This Sucks .....

[Liberator TJ1984]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal
appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase
"under God."
The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal this there. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms. burningm
This must be supported by all the SLACKERS in the USofA
As one old songwriter puts it " If you don't Love It ,Leave It ,hear this song that we're singin' " :mad:

[HOSS]

That doesn`t suck its bullshit. The government has a leagal issue to an extent. Freedom of speech as well as religion does too. This is our pledge. If a muslim (for instance) does not like to hear this then he/she should noit have come here. These people no the rules. Live by them or GET THE **** OUT! burningm

[DogHouse]

To be perfectly honest I've always wondered why a nation that was founded (in part) to promote freedom of religion would have a phrase like "one nation under God" in its national anthem. Seems to me that freedom of religion includes the right to not believe in religion. I don't think they should get rid of the anthem but I wouldn't mind if they modified it a little! wink

[rivercrazy]

To me the whole "under God" part of the anthem was small potato's in the big picture view of things.
But, our consititution does clearly state seperation of church and state. Its worked pretty good for over 225 years.

[HOSS]

Then why stop there? Why have in GOD we trust on currency? Why respect any religion? Why respect the law? Don`t you see, this is what the people voted on and established when this whole damn badass country started of ****ed up rejects!

[DogHouse]

rivercrazy:
To me the whole "under God" part of the anthem was small potato's in the big picture view of things.
I agree, not worth getting worked up over. If the kids/parents don't like that part then just don't repeat it.

[rivercrazy]

This principle has been one of the major keys to the success of our country. Freedom of religion and seperation of church and state. Actually this system respects all religions. Its been that way since the beginning.
I don't understand what your getting at Hoss.

[Liberator TJ1984]

Under God ....what does it hurt to say it ??? People from many lands worship many different Gods..when I pray it is for the " GOD " I Believe in !!!! if you don't believe in the same one I do then pray to yours ...If you don't believe in a God at all fine with me ....just keep it to yourself...I hear Crap everyday from people and just let it go out the other ear..that is what should be done here instead of changing it burningm

[Hotcrusader76]

Ya know! I am not the one to run from issues, but this just about moves me to leaving this state. :o
What makes a person get up in the morning thinking "I think I'll fight the meaning in, the pledge of allegiance"? :mad:
If you don't like it, then don't listen! idea
[ February 28, 2003, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Hotcrusader76 ]

[nmdcb]

i am not a particulrly religion person, in fact, not at all, and the sayings in our anthem, and on our currency do not bother me. i think there are larger issues in this country to deal with. do not get me wrong, i think the idiots that bring this nonsence to court are just disassembling the wall that protects them. thankfully, the majority of people do not buy into all this crap. just mu 02.

[boat030]

rivercrazy:
But, our consititution does clearly state seperation of church and state. Its worked pretty good for over 225 years. Could you find that in the constitution for me??
[ February 28, 2003, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: boat030 ]

[rivercrazy]

I agree its small potatos. But the national anthem is more of a nation/politcal statement and not a religious one. Like I said I think is too small of an issue to get worked up about. It all goes back to the principal of seperation of church/state.
I think if they were reciting the Lords Prayer, it would be a much more clear cut violaiton of this principal.

[HOSS]

This is just getting way outa hand. You cannot have a whole country apise every single individual. That is in itself a fact. Now freedom is what we stand for right. But its OUR freedom, not some small group of assholes wanting their right to bitch about OUR choice. Our meening the people. NOt the US Supreme Court! Government cannot be allowed to decide for us on every simple decision. That Is THE WAY YOU ARE LOSING RIGHTS!
Now I hate to bring the muslims as the example but here goes. They say every US citizen has the right to freedom of religion. They say that they are being illegally "policed" since 9/11. They claim a few bad apples should not be allowed to dictate US policy towards muslims. I say keep up with current events. There are whole ****in` muslim countries rioting in the streets swearing death to US citizens. In my book (and again only my opinion) thats not a few bad apples. THATS THE WHOLE ****IN` FOREST! Hell yeah they`re treated differently now and under more scutinization. Let`s see if I were a stupid ass I would go to Iran, Israel, etc. and chant in the streets that I`m a US citizen and its my right to be one and say so. POWW! One dead stupid ass.

[DogHouse]

Liberator TJ1984:
....just keep it to yourself...You suggesting that people that don't believe in religion should not have the right to voice their opinions?
Personally, I don't think the whole issue is worth wasting time in the courts. It's not hurting anything the way it is, so we should just leave it alone.

[rivercrazy]

boat030:
rivercrazy:
But, our consititution does clearly state seperation of church and state. Its worked pretty good for over 225 years. Could you find that in the constitution for me?? Its outlined in the first amendment to the constitution: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt1.html

[HOSS]

I`m saying that the people that founded this country were religious. How do I know that. What are we talking about. These people busted their asses for us today. All our veterans did for our FREEDOM UNDER GOD. You change this and you are disgracing MY forefathers, my veterans that fought for me to be free. Too much nowdays is concentrated on the individual. WHat am I really saying? If you don`t like what my forefathers did for you as well as me, **** YOU BITCH!

[rivercrazy]

DogHouse:
Liberator TJ1984:
....just keep it to yourself...You suggesting that people that don't believe in religion should not have the right to voice their opinions?
Personally, I don't think the whole issue is worth wasting time in the courts. It's not hurting anything the way it is, so we should just leave it alone. I couldn't agree with ya more Doghouse. I really don't have a problem with it being there. But I guess a few people are offended by it.
One thing is clear though. Church doesn't belong in the public school system. Privatly funded private schools - Yes cause its their right. Religion is private and should be left to each individual and family to do what they feel is right.

[DogHouse]

HOSS:
I`m saying that the people that founded this country were religious. How do I know that. What are we talking about. These people busted their asses for us today. All our veterans did for our FREEDOM UNDER GOD. You change this and you are disgracing MY forefathers, my veterans that fought for me to be free. Too much nowdays is concentrated on the individual. WHat am I really saying? If you don`t like what my forefathers did for you as well as me, **** YOU BITCH! Nobody is saying that they don't appreciate the efforts of the people who built and defended this great country. What they are trying to do is have a meaningful discussion on the meaning of these words that were written by the forefathers:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And by the way, who exactly were your remarks directed at?

[HOSS]

Anyone who is intent or sides with the changes described herin!
By the way, since when is the Pledge of Allegiance an establishment of religion? When was it written into law?
[ February 28, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: HOSS ]

[rivercrazy]

Hoss I do understand where your are coming from.
But. I personally know many people of the Islam faith. None of them advocate violence or terrorism. In fact, the ones I know are GREAT american citizens. A few of them even serve in our great military.
The differences between Islam and Christianity are pretty minor overall. Its the radical leadership in some Islamic countries that promote these actions and the fact that they intentially keep their people uneducated or mis-educated that is mostly responsible.

[mbrown2]

HOSS:
I`m saying that the people that founded this country were religious. How do I know that. What are we talking about. These people busted their asses for us today. All our veterans did for our FREEDOM UNDER GOD. You change this and you are disgracing MY forefathers, my veterans that fought for me to be free. Too much nowdays is concentrated on the individual. WHat am I really saying? If you don`t like what my forefathers did for you as well as me, **** YOU BITCH! Kind of extreme, but dead on in my book..and just because a small % are pissed off because of it, does not mean we should let the Supreme Court decide..get over it...California Courts are a f&^king joke; they need to start practicing a little common sense instead of trying to pick apart what are forefathers put in place..
[ February 28, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: mbrown2 ]

[HOSS]

I agree that every government lets its citizens know (educate) just what they need it to know. Ours too? But to even consider this is ludicrous. I personnally feel that the people fight for this should be tried for treason! After their right to trial of course.

[rivercrazy]

Like I said before, I think the whole issue is very minor in the overall scope of things. I could care less if its formally in the Pledge or not. It doesn't bother me either way.
On that note. I'm outta this thread....

[superdave013]

It got all ****ed up back in the 50's when they put that phrase in there. That's right, when it was first drafted that was not in there.
There was state seperation of church and state.
I still think there should be but I agree with others in the fact that there is allot bigger things to worry about.

[Jordy]

DogHouse:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.I'm dismayed that someone would go so far as to sue over something this stupid, but that's people striving for their 15 minutes.
Here are some interesting facts regarding this issue:
In 1947, with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Hugo Black construed the First Amendment in a more restrictive fashion, giving an absolute definition of the First Amendment Establishment Clause which went well beyond the original intent of the framers of the United States Constitution and paved the way for future cases that would further restrict religious expression in American public life. This ruling declares that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black said: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
The Leftist social liberals continue to harangue on the "separation of church and state" as justification for eliminating religious issues from public view. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" has been bandied about for so long that 67% of all Americans believe that it is actually in the Constitution. In fact, those three words appear nowhere in the Constitution.
Oblivious to the irrelevance of their arguments, and at the same time refusing to acknowledge that no document of state, let alone the Constitution, has ever proposed such a concept, those on the Left have tried to convince the American people that our founding documents warned of the dangers of mixing politics and religion.
When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes:
There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

[rivercrazy]

OK I lied. One more post.
SuperDave for President :D

[boat030]

rivercrazy:
boat030:
rivercrazy:
But, our consititution does clearly state seperation of church and state. Its worked pretty good for over 225 years. Could you find that in the constitution for me?? Its outlined in the first amendment to the constitution: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/amdt1.html Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I don't see the word separate or separation anywhere in that? in fact i would say if they say you can't say under God then they are prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[miller19j]

superdave013:
It got all ****ed up back in the 50's when they put that phrase in there. That's right, when it was first drafted that was not in there.
There was state seperation of church and state.
I still think there should be but I agree with others in the fact that there is allot bigger things to worry about. My dad remembers when it was put in there during the 50’s. I remember a time during the 80’s when we were not allowed to say it in school. I don’t know if it was a school policy or what the deal was.
But I don’t care either way. The pledge is to our country, not god so it does not really mean anything in the context it is used in. “One nation under God” or One nation” I don’t really care.

[Liberator TJ1984]

DogHouse:
Liberator TJ1984:
....just keep it to yourself...You suggesting that people that don't believe in religion should not have the right to voice their opinions?
Personally, I don't think the whole issue is worth wasting time in the courts. It's not hurting anything the way it is, so we should just leave it alone. What I was meaning is that per say I went to Britian and wanted to become a citizen there because I did not want to live in say Bermuda cause things sucked there...If I had to Pledge Allegance to their Country I would..and at that point would be bound to uphold as they wished...and be damn glad to be there regaurdless
if I did not agree I sure as hell would not protest just because of a few words...it would be the way of life I ASKED For ..like I said people have a right to believe in anything they want...but I'm not going to China and start shit ..many other countrys and goverments will not allow it to happen...why can't we all go in the same flow and get along ???

[cigarette1]

Why do you assume this was initiated by immigrants and not home grown wink

[HOSS]

JP,,,out ****ing standing! Five at ya. Thorough post. One of the best yet. It also proves without a doubt that you are desirvingly the reigning King of Too Much Time on Your Hands. I think the most informative post to date. I`m ashamed to say that I did not know any of that.
Ok I`m gonna shut my mouth now,, I don`t have an opinion.

[Thunderbutt]

rivercrazy:
OK I lied. One more post.
SuperDave for President :D Takes my vote

[gnarley]

This really is small potatoes, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter, NO, in principal it does. As has been said way to many times "the separation of church & state" was the intent to keep religion out of the everyday functions & running of our government, which has not been done by most other countries in the past & present.
So many wars have been fought over religion and it’s intertwining in a foreign government or policy that they couldn’t see the real reasons they had a war in the first place, it was from the religious views, not political. If we keep religion out of government such as has been suggested it keeps policy direction only from the aspect of political view not religious, how many holy wars will humanity fight before they put religion aside?
If you have faith in your beliefs, great you are entitled to them but don’t force your beliefs on my government, I don’t want it making any decisions based on religion. If you want to say prayers great, you have the right, but not to subject your religious views on anyone who wishes not to participate in state or government sponsored activities. For those that see no problem with saying a pledge to god in schools, you are forcing others to listen even if they may not agree in a forum where it doesn’t belong.
I’m glad so many of us have good values based on religion as did our countries founders, & those values they learned even back then taught them to keep it separate. I ‘m glad many elected officials are religious, imagine how bad they’d be if they weren’t, & even still they’re opinions are based on religious beliefs & are again forced on the rest of us because they are so self righteous and can’t put that aspect aside.
It’s kind of like the tree huggers trying to force us boaters to think the way they do because they think they are right! They aren’t forcing a religious choice on us but they are still trying to force their views on others who do not agree with them, and they just might because it has nothing to do with religion.

[spectratoad]

I didn't really read the whole thread so maybe someone already said something to this effect. The words "under God" in the pledge mean what??? :confused: Does it say under a Catholic God, Islamic God, Mormon God. No. Most everyone has some sort of God. I think I am a god, (little g) :D So what if they take it out. I don't agree with that decision if they do but I still pledge allegience to my country and know that my God will guide me as well as I will guide myself. Just my .02 argue

[gnarley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by spectratoad:
The words "under God" in the pledge mean what??? :confused: Does it say under a Catholic God, Islamic God, Mormon God. No. Most everyone has some sort of God.
The point is NO God has a place in our government, don't you get it? You want God, go to church wink and the addition of under God was only put in as an addition... repeat, ADDITION to the pledge back in the 50's. So are we to believe those who added to the pledge are wiser than those who founded our country in the first place?

[boat030]

gnarley:
This really is small potatoes, in the grand scheme of things does it really matter, NO, in principal it does. As has been said way to many times "the separation of church & state" was the intent to keep religion out of the everyday functions & running of our government, which has not been done by most other countries in the past & present.I think if you read some of the papers writen by the founding fathers during the writing of the constitution you will find that keeping religion out of the everyday function of government was not the intent of the first amendment
[ February 28, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: boat030 ]

[Seadog]

This was lawsuit was started by an asshole who is an atheist. The constitution forbids the government from interfering with any religion, not the absence of religion. Idiots like that only want to be a disruptive influence. They have no consideration of others that disagree with them.
Our nation was founded on religious principles. The ten commandments are not listed in the constitution, but are very much apparent in our laws. We have to have legal restrictions and some religions have taken a hit because they conflict with our christian based tenants. We do not allow 12 year olds to be wed, we do not allow multiple wives, we do not allow religeous sacrifices and we do not ritual deflowering of virgins. All of these are promoted in certain religions. Shall we allow the resurrection of the Thuggee religion which would drug initiates and send them out to kill their enemies.
What is interesting is that the muslim clerics call for our demise for being godless . We are one of the most tolerant nations for any religion. The first amendment was specifically developed because of nations that were ruled by the church or the church was ruled by the government.

[gnarley]

Seadog:
This was lawsuit was started by an asshole who is an atheist. The constitution forbids the government from interfering with any religion, not the absence of religion. Idiots like that only want to be a disruptive influence. They have no consideration of others that disagree with them.
Our nation was founded on religious principles. The ten commandments are not listed in the constitution, but are very much apparent in our laws. We have to have legal restrictions and some religions have taken a hit because they conflict with our christian based tenants. We do not allow 12 year olds to be wed, we do not allow multiple wives, we do not allow religeous sacrifices and we do not ritual deflowering of virgins. All of these are promoted in certain religions. Shall we allow the resurrection of the Thuggee religion which would drug initiates and send them out to kill their enemies.
What is interesting is that the muslim clerics call for our demise for being godless . We are one of the most tolerant nations for any religion. The first amendment was specifically developed because of nations that were ruled by the church or the church was ruled by the government . Seadog think about what you just said, or did I misunderstand you? It seems as though you would still favor religious influence in our government? Muslim’s & their religion are so tied to the politics of the countries they live in that all they seem to do is fight in the name of Allah. Their governments are totally influenced by religion. Is this what we want? I hate to say it's all or nothing baby!

[DogHouse]

HOSS:
I`m saying that the people that founded this country were religious. How do I know that. What are we talking about. These people busted their asses for us today. All our veterans did for our FREEDOM UNDER GOD. You change this and you are disgracing MY forefathers, my veterans that fought for me to be free. Too much nowdays is concentrated on the individual. WHat am I really saying? If you don`t like what my forefathers did for you as well as me, **** YOU BITCH! HOSS:
Anyone who is intent or sides with the changes described herin!
By the way, since when is the Pledge of Allegiance an establishment of religion? When was it written into law? Ok Hoss, since I feel that you include me in that group, and since you decided to take this conversation to that level, here's a big http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/sauer/angry-smiley-002.gif right back at ya. It's exactly your kind of narrow minded, low brow thinking that the forefathers were trying to get away from in the first place.
In case you're having a hard time understanding, separation of church and state does not mean that your freedom to express your (Christian) religious beliefs is curtailed in any way. It simply means that the government should not promote religion as an official policy of the state in any way. That means that I don't want you imposing your views on my kids in public schools, period. This is not a patriotic argument, or a left vs right debate, it's a simple matter of my rights to believe what I want to believe, your right to believe what you want, and the government's obligation to stay the hell out of it.
-brian

[gnarley]

DogHouse I couldn't of said it any better & totally agree with you! & I shot you a 5er for that!

[DogHouse]

Thanks but let me reemphasize that the words being in the pledge don't bother me! wink

[rivercrazy]

Me too and what you said too Gnarley.

[gnarley]

Forensic:
The next time you hear the Pledge of Allegiance or National Anthem, Stand and show your respect for this great nation. God Bless America...
My .02 worth. May God bless America! But stay out of my government!

[Seadog]

Religion plays a part in all of our lives, whether we believe in it or not. While I may not find the phrase 'under God' to be a life or death struggle, where do we stop? Do we allow the phase 'one nation' to be eliminated because someone doesn't agree with it? What about 'pledge allegiance'? Do we allow it to be struck because someone does not want to commit their kids to their country.
Perhaps we should have our kids get up and say 'Screw this country and the politicians who run it. Kill the military and their big business bosses'. The pledge is there for a reason. It is a foundation for what our forefathers fought for. It is a reaffirmation of our solidarity as a nation. Under God is a an affirmation that we believe in a higher power. That we seek a plateau above our existing moral plane. It does not matter which version of God we believe in. It also means that we cannot allow God to become a instrument of hate and discourse. We use religion as a basis for establishing the morals that keep us above animals. They will always a moving target as we advance as a people.
I love a speech by Red Skelton that told the breakdown of the Pledge of Allegiance. It shows how it is an imporetant reminder of where we come from and were we aspire to. To screw with the pledge because of political correctness, is the worse type of liberal bullshit.

[DogHouse]

Seadog:
Religion plays a part in all of our lives, whether we believe in it or not. While I may not find the phrase 'under God' to be a life or death struggle, where do we stop? Do we allow the phase 'one nation' to be eliminated because someone doesn't agree with it? What about 'pledge allegiance'? Do we allow it to be struck because someone does not want to commit their kids to their country.
Perhaps we should have our kids get up and say 'Screw this country and the politicians who run it. Kill the military and their big business bosses'. The pledge is there for a reason. It is a foundation for what our forefathers fought for. It is a reaffirmation of our solidarity as a nation.Seadog, nobody is saying that we shouldn't be pledging our allegiance, support, and solidarity as a nation. Far from it. What is at issue is the part that was added recently regarding the "under God" part. I happen to be extremely patriotic and nationalistic. I just don't happen to believe that I need religion to prove my patriotism.
Under God is a an affirmation that we believe in a higher power. That we seek a plateau above our existing moral plane. It does not matter which version of God we believe in. It also means that we cannot allow God to become a instrument of hate and discourse. We use religion as a basis for establishing the morals that keep us above animals. They will always a moving target as we advance as a people.You believe in a higher power. Not everyone in this country (or world) does. Religion is not the only basis for moral and ethical behavior. Common sense and basic social evolution dictates that for people to get along and survive, they must behave in certain reasonable ways. The ten commandments are one person's version of what those basic behaviors should be. There are plenty of people around the world who have never seen Christianity or the ten commandments, yet somehow they have managed to develop civilized, well behaved cultures. Yes, many religions do provide a good framework for teaching moral behavior, but they are by no means the only way of achieving this. And by the way, your reference to animals is lost on me because humans are the most vicious creatures that I can think of. No other animal that I know of will torture and kill just for fun.
I love a speech by Red Skelton that told the breakdown of the Pledge of Allegiance. It shows how it is an imporetant reminder of where we come from and were we aspire to. To screw with the pledge because of political correctness, is the worse type of liberal bullshit. It's not about being politically correct, or liberal, it's about separating the concepts of country and religion. Believe me, I'm extremely politically uncorrect and not very "liberal" (whatever that is) in most of my viewpoints. Hell, some of my opinions would probably get me arrested! I just don't like it when people equate religion with politics, because supposedly that's one of the things that makes this country so unique and so great.
-brian

[HOSS]

Doghouse, my point is that WE the People should not have to bend for a few all the time. I do understand that the Constitution is a living entity that has to change with the times. But when is enough enough? What do you feel about our currency and the wording on it? I am in no way promoting/pushing any type of religion. I say that the ones that fought for the way of life we have now should be respected as well as the presumption of what the fought for. I feel very strongly about this because I am a vet. Not a wartime vet thank GOD but none the less a vet. If you ask any vets or active duty personnel about this I believe that their beliefs would probably be synonimous with mine. I don`t feel that our forefathers should have to bend anymore for anyone. These men and women fought for honor and dignity as well as for the love of their country. Now you and the like want to rub their face in the dirt like they don`t matter. Sometimes the law needs to take a sidestep to morality. Try teaching that to your kids.
Have you served? Sure as hell don`t sound like you have.

[spectratoad]

This country was founded on christian beliefs. No religion does not belong in government whatsoever. I believe the Constitution says something more like there shall be no one national religion. This country was founded "under God". You have every right to believe in whatever God or none-whatsoever, that is your right. The Pledge of Alliegence is not pledging to a God it is pledging to the country. It is on somewhat the same parallel as the language thing. You live here speak english and be an American and Pledge Allegience to this country. Don't give up your culture but be an American. This Asian-American, African-American, Mexican-American blah, blah, blah :p
Everyone here is right in their opinion one way or another. I think everyone just needs to be proud of their culture but love the old red, white & blue. And no matter what you think or believe or what color you are I will respect you if I get respect in return and you are more than welcome at my table. :D

[Dusty Times]

Well if this is how it's gonna be then I'm stacking up all my dollar bills and my change.
Gotta trade it in for gold because I'm sure its not worth anything with those words on it.
I'm sure it's the same people pushing this through court that is trying keep us off our lakes. I for one think they have to much time on their hands.

[DogHouse]

HOSS:
Doghouse, my point is that WE the People should not have to bend for a few all the time. I do understand that the Constitution is a living entity that has to change with the times. But when is enough enough? What do you feel about our currency and the wording on it? I am in no way promoting/pushing any type of religion. I say that the ones that fought for the way of life we have now should be respected as well as the presumption of what the fought for. I feel very strongly about this because I am a vet. Not a wartime vet thank GOD but none the less a vet. If you ask any vets or active duty personnel about this I believe that their beliefs would probably be synonimous with mine. I don`t feel that our forefathers should have to bend anymore for anyone. These men and women fought for honor and dignity as well as for the love of their country. Now you and the like want to rub their face in the dirt like they don`t matter. Sometimes the law needs to take a sidestep to morality. Try teaching that to your kids.
Have you served? Sure as hell don`t sound like you have. Once again I will repeat, the wording in the pledge or on our currency really does not bother me even though I don't necessarily buy into the part regarding "under God", "in God we trust", etc. However, since these two things are part of the institution and implementation of our government, ideally I would like to see them gone. Do I think it's worth spending a great deal of national resources on??? No.
I am still trying to figure out why you assume that since you have "served", that somehow you have some deeper appreciation and respect for those who have fought and died for our country. It doesn't take signing up for military service to be aware of history and the sacrifices that were made, or of the sacrifices that continue to be made today by the men and women who are out there defending our nation. I also can't figure out why you think that your god/religion is so intertwined with all the wars that have been fought. Did it ever occur to you that some of the people who fought and died for you probably did not share your same beliefs? Besides, nobody is trying to rub anyone's face in the dirt or disrespect those who have gone before us. I really don't see how you can make such a connection between removing the words "under God" and this alledged disrespect of all the vets, especially since the words didn't even exist in the pledge until recently (50s).
As far as teaching laws and morality, I really don't think that I'll be needing your advice. Did your church and god teach you all the foul language and intolerance that you've thrown around in this thread? Great morality lesson there. Trust me when I tell you that my kids will get plenty of guidance promoting behavior that is both lawful and moral. Funny part of all this is that you probably think that I'm an aetheist. Fact is that's not quite true. I don't buy into any of the organized religions for a whole host of reasons (people like you being one of the biggies), but every time I walk outside and look around I realize that I am part of something bigger than just me. Don't know what that is yet or why we're all here, but I figure it will become clear at some point when it is meant to be.
Are we done here?
-brian
[ March 02, 2003, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: DogHouse ]

[Thunderbutt]

I went to a Catholic school in the 40's. We said the plege to the flag first then we prayed. The word God was not in it then.
If this country was created under God why did we start killing off the first people here (Indians), then start importing other people to become our slaves, then when they were freed we started killing them off. In fact we kill off more of our own people then all of the other countrys that are trying to kill us. When we use the words (God bless America) I'm not sure he is listening to us. Who started this one? Lets get back to boats.