Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Navy Pride · 09-14-05, 04:10 PM

Well and activist liberal judge from the 9th circuit court in San Francisco has struck again today striking the word "Under God" from the Pledge of Alegiance....

It will go to the SCOTUS and be struck down but what are your thoughts?

SKILMATIC · 09-14-05, 04:18 PM

Yes. It should be in there twice actually. To say the majority of founding fathers and the majority of first settlers had no incling to religion is the biggest lie anyone has ever told. That is a fact.

Alex · 09-14-05, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Yes. It should be in there twice actually. To say the majority of founding fathers and the majority of first settlers had no incling to religion is the biggest lie anyone has ever told. That is a fact.

Of course they had an inkling. It was that inkling that made them decide to remove religion from government. People came here to escape religious governments. Whether the majority of people were one religion or another is of no relevance. They experienced the problems that came along with mixing government and religion and decided to outlaw it, as it is apparent in our Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

How did "under god" get into our Pledge? Congress passed a law that inserted it there. This clearly violates the Establishment Clause.

These are not "activist liberal judges". Define this term. It does not mean judges who are doing their jobs to protect religious freedom as is the case with striking down "under god" in our pledge.

"If a religion is truly good, it does not need government assistance or sponsorship; it will stand on its own two feet."

SKILMATIC · 09-14-05, 05:16 PM

Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.

Mixed View · 09-14-05, 05:29 PM

I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.

SKILMATIC · 09-14-05, 05:34 PM

Quote:

I think it should be in there because it is a part of our history. Plus, if you are not a Christian I think "under god" is speaking of a higher power and not the Christian God.

Bingo!!! HALLELUJA HALLELUJA!!!

Very well objectively put.

Alex · 09-14-05, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.

Then what is the Establishment Clause of our Constitution?

SouthernDemocrat · 09-14-05, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SKILMATIC

Separation from chruch and state never occured. That is a fact.

Yeah it did, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a constitutional separation of church and state. Total religious freedom, (unless it breaks some other law like human sacrifice or something), but you can’t use the government to promote or compel specific religious beliefs.

I don’t understand you radical right wingers. My God is great enough not to need the U.S. Government to promote him. Moreover, if we were to base all of our laws in Christian Law, better get ready for socialism, because the Gospels of Jesus Christ are practically a handbook for it. You can’t just pick and choose what part of the church you want to promote. Remember, Jesus Christ is a Liberal.

shuamort · 09-14-05, 05:41 PM

The last time this go to the SCOTUS, it was not heard on a technicality (Newdow's parental rights). There are two easy ways to knock this down. One, it interferes with the rights of some peoples' religious beliefs. Not just non-christians, but christians as well. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe the pledging allegiance to the flag falls under one of the Ten Commandments about worshipping graven images. Forcing them to recite the pledge would be tantamount to forcing a state religion on them.

Two, SCOTUS has set precedent of the "separation of church and state" in the 1947 ruling of Everson v. Board of Education.

Quote:

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Hoot · 09-14-05, 05:43 PM

Since when do the rights of the few outweigh the rights of the many?

I see nothing wrong with keeping the term "under God" in the pledge. What about the vast majority of parents that prefer to have their children recite the pledge with "under God?" I guess their rights are thrown out the window?

What I find far more offensive is those of you on the right using terms like "liberal activist judge" whenever a decision is made that you don't care for. Who's to say he's not a conservative who is mistakenly, trying to interpret the constitution?