathers meant when it comes to these issues, though I think their consensus is far less clear than you suppose. The founding fathers simply didn't face the range of differences that we do today, and so all debate about what they would have done in the present is pure speculation. (BTW: There is no evidence that the founding fathers meant for us to be chained to their original interpretatoin; there is no 'original intent' for 'original intent' as a standard of Judicial interpretation.) In the end I would oppose any sense of formal establishment, not just because I find it personally offensive, but because it leads to genuinely harmful policies.

 

[Brimshack]

Here, let me save Gunny the trouble:



"One Nation Under God

_

GySgt James"

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by TC
I apologize to HumbleJoe

Thank you TC. I apologize also. I should not have responded so roughly.

Gracias TC. Me disculpo también. No debo haber respondido tan áspero.

Danke schön TC. Ich entschuldige mich auch. Ich sollte nicht so rauh reagiert haben.

Vive le difference!

 

[TC]

I humbly accept your apology as well, Sir.

 

[Pastor N.B.]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
One Nation Under God

&nbsp;

GySgt James

*******************************

Lets say that we were they? But, lets find us in Rev. 18:4 or Matt. 10:3-23 setting, as they first did? And instead of a new country, we only need to start up a new denomination? What do we do? We left as did they, to find a new beginning?
(something like non/denominational)

We are they, pretend? And we understand as Christians that God let the 'devil' live on! And that he is the one in charge of affairs on this earth. And our new USA country!(Matt. 4:8-9) But as REAL CHRISTIANS, the ones who started up the USA, these ones in moral maturity, knew what would lie ahead, would they not? AND THEY BELIEVED IN FREEDOM OF RELIGION. And they [needed] safeguards!(For that is why they fled to USA)
But ask yourself if they or we, would not RECOGNIZE that evil & sin would arise up in this USA again?? [OF COURSE THEY KNEW] Eccl. 1:9-10 & Eccl. 3:15!

So, was the country set up to be 'forced' Christian, or were the Christian's Christian? Was the country Caesar controlled as a government and also as the Church? God forbid! This is what they were protecting against by understanding the Lord's commandment for RELIGOUS freedom. So what did they do??

As you read Rom. 13 you can see exactly what they & us'ins
did & will do. "For this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are Gods ministers...for he that loveth [another] hath fulfilled the law. ... [For THIS,] (second table only)
Thou shalt not commit adultery ... kill ... steal ... covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is [briefly] comprehended in this saying, namely, [though shalt love thy NEIGHBOR as thyself]." (not the first four)

We would know also, as these did in this new [country], that this is the [second] table ONLY. (6-10 commandment)And that Caesar's duty to man, by our new government has access to [[only]] Matt. 22:39 & it is understood by these as a [division] from verse 35-40. (not the ones that they were fleeing from knew this mind you!) But they understood that the First Great Commandment was a hands off to Caesar! This is & was their MATURE MIND-SET! Caesar was to be used of God as His replaced theoracy ONLY, and as long as they HAD REGARDS FOR HIS RELIGOUS FREEDOM.

And they knew by scripture what would be the FINAL OUTCOME.
And where their church focus was to be in seperation of church & state!
Even down to Caesars government of 2/3 rule, (1/3 were cast out of heaven) When USA void's out Religous freedom by passing a 2/3 majority, we will see the start of the mark of the beast. (goverment from lamblike to dragon)

And the [total Royal Law]? (Covenant) It was & is, for the whole new mature Christian denomination as 'Everlasting Gospel'! They were to have the 'keys' to the CHURCH membership [ONLY]! Matt. 18:15-18.

Well--enough is enough, huh? P/N/B

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by Brimshack
Here, let me save Gunny the trouble:



"One Nation Under God

_

GySgt James"

Brim, thanks bro.

&nbsp;

GySgt James

 

[Blindfaith]

I have a suggestion for all those out there who don't agree with the statement, "Under God".&nbsp; Don't say it if you don't agree with it!&nbsp; The last time I checked, no one&nbsp;twisted an aethiest's arm behind their backs&nbsp;to force them to say it.&nbsp; Just because an aethiest doesn't believe in anything but themselves,&nbsp;it shouldn't&nbsp;mean that the rest of us should be required to adhere to such....well....emptiness.

Besides, for all of the Christians out there, don't be dismayed....God can't be put into a box; God can't be wiped out by a bad decision making judge; God can't be ignored, nor will He be written out of the history books.&nbsp; The greatest History book of all has already been written, and we all know the ending.&nbsp; He's victorious...not the shallow atheist father in California, nor the judge.&nbsp; Remember brothers and sisters...this life is just a breath....

Peace in Christ,

Terri