On The Pledge Of Allegience

[JoeyKnothead]

Why is it so necessary to include the words "under God" in the pledge? The addition of these words into the pledge force many people to be unable to pledge their allegience to their own nation. Why is it more important to have a devisive term in a pledge that declares we are indivisible?

[Ms_Maryam]

Where's the proof that America's founders intended for it to be a Christian nation?

The funny thing is, it looks like America is slowly trying to become a christian nation, but it's unofficial and unconstitutional.

Even John Adams recognized this. In the treaty of tripoli, in 1797 ( I believe that was the year), Adams signed that "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Now we can play word games all we want, but it's clear that the founders didn't want religion institutionalized.

[East of Eden]

Which intent? Intent that folks should be free? Keep. Intent that we should infect government with religion? Toss.

As someone once said, a 'living Constitution' is a dead constitution. Get the votes to change it, but don't ignore it.

Federal, State, local; I think all religion should be kept out of government.

The founders didn't. They didn't even seem to have an objection when states had official churches.

If the placement of "Religion" is incorrect, then substitute it with "any superstitious, divisive, unfounded belief" not based on verifiable data.

Does that fit better?

Sorry, not going to jump through the hoops of your loaded questions. The founders never intended a separation of government and religion.

[East of Eden]

Where's the proof that America's founders intended for it to be a Christian nation?

The funny thing is, it looks like America is slowly trying to become a christian nation, but it's unofficial and unconstitutional.

Even John Adams recognized this. In the treaty of tripoli, in 1797 ( I believe that was the year), Adams signed that "United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

John Adams didn't author that statement, which was probably meant to assure Muslims that since we had no official church, we had no quarrel with Islam. Adams DID say this:

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.�

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 12 Post 111

Which intent? Intent that folks should be free? Keep. Intent that we should infect government with religion? Toss.

As someone once said, a 'living Constitution' is a dead constitution. Get the votes to change it, but don't ignore it.

And so I created the OP to address the issue.

Federal, State, local; I think all religion should be kept out of government.

The founders didn't. They didn't even seem to have an objection when states had official churches.

I'm not arguing about what folks in the past thought. I'm arguing about what we should do in the here and now.

I've never seen much value in "it's always been done" types of arguments. This kind of thinking makes ancients of us all.

If the placement of "Religion" is incorrect, then substitute it with "any superstitious, divisive, unfounded belief" not based on verifiable data.

Does that fit better?

Sorry, not going to jump through the hoops of your loaded questions. The founders never intended a separation of government and religion.

Let's go back a bit:

From Page 11 Post 105

The principle of separation of Church (Religion) and State should preclude any religious notions from encroaching on government functions.

You inserted 'Religion' where it doesn't belong. The Federal Gov't. is separated from a particular church, not religion in general.

Do you deny the intent of the Church is to advance its particular Religion?

Again, I contend we should not fret so much over what "The Founders" thought, but on what is right for today.
Why the insistence that we restrict ourselves to 18th Century thinking?

As our nation's military fights religious extremists across the globe, is it not self-evident we should seek to diminish, reduce, or outright ban theocratic (read "God said so") notions?

[micatala]

Which intent? Intent that folks should be free? Keep. Intent that we should infect government with religion? Toss.

As someone once said, a 'living Constitution' is a dead constitution. Get the votes to change it, but don't ignore it.

We also need to acknowledge the role of judicial interpretation. The language of the First Amendment has not changed, but its application has changed mostly due to changes in society that end up being reflected in Supreme Court decisions.

Federal, State, local; I think all religion should be kept out of government.

The founders didn't. They didn't even seem to have an objection when states had official churches.

I think East of Eden is correct that the attitudes of at least some of the founders were different regarding state church relations. However, East of Eden should remember that the explicit intent of the constitution, as reflected in its very words, were that negro slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person. In addition, the founders did not have as their "original intent" to allow women to vote.

I hope East of Eden will understand that I feel free to completely dismiss his arguments based on the intent or attitudes of the founders unless he acknowledges these other intents and attitudes and explains why it is OK for us to differ from the founders on these issues but not on the separation of church and state issue.

If the placement of "Religion" is incorrect, then substitute it with "any superstitious, divisive, unfounded belief" not based on verifiable data.

Does that fit better?

Sorry, not going to jump through the hoops of your loaded questions. The founders never intended a separation of government and religion.

Again, see the comments above. We have no reason to accept the original intent argument as valid unless ALL the original intents are addressed.

[kayky]

Does it really matter what the founding fathers "intended"? Were they gods?

[East of Eden]

We also need to acknowledge the role of judicial interpretation. The language of the First Amendment has not changed, but its application has changed mostly due to changes in society that end up being reflected in Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court often does what the elites want, i.e. Dred Scott, Plesssy vs. Ferguson, and the case removing prayer from schools.

I think East of Eden is correct that the attitudes of at least some of the founders were different regarding state church relations. However, East of Eden should remember that the explicit intent of the constitution, as reflected in its very words, were that negro slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person. In addition, the founders did not have as their "original intent" to allow women to vote.

I hope East of Eden will understand that I feel free to completely dismiss his arguments based on the intent or attitudes of the founders unless he acknowledges these other intents and attitudes and explains why it is OK for us to differ from the founders on these issues but not on the separation of church and state issue.

We had consitutional amendments to change the slave and woman voting issues. Go ahead and try a similar amendment against any government entity ever refering to anything religious, but don't pretend the Pledge equates to the establishment of a church.

[East of Eden]

I've never seen much value in "it's always been done" types of arguments. This kind of thinking makes ancients of us all.

What do you propose to guarantee our rights if not the intent of the founders and the Bill of Rights, etc.? If 51% disagree with your opinions and want to silence you, is that OK?

Do you deny the intent of the Church is to advance its particular Religion?

Yes, just as you try to advance your opinions. What does that have to do with anything?

As our nation's military fights religious extremists across the globe, is it not self-evident we should seek to diminish, reduce, or outright ban theocratic (read "God said so") notions?

Trashing religion because of the Islamofascists is about like trashing the political process because Stalin abused it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 12 Post 118

What do you propose to guarantee our rights if not the intent of the founders and the Bill of Rights, etc.? If 51% disagree with your opinions and want to silence you, is that OK?

I won't be silenced so easily. As this relates to the OP I contend it is theists putting words in my mouth far more than they are "silencing me".

Do you deny the intent of the Church is to advance its particular Religion?

Yes, just as you try to advance your opinions. What does that have to do with anything?

Do you feign ignorance of this point, or are you seriously this far from understanding?

Let's refresh everyone's memory, yet again:

Notice here:

I'm saying the inclusion of "under God" in the PoA is a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State.

You seriously think the Founders would have agreed with you? Which Christian denomination, or even religion, is being established by the Pledge?

Now here it seems it is fine for East of Eden to mention "religion", however when I do, there is this constant dodging of the intent, meaning, purpose, or some other such as to what I'm actually saying.

I find this skirting around the issue to be quite common among some theists.

Now, to address the point as clearly as I know how...

There is a direct correlation between Christianity and Religion, such that the two are otherwise inseperable in regards the OP.

"God" is a religious issue, right?

Does East of Eden still fail to understand why this is a religious issue, and relevant to the OP?

Back to Page 12 Post 118

As our nation's military fights religious extremists across the globe, is it not self-evident we should seek to diminish, reduce, or outright ban theocratic (read "God said so") notions?

Trashing religion because of the Islamofascists is about like trashing the political process because Stalin abused it.

Has someone placed "one nation, under Stalin" in the pledge while I wasn't looking?

Before anyone asks, no, I do not propose we add a mention to Stalin, communism, or any other such foolishness in a pledge to our nation.

This debate is indicative of the uselessness of "under God" in the pledge, in that the "best" argument for its inclusion is "folks two hundred years ago woulda been okay with it". It is my contention "under God" is a relic of a religious past that should be left in the past, and as we seek to move forward with one voice we should eschew such divisive language within government.

The exclusion of the phrase would cause no harm to any class of individual, because theists would still be allowed to consider the nation "under God", though not through government proclamation.

[East of Eden]

I won't be silenced so easily. As this relates to the OP I contend it is theists putting words in my mouth far more than they are "silencing me".

Want to answer my question of what would stop you, or me, from being silenced absent the Bill of Rights authored by those obsolete Founders?

Do you feign ignorance of this point, or are you seriously this far from understanding?

Don't flatter yourself, your points aren't as clear as you seem to think.

Now here it seems it is fine for East of Eden to mention "religion", however when I do, there is this constant dodging of the intent, meaning, purpose, or some other such as to what I'm actually saying.

I find this skirting around the issue to be quite common among some theists.

Now, to address the point as clearly as I know how...

There is a direct correlation between Christianity and Religion, such that the two are otherwise inseperable in regards the OP.

"God" is a religious issue, right?

Does East of Eden still fail to understand why this is a religious issue, and relevant to the OP?

If the constitution called for a separation of religion and the Fed. gov't., you would have a point.

Has someone placed "one nation, under Stalin" in the pledge while I wasn't looking?

Before anyone asks, no, I do not propose we add a mention to Stalin, communism, or any other such foolishness in a pledge to our nation.

OK, let me explain this as clearly as I can. You tried to denigrate religion in general because of some crazed Muslims. I pointed out that is like denigrating the political process because Stalin grossly abused it.

This debate is indicative of the uselessness of "under God" in the pledge, in that the "best" argument for its inclusion is "folks two hundred years ago woulda been okay with it". It is my contention "under God" is a relic of a religious past that should be left in the past, and as we seek to move forward with one voice we should eschew such divisive language within government.

84% of Americans disagree with you, and would probably call you the divisive one.

The exclusion of the phrase would cause no harm to any class of individual, because theists would still be allowed to consider the nation "under God", though not through government proclamation.

You mean like the government proclamation that said 'We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.....'? By your logic such mentions of God is establishing a religion.