What if some were to say "under God"??

[messageport]

All nations are UNDER the Almighty God and Judge, Maker of Heaven and Earth, whether they recognize it or not. Almighty God is OVER the civil governments of this world. Almighty God is OVER every executive, legislative, and judicial branch of every civil government. He is King of kings, LORD of lords, President of presidents, Law-Giver over lawmakers, Judge of judges.

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..."(Psalm 33:12). The USA is surely forfeiting blessing (and risking wrath) if we will not acknowledge Almighty God as our own. The USA has been a great power. Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, France, and Spain were all great powers also but their empires are crumbled. The USA should also not presume concerning its future state.

The Great God of all the earth is worthy of praise, thanksgiving, and honor. Civil governments exist to do His Will. They are indeed UNDER GOD.

 

[burrow_owl]

"This case is merely a correction of a blunder made in 53."

I completely agree, and i find it amazing that so many people rush to defend our McCarthyist history.

 

[Firscherscherling]

All nations are UNDER the Almighty God and Judge, Maker of Heaven and Earth, whether they recognize it or not. Almighty God is OVER the civil governments of this world. Almighty God is OVER every executive, legislative, and judicial branch of every civil government. He is King of kings, LORD of lords, President of presidents, Law-Giver over lawmakers, Judge of judges.

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD..."(Psalm 33:12). The USA is surely forfeiting blessing (and risking wrath) if we will not acknowledge Almighty God as our own. The USA has been a great power. Egypt, Greece, Rome, England, France, and Spain were all great powers also but their empires are crumbled. The USA should also not presume concerning its future state.

The Great God of all the earth is worthy of praise, thanksgiving, and honor. Civil governments exist to do His Will. They are indeed UNDER GOD.

Sorry, but I totally disagree and you'll have to figure out what you are going to do about that. Seems your only option is to overthrow the government and establish a new theocracy.

I also find it interesting that the largest percentage of failed powers you mention were Christian.

 

[whatbogsends]

I hope that they are allowed their freedom of speech.

I teach the pledge in my daycare/preschool. I would not continue teaching the pledge if I was not allowed to keep "under God".

Is this in a public school, or private school?

 

[Lillithspeak]

[


"Under our Creator" is the answer, I believe, should "under God" be stricken by the Supreme Court. I don't believe God would be offended by this, and I think he would see it as a wise, peaceful way to counter the liberal courts on this. I prefer it to be "under God," but if it gets taken away we can outfox the courts on this, with "under our Creator." For, our Declaration of Independence says and implies the very same thing, and therefore the Supreme Court wouldn't have a leg to stand on.[/QUOTE]

Why do you need to "outfox" the courts? What is the point? Just simply say it the way it was written. .."One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." My generation learned it that way, and we managed to carry one pretty well without it being there.

Lilllith

 

[Lillithspeak]

The Great God of all the earth is worthy of praise, thanksgiving, and honor. Civil governments exist to do His Will. They are indeed UNDER GOD.[/QUOTE]


My government exists to do my will as I vote it.

Lillith

 

[feral]

The words ought to be taken from the pledge because they don't reflect the country and the citizens. If certain citizens want to say god, or allah, or money, or whatever on their own it's fine.

 

[burrow_owl]

of course, what everyone is forgetting is that the poem was meant to be said w/o "under god." Inserting it really messes up the meter.

 

[marvin]

Most of the postings by Christians have missed one important point: is it scriptural?

Here is the beginning of a posting I have at BiblicalDebates.com under visitor posted debates. I can't post the link here (don't have enuff posts here yet) but y'all can figure it out from the above. I think I offer another view of this issue.

The United States Supreme Court will soon be hearing arguments concerning the constitutionality of having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I say, "So what."

Schools across the country routinely deny Christian student groups equal status with other student-run religious clubs.

I ask, "Who cares?"

God is "kicked out" of public institutions, according to many conservative Christian organizations.

I reply, "So be it."

I hope you take the time to check it out and offer your opinions.
Blessings.

 

[gmat730]

"This case is merely a correction of a blunder made in 53."

I completely agree, and i find it amazing that so many people rush to defend our McCarthyist history.

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that they chose to divide the phrase 'one nation, indivisible' in order to add God to the pledge?

 

[the_malevolent_milk_man]

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that they chose to divide the phrase 'one nation, indivisible' in order to add God to the pledge?

lol, dividing the indivisible nation with God. To add to the irony the addition was meant to unify people.

 

[crazyfingers]

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that they chose to divide the phrase 'one nation, indivisible' in order to add God to the pledge?

And of course the Under God part is divisive.

 

[Firscherscherling]

Yes. And isin't it interesting that the next word in our divisive pledge is 'indivisible'

 

[cbk]

Stormy why don't you let the children reach the the age when they can make their own decision. You do look after very young children and your approach seems like brainwashing.

All children are brainwashed.

 

[jayswife29]

Yup, I agree. Every time you turn the t.v. on, kids are being brain washed, everytime they go to school, go to their grandparents, etc...I just dont see the big deal over the pledge saying one nation under God...if you dont want to say it dont, if you chose to say it go ahead, whats the problem?

 

[SirKenin]

I just dont see the big deal over the pledge saying one nation under God...if you dont want to say it dont, if you chose to say it go ahead, whats the problem?

The problem as I see it is three-fold

1) some atheists can't live and let live, even though they expect Christians to do so.

2) some atheists fail to acknowledge that their rights end where the next begins.

3) some atheists lack the responsibility to administer their own rights.

 

[Philosoft]

The problem as I see it is three-fold

1) some atheists can't live and let live, even though they expect Christians to do so.

We were just fine until 1954, when some Christians couldn't "live and let live."

2) some atheists fail to acknowledge that their rights end where the next begins.

What right would that be? The right to have the government openly favor your belief system?

3) some atheists lack the responsibility to administer their own rights.

Where's my pot-kettle-black graphic when I need it?

 

[Lillithspeak]

On the other hand, if folks want to run around like goofballs complaining about the pledge, it may keep them from annoying the rest of us about other silly stuff. It's like little kids, give them some pots and pans to bang on and let them make some noise and they'll let you get dinner cooked.

Lillith

 

[Lillithspeak]

The problem as I see it is
2) some atheists fail to acknowledge that their rights end where the next begins.QUOTE]


So, now, having under god in the pledge is a right? I missed that in the BOR-care to point it out to me?

 

[Zlex]

The issue is very clear... isn't it?

1] The majority cannot define and/or esrtablish religion for the minority; allowed religions to the left, disallowed religions to the right. We couldn't have that.

2] We must respect the sensibilities of the minority in regard to the appearance of religion in the public sphere.

3] This prohibition is so absolute, that even though the prohibition is not specifically against the establishement of the term singular 'God', it is explicitely a prohibition against something much broader, to wit, religion.

4] It is not necessary in the least for a petitioning minority to 'beleive' in the aspect of religion being inserted into the public sphere; an atheist clearly does not believe in 'God'.

Clear, precise, understood. Check.

So....as a minority seeking equal protection under the law--equal to the hurdles outlined above, who believes Thespianism is a religion, a religion that I don't believe in, I want theatre taken out of the public schools, lest Congress pass a law respecting an establishment of religion.

And, no Tuna served on Fridays, while I am at it.

Majority to Zlex; heh, heh, heh....Thespianism is not a religion recognized by the majority.

Say what? What is this majority definition of religion suddenly blustering about? What happened to 1]?

I guess it fell into the black hole/singularity that surrounds legislation and the lack thereof concerning freely definable supreme beings, spirits, spirit, whatever.

How can the first amendment simultaneoulsy protect an unrestricatable personal definition of undefinable "religion" if it can only be definably and selectively applied to prohibit the free practice therof in the public sphere? That is a sensenless paradox. The majority cannot simultaneoulsy say, "Of course we are free to define religion when enforcing an amendment designed to prohibit the majority from defining religion."

It can try, but not with a straight face.