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

Columbusite said:

You can have those, I never said you couldn't. Government is the sole exception for what should be obvious reasons if you pay attention to what's going on in this country. Places of worship are free to display religious symbols and so can businesses, individuals, cars, etc. Hardly an "inquisition" which you trivially and laughably compare this to. Gee, someone can wear a huge cross, cover their car in Jesus fish, freely attend church every day they can, and have a Christian run bussiness, but oh no! The government might take the words "under God" out of the pledge! With that kind of persecution it's no wonder Christians are the Jews of the 21st century.

Click to expand...

But look at European countries that have religious symbols as part of their history, heritage, and culture. Look at Italy. It's a pretty free and prosperous country. The Catholic Church in Rome has always been part of Italian culture and in my opinion, it's created a wealth of art and culture. Is it really a big surprise why Italy leads the world in terms of art, fashion, and wine? Obviously they aren't facing any massive oppression over there.

George_Washington said:

But look at European countries that have religious symbols as part of their history, heritage, and culture. Look at Italy. It's a pretty free and prosperous country. The Catholic Church in Rome has always been part of Italian culture and in my opinion, it's created a wealth of art and culture. Is it really a big surprise why Italy leads the world in terms of art, fashion, and wine? Obviously they aren't facing any massive oppression over there.

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Italy, but I am with Spain's history and boy, they could have done without the Catholic church. Sure, a lot of beautiful architecture would not be, but all things considered they would have been better off. At the same time, so much oppression by a conservative church has had an effect of forging ahead on many issues that even the US won't touch, like gay marriage and to a lesser extent drug laws regarding marijuana.

I can imagine most current art is looked down on by the church, along with fashion, which the church cannot claim to be a contributer. Just imagine someone walking down the street wearing what the pope wears. It would never make it onto the runway. Wine was probably so popular because the church banned eveything else that was fun to do. Perhaps the art, fashion, and wine was done in spite of the church or it was just a way to piss off the Vatican. That's just my take on it, of course.

When it comes right down to it, Italy is Italy and the US is the US. I truly believe our unprecedented Constitution which has no equals is best not tampered with in the religion area. Why settle for "pretty free"? I might add that many of our cities are lacking because of suburban sprawl that sucks life out of our cities. Think about it. So many people live there, yet suburbs are so non-descript and lifeless that no European could fathom why we'd do that to ourselves and leave our cities empty. They know how to live, but at least a good number of American cities are figuring this out albeit a bit late. Ramble mode off.

George_washington, italy is a different country than us. Sure, they can be free like us and have religion in their government as they choose. However, they weren't founded on the same principle as us and they don't have the same document to prove it.
And since when does one's opinion of wine, art, and fashion have to do with government and religion? My opinions of those are contrary to many people; different from yours, most likely.
We could also fill our government with other symbols of our history. Slavery, great depression, boston tea party terrorism, native american genocide. There's a lot about our history and culture that people don't like to flaunt.
Gah, this post is crappy.

Columbusite said:

I'm not familiar with Italy, but I am with Spain's history and boy, they could have done without the Catholic church. Sure, a lot of beautiful architecture would not be, but all things considered they would have been better off. At the same time, so much oppression by a conservative church has had an effect of forging ahead on many issues that even the US won't touch, like gay marriage and to a lesser extent drug laws regarding marijuana.

Click to expand...

Well, that's a whole other debate. I can see what you're saying but in a lot of ways, the Catholic Church has been less hostile than its Protestant counterparts. For example, Martin Luther King was a strong anti-semetic. I don't think persecution of the Jews in Italy ever amounted to what it was in Germany after the reformation.

I can imagine most current art is looked down on by the church, along with fashion, which the church cannot claim to be a contributer. Just imagine someone walking down the street wearing what the pope wears. It would never make it onto the runway. Wine was probably so popular because the church banned eveything else that was fun to do. Perhaps the art, fashion, and wine was done in spite of the church or it was just a way to piss off the Vatican. That's just my take on it, of course.

Click to expand...

I really have never heard anything of the Catholic Church bashing Italian designers. Pope Benedict has been seen wearing Prada and Gucci:

http://thecityofgod.blogspot.com/2005/12/pope-benedict-xvi-fashion-celeb.html

I don't think the Catholic Church has ever persecuted artists in Italy, at least not to the extent that other civilizations have. Back in the middle ages, they were famous for making nice looking armor. Recall all of the famous renaissance artists that I don't think were ever persecuted.

I would say that art suffered more under atheist and communist Russia than under any western, religious society. There have been many writings about how the communism produces very poor art. In my opinion, religious societies have produced better art than non-religious ones. But this could just be my opinion though.

When it comes right down to it, Italy is Italy and the US is the US. I truly believe our unprecedented Constitution which has no equals is best not tampered with in the religion area. Why settle for "pretty free"? I might add that many of our cities are lacking because of suburban sprawl that sucks life out of our cities. Think about it. So many people live there, yet suburbs are so non-descript and lifeless that no European could fathom why we'd do that to ourselves and leave our cities empty. They know how to live, but at least a good number of American cities are figuring this out albeit a bit late. Ramble mode off.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree that we should encourage city life like it used to be. But what exactly does have to do with the pledge?

George_Washington said:

Well, that's a whole other debate. I can see what you're saying but in a lot of ways, the Catholic Church has been less hostile than its Protestant counterparts. For example, Martin Luther King was a strong anti-semetic. I don't think persecution of the Jews in Italy ever amounted to what it was in Germany after the reformation.



I really have never heard anything of the Catholic Church bashing Italian designers. Pope Benedict has been seen wearing Prada and Gucci:

http://thecityofgod.blogspot.com/2005/12/pope-benedict-xvi-fashion-celeb.html

Click to expand...

I think both did their fair share of persecuting the Jews. I don't know who'd "win" though, the Catholics or the Protestants? Tough call. Oh, I think you meant Martin Luther?

Aww, I was hoping for a photo in that link.

I don't think the Catholic Church has ever persecuted artists in Italy, at least not to the extent that other civilizations have. Back in the middle ages, they were famous for making nice looking armor. Recall all of the famous renaissance artists that I don't think were ever persecuted.

I would say that art suffered more under atheist and communist Russia than under any western, religious society. There have been many writings about how the communism produces very poor art. In my opinion, religious societies have produced better art than non-religious ones. But this could just be my opinion though.

Click to expand...

That was tongue in cheek, it sounded plausible is all. Please don't confuse communist and Atheist as the two have basically nothing in common. I agree that communist art is lacking since it all has to be,...what is it called, socialist realism. The "pinnacle" of art, ha! Atheism sets no boundries for art, but I don't know how many artists openly say they are when it comes to art so that we could compare. I know Sweden has a lot of Atheists, maybe you could take a look at what they've come up with over there, although there is so much more to it than that. Back in the day in parts of Europe (maybe all) only realistic looking religious paintings were allowed if I recall, so it was well after that that we got some variety.

Well, I agree that we should encourage city life like it used to be. But what exactly does have to do with the pledge?

Click to expand...

If more people lived in cities there'd be more liberals and we'd be dealing with more important things. Eh? How'd you like how I did that? Not too shabby.

George_Washington said:

I just don't see any real extreme danger in putting religious symbols in our government like you and some other people do. I look on it as more a cultural and historical thing and less of an actual religious endorsement. I think that's how a lot of people in other countries view it, too.

Click to expand...

It's the old arab proverb. You don't let the camel put his butt under the tent because if you do, it soon fills up with camel crap.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

It's the old arab proverb. You don't let the camel put his butt under the tent because if you do, it soon fills up with camel crap.

Click to expand...

Is that real? You got me if it isn't.

Columbusite said:

Is that real? You got me if it isn't.

Click to expand...

It's an old Islamic custom. You too can make things up, just like Mohammed did.

George_Washington said:

Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't we have religion symbols and artifacts as simply religious and cultural things? Why does it have to be like some, "inquisition" thing of doom?

Click to expand...

It is a slippery slope, and its very hard to reverse. It took over fifty years to be able to seriously challenge the act of having school kids indoctrinated into religion in a public building by a taxpayer funded teacher.

31 actually but continue

LogicalReason said:

31 actually but continue

Click to expand...

The 'under God' was added to the pledge in 1954, and the Newdow case was filed early this decade. That's about fifty years. Was there a case before Newdows?

George_Washington said:

Why is this so hard to understand? Why can't we have religion symbols and artifacts as simply religious and cultural things? Why does it have to be like some, "inquisition" thing of doom?

Click to expand...

You can have all the religion symbols and aritifacts that you want provided they are not employed by the government to assume authority over the duty that the people owe to their Creator. It was a sinful rejection of Christ's authority over his religion for Congress to make a law respecting the establishment of the people's duty to trust in God by authorizing the placement of the motto "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins. There was no legal precedent for the use of legislative authority for that sort of action.

FVF

Columbusite said:

I think both did their fair share of persecuting the Jews. I don't know who'd "win" though, the Catholics or the Protestants? Tough call. Oh, I think you meant Martin Luther?

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry. lol

That was tongue in cheek, it sounded plausible is all. Please don't confuse communist and Atheist as the two have basically nothing in common. I agree that communist art is lacking since it all has to be,...what is it called, socialist realism. The "pinnacle" of art, ha! Atheism sets no boundries for art, but I don't know how many artists openly say they are when it comes to art so that we could compare. I know Sweden has a lot of Atheists, maybe you could take a look at what they've come up with over there, although there is so much more to it than that. Back in the day in parts of Europe (maybe all) only realistic looking religious paintings were allowed if I recall, so it was well after that that we got some variety.

Click to expand...

Atheism was a part of communism. It was a component of communism, so how can you say it has nothing to do with atheism? Not all atheists are communists, granted. But atheism still has something to do with communism, nonetheless.

Sweden, yes, has some very nice art. I like Sweden as a country. I don't think though that their art is related to their agnosticism or atheism in any way. I don't think they're all mostly atheists per se but more agnostics. I knew a student from Sweden. He wasn't extremely religious but he told me that he did believe in God. He said people in Sweden did attend mass during Christmas time and other holidays.

If more people lived in cities there'd be more liberals and we'd be dealing with more important things. Eh? How'd you like how I did that? Not too shabby.

Click to expand...

I like city living but I don't think it would neccessarily turn people into liberals. I'm conservative but I would say that I'm also a city boy. Take New York for example. There are many Republicans in manhattan who aren't extremely liberal, especially the business community. Many members of New York's financial communities support the arts because they buy art a lot. Art can be a good investment and if you have the money, it's a fun thing to decorate your house or apartment with artistic things like paintings, sculptures, etc. I think you can fully appreciate art and cultural and still be conservative. Also, don't forget that many of our great artists in the past have been theistic. It is one of the most ignorant things in the world to say that creative = liberal political views. It just isn't the case. One's political views can be totally separate from his or her profession, whether it be in the arts or any other field. It's essentially viscious descrimination against religious people.

The Federal Government, from its initial establishment in 1788, pursued a system of causing the mail to be transported on the Sabbath. This was a blatant violation of the Commandment to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. Is it also proof that the founders were infidels and heathens who disowned God?

(Source of Information: American State Papers, 13th Congress, 3rd Session, Post Office Department, Volume 1, Page 17, Senate Report No. 30 on Sunday Mails, Communicated to the Senate, January 27, 1815 by Mr. Daggett.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=027/llsp027.db&recNum=52

George_Washington said:

I like city living but I don't think it would neccessarily turn people into liberals. I'm conservative but I would say that I'm also a city boy. Take New York for example. There are many Republicans in manhattan who aren't extremely liberal, especially the business community. Many members of New York's financial communities support the arts because they buy art a lot. Art can be a good investment and if you have the money, it's a fun thing to decorate your house or apartment with artistic things like paintings, sculptures, etc. I think you can fully appreciate art and cultural and still be conservative. Also, don't forget that many of our great artists in the past have been theistic. It is one of the most ignorant things in the world to say that creative = liberal political views. It just isn't the case. One's political views can be totally separate from his or her profession, whether it be in the arts or any other field. It's essentially viscious descrimination against religious people.

Click to expand...

I don't believe I said good artists couldn't be theistic. Anyway, look at an election map of counties and you'll see that urban areas are overwhelmingly more democrat and more liberal than rural and suburban areas with the glaring exception of numerous college towns. I really do think that if we didn't have such a suburban culture this country would be more liberal. It's much harder to isolate yourself and not have your views challenged when you live and, most importantly, interact with lots of different kinds of people. There's more to it than that, but suffice to say that cities/urban areas are the most liberal areas in most cases in this country.

George_Washington said:

Atheism was a part of communism. It was a component of communism, so how can you say it has nothing to do with atheism? Not all atheists are communists, granted. But atheism still has something to do with communism, nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Bull ****. Communists breathe oxygen, too, so clearly everyone that breathes oxygen has something to do with communism.

Don't agree? Then don't make stupid uncorrelated connections.

Atheism is merely sensible. There's no god to see, thus there's no point in pretending their is one. Anyone that feels otherwise is confusing wishful thinking for reality.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Bull ****. Communists breathe oxygen, too, so clearly everyone that breathes oxygen has something to do with communism.
Don't agree? Then don't make stupid uncorrelated connections.
Atheism is merely sensible. There's no god to see, thus there's no point in pretending their is one. Anyone that feels otherwise is confusing wishful thinking for reality.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that it was more of the communist choice to choose atheism because it best suited their needs. Therefore, atheism helps communists, but doesn't cause them. Not as though communism is a bad thing, Just the dictatorships that claimed to be them.

If the First U. S. Congress wanted to prohibit the central government from establishing a religion, why did it establish two of them in 1789 by electing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes?

Columbusite said:

I don't believe I said good artists couldn't be theistic. Anyway, look at an election map of counties and you'll see that urban areas are overwhelmingly more democrat and more liberal than rural and suburban areas with the glaring exception of numerous college towns. I really do think that if we didn't have such a suburban culture this country would be more liberal. It's much harder to isolate yourself and not have your views challenged when you live and, most importantly, interact with lots of different kinds of people. There's more to it than that, but suffice to say that cities/urban areas are the most liberal areas in most cases in this country.

Click to expand...

It's not really as black and white as you think. Conservatives aren't just cowboys riding horses in vacant farming fields. There are many people who live in cities that are conservative. For example, the upper east and west sides of Manhattan are mostly Republican, actually. Steve Forbes is an example of an urban guy who is conservative on religious issues and has always lived an urban life. It depends on what you mean by, "urban". If you mean the ghettos and slums, yes, most of them vote Democratic. And yes, your average struggling person in manhattan would lean towards voting Democratic because they tend to view that party as being more for the little guy, even though this isn't true a lot of the time. But there are plenty of people in cities that vote Republican just because of various reasons. Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump are also people that have come from urban backgrounds that vote Republican.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand-Living an urban life doesn't mean that you would suddenly become anti-religious or liberal. Some of the most beautiful Churches have been built in urban areas. There are more religious elements in Rome, for example, than there are in rural areas of Italy. It seems like you mean to imply that conservatives aren't as, "cultural" as liberals and that just isn't the case.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Bull ****. Communists breathe oxygen, too, so clearly everyone that breathes oxygen has something to do with communism.

Don't agree? Then don't make stupid uncorrelated connections.

Click to expand...

Atheism and irradication of religion was mentioned in Karl Marx's writings on Marxism, which was the basis for modern communism. Atheism is mentioned in his writings as being one of the key basics of marxism, therefore, it is related to communism.

If I write a book on jet engines, advocate a certain kind of design, and include fiber optics in that design, than fiber optics is clearly a component of my jet engine. As an engineer, I would think you would be able to understand this concept but if you want to choose to deny the obvious, that's ok, I don't care.

shuku said:

Well, I think that it was more of the communist choice to choose atheism because it best suited their needs. Therefore, atheism helps communists, but doesn't cause them. Not as though communism is a bad thing, Just the dictatorships that claimed to be them.

Click to expand...

Communism is merely another religion. One has to believe in the impossible to be a communist or a Christian. Clearly communism is a form of Christianity, since its concept of blind faith best suits its needs.

Communism is a bad thing.

So is Christianity.

So is any other irrational belief system.

George_Washington said:

It's not really as black and white as you think. Conservatives aren't just cowboys riding horses in vacant farming fields. There are many people who live in cities that are conservative. For example, the upper east and west sides of Manhattan are mostly Republican, actually. Steve Forbes is an example of an urban guy who is conservative on religious issues and has always lived an urban life. It depends on what you mean by, "urban". If you mean the ghettos and slums, yes, most of them vote Democratic. And yes, your average struggling person in manhattan would lean towards voting Democratic because they tend to view that party as being more for the little guy, even though this isn't true a lot of the time. But there are plenty of people in cities that vote Republican just because of various reasons. Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump are also people that have come from urban backgrounds that vote Republican.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand-Living an urban life doesn't mean that you would suddenly become anti-religious or liberal. Some of the most beautiful Churches have been built in urban areas. There are more religious elements in Rome, for example, than there are in rural areas of Italy. It seems like you mean to imply that conservatives aren't as, "cultural" as liberals and that just isn't the case.

Click to expand...

That's why I said "most cases", which is true, and conservatives have a record of being anti-art. I'm not just talking about the ghettos either and in the pricier urban neighborhoods here you have a more liberal populace even without the ghetto factor. In fact, the gay communtiy in Columbus was a big part of revitalizing the area north of downtown now known as the Short North making it one of the most interesting spots and the top destination for art, among other things, in the city. This wouldn't have happened in a conservative area where there isn't tolerance or acceptance of gay people let alone a sizeable population to support art, especially pretentious overpriced garbage. In virtually every large city here you will find a much higher number of people with liberal attitudes and I don't know how you could dispute that unless you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

I don't get where this "anti-religious" thing came from. I'm not anti-religion except for dangerous versions of religion and even then I make that distinction. Just because I strongly believe that the world would have been better off without it doesn't mean I'm anti-religion. Many people are reasonable and faithful and I don't see the point in berating them to drop their religion especially when they don't pose a threat.

And I've yet to hear a well-reasoned argument as to why we should jeopordize our separation of church & state just so that people can acknowledge God, which they were/are already free to do at their leisure.

FredFlash said:

If the First U. S. Congress wanted to prohibit the central government from establishing a religion, why did it establish two of them in 1789 by electing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes?

Click to expand...

http://72.14.207.104/custom?

They were wrong:

While some argue that the Framers added the word “respecting” simply to foreclose federal interference with State establishments of religion, see, e.g., Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L. J. 1131, 1157 (1991), the language sweeps more broadly than that. In Madison's words, the Clause in its final form forbids “everything like” a national religious establishment, see Madison's “Detached Memoranda” 558, and, after incorporation, it forbids “everything like” a State religious establishment.4 Cf. Allegheny County, 492 U. S., at 649 (opinion of Stevens, J.). The sweep is broad enough that Madison himself characterized congressional provisions for legislative and military chaplains as unconstitutional “establishments.” Madison's “Detached Memoranda” 558–559; see infra, at 16–17, and n. 6.

q=cachegeK22WTtLsJ:www.law.cornell.edu/supct/word-perf...nk&cd=22&ie=UTF-8&client=pub-7786294391143372

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Clearly communism is a form of Christianity, since its concept of blind faith best suits its needs.

Communism is a bad thing.

So is Christianity.

Click to expand...

How is Communism a form of Christianity?
How is Christianity a bad thing?
Christianity teaches morals which every society does atleast some of what the Bible says.

Back to the topic,
The phrase "Under God" should be kept in the pledge. Because we are a nation who was created Under God, we based most of our constitution on the Bible.

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892

Click to expand...

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”
--George Washington in a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."

Click to expand...

"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." [Alexander Hamilton 1787 after the Constitutional Convention]

Click to expand...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Declaration of Independence 1776

Click to expand...

"God who gave us life and liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson 1781

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson wasn't even a Christian and he said this.