• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 68 54.4%

  • No

    Votes: 57 45.6%
  • Total voters
    125
Status
Not open for further replies.
It goes beyond peripheral things. Get this,in some schools teaching about "Thanksgiving " is edited. You can't say who they were thanking, you cant say why they were in massachusetts in the first place . Why they came to the New World is not taught. This is what the Liberals given free reign do.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, if you are truly pro-religion and are against the 'under God' clause, you are practically an island unto yourself..



Nope. Been there and done that. When my sister, a highschool choral teacher taught her students a deep appreciation for the classics including Bach, Handel, Mozart and others who wrote some of the most beautiful Christian music out there. When she became aware that some of the students in the choir were Jewish, she included Jewish songs. When an exchange student came in from Nigeria, she had him sing some of his native songs, arranged them for choir and they sang that. They all learned something of each other's culture and appreciation of each other's heritage and her annual multicultural Christmas concert drew people from miles and miles around. Then the ACLU made them stop almost all of it. And all were the poorer for it.



Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.



So do I and I in no way advocate that. I find it equally outrageous to deny people their constitutional right to the free exercise of their religious faith.
Click to expand...


No one is denying people their constitutional right to exercise their religious freedom. Christians have had government favoritism (from specifically religious things like school led prayer, 10 commandments in government buildings, "under God" added to the pledge, to Christian based laws like anti-gay laws, inter-racial marriage bans, racial minorities and women being treated as 2nd class citizens, slavery, etc) and when that is taken away somehow Christians are being discriminated against. Enough of this blather about religion being kept out of the "public square". Religion is already in the public square, but it isn't supposed to be government sponsored such as in this case. As I understand it the "under God" part was added with the intent to show our country was a godly one. The problem is, that is for the people to do on their own, not the government. I hardly see how that is anti-religious.
 
JOHNYJ said:
It goes beyond peripheral things. Get this,in some schools teaching about "Thanksgiving " is edited. You can't say who they were thanking, you cant say why they were in massachusetts in the first place . Why they came to the New World is not taught. This is what the Liberals given free reign do.
Click to expand...

Now, if this is true, I agree that it's ridiculous. But, such things aren't soley the domain of liberals (I am defined as "liberal" just for following the Constitution) as there are conservatives who are just as bad, if not worse. At the same time, you won't hear about the religious views of our founding fathers and why the Constitution was uniquely written the way it was to be the 1st government governed by man, not a church. Other important figures like Robert Ingersoll (an agnostic) are totally left out because of their views on religion. I am opposed to both Political Correctness and Religious Correctness. You also have the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools wanting to teach revisionist history in place of real history and is overbearingly slanted to a specific interpretation of conservative Protestantism. All you have to do is look at the "links" section of their site to see this.
 
This I agree with 100%. As no science re origins of the universe is much better than educated guesses of how it all exactly came about, it is important to know how science evolved beginning with religious explanations that morphed into the earlier incomplete (and often erroneous) scientific theories such as a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth, etc. Little by little man, forever insatiably curious, kept questioning, kept wondering, kept observing, and kept experimenting until we arrived at the science we have today. And you know what? A hundred or a thousand years from now, much of the science we have now will have been proved to also be imperfect and incomplete.

For those few fundamentalist students who have been taught the earth is 6000 years old or some such as that, all the teacher has to do is tell them they are free to believe what they believe, but they're going to have to pass the test on science too. He does not have to destroy their faith to teach science.

The more students learn how science, as well as religion, and other theories of human behavior and development have evolved over the millenia, the better we understand, the more we realize how far we have come and that there is infinitely more possibilities and potential to be discovered yet.

To think that we have all the science now that we will ever have is as naive and narrow minded as those who think God is not the author of science.
Click to expand...

Thank you at least someone understands.
 
By the way, for you people that keep going over and over and over again "our constitution was written by christians with thier ideals in mind."

Do some research

By FAR the continental congress and those people that signed upon our constitution were not all christians. Actually many were Deists, who believe in a higher power but don't nessasarily believe it is "God" in the christian sense, or believe in the bible, but find god within nature and spirituality.

Such names of important figures in the founding and direction of our country (many of which were signers to the declaration and constitution):

John Locke and Thomas Hobbs, the people whose theories and philosophies are what guided the thoughts of our consitution.

Ben Franklin
George Washington
John Hancock
Samual Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
Alexander Hamillton
Benjamin Rush
James Wilson
John Adams
William Ellery
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Abraham Lincoln

...just as a side note, Deists have a big part of history. Einstien, Eddison, and even steven hawking are all Deists as well.

There were many more then just christians shaping our country, and its a pete peeve of mine when I keep hearing how it was written with christian intent. Jefferson himself wasn't even one.

As far as the undergod, if you don't like saying it don't say it. I see it more of a tradition type thing at this point then anything else and not something our court system should be wasting its time with. If kids are getting expelled for leaving under god out, then yes. its a problem. But for pete sake, if your ability to keep to your agnositisim or atheism is thrown off by having to say two words then maybe you should re-evaluate things
 
JOHNYJ said:
It goes beyond peripheral things. Get this,in some schools teaching about "Thanksgiving " is edited. You can't say who they were thanking, you cant say why they were in massachusetts in the first place . Why they came to the New World is not taught. This is what the Liberals given free reign do.
Click to expand...
I find this post and its attack on liberals to be bullshit. I would really enjoy seeing proof that Thanksgiving is taught the way described in American public schools and that it is taught that way due to liberals!

I do not believe your post sorry, I think it is all untrue. Prove me wrong, please?
 
AlbqOwl said:
No, if you are truly pro-religion and are against the 'under God' clause, you are practically an island unto yourself.
Click to expand...
I think not. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? I meant that I am pro-religion in that I strongly feel anyone has the right to practice their religion privately whenever or wherever they choose. I am very confident that if you asked those of us who are anti "Under God" you would find a very strong majority that agree with me and very few who disagree. The only thing I object to is using god in government.

Let me ask you something? If someone refused to say the Pledge due to their objection to the "Under God" inclusion would that mean they were disloyal to the USA? I believe a larger group than you claim aren't "Pro-Religion" would say that these people ARE "Anti-American." I again reiterate that suggesting that people who are against "Under God" are also against religion is a very inaccurate portayal.
AlbqOwl said:
Nope. Been there and done that. When my sister, a highschool choral teacher taught her students a deep appreciation for the classics including Bach, Handel, Mozart and others who wrote some of the most beautiful Christian music out there. When she became aware that some of the students in the choir were Jewish, she included Jewish songs. When an exchange student came in from Nigeria, she had him sing some of his native songs, arranged them for choir and they sang that. They all learned something of each other's culture and appreciation of each other's heritage and her annual multicultural Christmas concert drew people from miles and miles around. Then the ACLU made them stop almost all of it. And all were the poorer for it.
Click to expand...
I believe one can express the diversity of a school or a nation through music without bringing God into the mix. Read what you just wrote? You mentioned the student from Nigeria. You didn't write that a Nigerian religious song was included, just songs from Nigeria. That is exactly what I mean. There's tons of beautiful choral music to choose from that expresses the diversity of mankind or a nation without having to also make it religious. I bet people will still come from "miles around" to hear the concert if this approach were adopted. Why do people believe that without a religious influence in public places things will collapse? Its not only untrue it is, to me, a scare tactic to influence people. The old "heathen" methodology, IMHO.
AlbqOwl said:
Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.
Click to expand...
I fail to see how not mentioning any religion during any event sponsored by the Government is treating people unequally. If you don't mention lesbians or blind people are they being treated unequally too? I think not! People want to shove religion down people's throats during public events and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, has been proven so over and over and over again so why do people still try to impose their religious beliefs on those who aren't interested?

You make it sound like people who are not part of your religion are doing things in public to dissuade others from religion and that is totally false. That is how I interpret your thinking. You claim to be treated unequally because you're being prevented from force feeding religion onto others and those who do not want to participate in your religion are actually being favored because they can express anti-religious "propaganda" in public. Great argument except that those of us who are against religion in public government are not preaching atheism instead, having monuments that decry religion. We just do not want religion discussed for or against.
 
Last edited:
Columbusite said:
No one is denying people their constitutional right to exercise their religious freedom. Christians have had government favoritism (from specifically religious things like school led prayer, 10 commandments in government buildings, "under God" added to the pledge, to Christian based laws like anti-gay laws, inter-racial marriage bans, racial minorities and women being treated as 2nd class citizens, slavery, etc) and when that is taken away somehow Christians are being discriminated against. Enough of this blather about religion being kept out of the "public square". Religion is already in the public square, but it isn't supposed to be government sponsored such as in this case. As I understand it the "under God" part was added with the intent to show our country was a godly one. The problem is, that is for the people to do on their own, not the government. I hardly see how that is anti-religious.
Click to expand...

Whenever my religious beliefs include denying you any legal or inalienable right, then you have an argument.

But the words 'under God' take nothing at all away from you, require nothing of you, impinge on not one iota of your personal freedom, property, pursuit of happiness, security, opportunities, or well being. You are not required to say them, believe them, or approve of them.

To remove those two little words, however, does take away from those who want the words in there.

It doesn't matter whether the words are "under God" or "under Zeus" or "Donald Duck" or "Santa Claus", if they do not infringe on anybody's rights, and the majority wants it that way, then the majority should prevail.

Such should be the rule of thumb in all such matters. If the community wants a creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmastime, if the community wants traditional Christmas music in the winter concert, if the community likes that granite statue engraved with the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawn, then it takes nothing at all away from anybody else nor infringes on anybody's rights for that to happen. If the community, however, allows the creche, they also allow a Minnorah if some in the Jewish community want that too. The community should not be allowed to discriminate against one group in favor of another. As long as there is no intentional discrimination, there is no foul.

It comes down to the principle of "the free exercise (of religion) shall not be prohibited" by government. None of these things are an establishment of religion by government. All of these things are the free exercise of religion by a particular community. The ACLU should be required to butt out and the anti-religious should get a hobby or something and learn that they cannot dictate how others shall enjoy their constitutional right to an exercise of religion.

The day a teacher is discriminating against or rewarding children for having a particular religious belief or non belief; the day the community discriminates against one religion in favor of another; etc., then I'll be right there side by side with you protesting that, as that would be a violation of the Constitution.

But there is nothing stated or implied or intended in the Constitution that all vestiges or evidence or practice of religion be removed from public property. The founders made sure the government could neither require religious beliefs from anyone nor reward or punish anyone for the religious beliefs they held. But they never intended that those in government not be religious or express their religious beliefs. And there certainly would have been horrified to see (expressly unconstitutional) laws that stripped all evidence of religion from the public sector.
 
Last edited:
26 X World Champs said:
I think not. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? I meant that I am pro-religion in that I strongly feel anyone has the right to practice their religion privately whenever or wherever they choose. I am very confident that if you asked those of us who are anti "Under God" you would find a very strong majority that agree with me and very few who disagree. The only thing I object to is using god in government.

Let me ask you something? If someone refused to say the Pledge due to their objection to the "Under God" inclusion would that mean they were disloyal to the USA? I believe a larger group than you claim aren't "Pro-Religion" would say that these people ARE "Anti-American." I again reiterate that suggesting that people who are against "Under God" are also against religion is a very inaccurate portayal..
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not specifiy a freedom of religious expression in private. It specifies a freedom of religious expression, period. According to the 2002 poll I posted yesterday, almost 90% of Americans disagree with you that 'under God' should be removed from the pledge.

Nobody has said those who don't want 'under God' in the pledge are un-American. I am just saying that those who dn't want 'under God' in the Pledge want to take something away from the almost 90% who want 'under God' in the Pledge. The words do not harm you in any way or infringe on anybody's rights in any way. Thus the majority should prevail. When the majority no longer wants the phrase there or objects to any other part of the Pledge, it will be changed.

I believe one can express the diversity of a school or a nation through music without bringing God into the mix. Read what you just wrote? You mentioned the student from Nigeria. You didn't write that a Nigerian religious song was included, just songs from Nigeria. That is exactly what I mean. There's tons of beautiful choral music to choose from that expresses the diversity of mankind or a nation without having to also make it religious. I bet people will still come from "miles around" to hear the concert if this approach were adopted. Why do people believe that without a religious influence in public places things will collapse? Its not only untrue it is, to me, a scare tactic to influence people. The old "heathen" methodology, IMHO.
Click to expand...

It was a Nigerian religious song. And yes there is much beautiful non-religious music written. But when it harms no one, when it gives pleasure to both the singers and listeners, when it is a longstanding tradition of a community, why should religious music be banned from a concert? How is such banning not a 'prohibition against the free exercise of religion?

I fail to see how not mentioning any religion during any event sponsored by the Government is treating people unequally. If you don't mention lesbians or blind people are they being treated unequally too? I think not! People want to shove religion down people's throats during public events and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, has been proven so over and over and over again so why do people still try to impose their religious beliefs on those who aren't interested?
Click to expand...

Who is shoving religion down anyone's throat? If you interpret the presence of evidence of religious art, music, etc. is 'shoving religion down your throat', then how is stripping the public sector of any evidence of religion not 'shoving athiesm down somebody's throat?' There is no constitutional right to see only what you want to see or hear or experience in the public sector. The community can decide in all other aspects of community life, and since there are always going to be some who want it to be different, the majority should prevail. And the community should decide in matters of religion.

We are not talking about anybody's rights here. I am opposed to violating anybody's rights. I am talking about preferences that affect nobody's inalienable rights one way or the other.

You make it sound like people who are not part of your religion are doing things in public to dissuade others from religion and that is totally false. That is how I interpret your thinking. You claim to be treated unequally because you're being prevented from force feeding religion onto others and those who do not want to participate in your religion are actually being favored because they can express anti-religious "propaganda" in public. Great argument except that those of us who are against religion in public government are not preaching atheism instead, having monuments that decry religion. We just do not want religion discussed for or against.
Click to expand...

The presence of evidence of religion takes nothing away from you, requires nothing of you, violates no right that you posses. The prohibition of evidence of religion does take away from those who wish to have it there. It is as simple as that.
 
SKILMATIC said:
:lol:

Its not extra claims they are common sense claims. When you have god and godly morals in your schools and life then the chances of these negative things happeing immensely decline, and vice versa. Its simple as that. I cant beleive this is so hard for you to understand. So I guess in the last almost 400yrs when we have had godly morals in our school and all the sudden we took them out we have had a increase of all that which I have mentioned isnt proof or isnt evidentiary suppor tin itself? Well if its not then I really dont know how anything else can be?
Click to expand...
So........no proof then. Gotcha.
 
26 X World Champs said:
The only thing I object to is using god in government.
Click to expand...
Even though this is very clear, you will still be accused of being anti-religion.
AlbqOwl said:
Nope again. If you remove all evidence of religion from the public sector, you are treating everyone unequally but those who hate religion.
Click to expand...
Typical sorry attempt by the Righteous Right to reframe the issue, from that of attacks on the secular nature of our constitution, to that of majority victimhood. To this nut, “free exercise” means majority rules.
Majority consensus is not the source of spirituality.
AlbqOwl said:
It comes down to the principle of "the free exercise (of religion) shall not be prohibited" by government. None of these things are an establishment of religion by government. All of these things are the free exercise of religion by a particular community. The ACLU should be required to butt out and the anti-religious should get a hobby or something and learn that they cannot dictate how others shall enjoy their constitutional right to an exercise of religion.
Click to expand...
This guy claims that he is not a theocrat. Take a look at the lively exchange on the thread entitled ”Why are liberals tolerant of everything, save Christians and Jews”. The utter arrogance of those who’s faith is for everyone.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If the Pledge stated: "......,under the God of Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham,. . ." or "The all-knowing, all-powerful, omnipresent God. . ." or "The Creator God of all ages" or "the one and only God", etc., that would be one thing. That would in fact be acknowledging or affirming a specific religion or religions. But the Pledge neither says nor implies that.

The Jew may think of the God of Abraham, the Christian may think of the God preached about in church, the Moslem may think of the English word for Allah, the athiest may think of a generic source of our inalienable rights, the anti-religionist may think of superstitious myth, or whatever. The Pledge does not specify. The word could be anything or nothing at all.

Whether or not you like the phrase in the Pledge, it is not an establishment of religion and neither favors nor denies a religious belief. I think it is a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will see it that same way I do. (Or I them, which sounds a little less egotistical>)
Click to expand...
However, then you go back to the history portion of my argument and you see that when they were arguing this in the Congress about when to put this in, they were not talking about a generic god. They were specifically mentioning the god that they felt this nation was founded on and would show those commies. That god was the christian god to them and thus that argument can theoretically be thrown out.
 
SKILMATIC said:
Well again I am talking about beleifs here. And some people beleive it or not beleive in the big bang theory. So in order to be fair all beleifs must be taught.
Click to expand...

The big bang theory is not a "belief". This is a scientific theory which makes it much more than that ("theory" in science is different than what it means in common usage) and is hardly comparable to religious beliefs which state what happened with supernatural intervention. Biblical creation is not science nor is any other religious belief. We are talking about beliefs here, not science. Remember?
 
marchare said:
Even though this is very clear, you will still be accused of being anti-religion.
Click to expand...

If you said you are pro-black people as long as black people stay out of sight; if you say you are pro-women so long as they stay in the kitchen; if you say you are pro-music so long as you don't have to listen to it, how seriously would you be taken? To say you are pro-religion so long as you don't have to be around it doesn't make much more sense.

Typical sorry attempt by the Righteous Right to reframe the issue, from that of attacks on the secular nature of our constitution, to that of majority victimhood. To this nut, “free exercise” means majority rules.
Majority consensus is not the source of spirituality.
Click to expand...

What rights of yours are taken away by a religious presence? The Constitution assures people of faith that their free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. So if you get your way and all public venues are stripped of any evidence of religion, whose rights are being infringed? Not yours. But the religious have had their Constitutional right denied.

This guy claims that he is not a theocrat. Take a look at the lively exchange on the thread entitled ”Why are liberals tolerant of everything, save Christians and Jews”. The utter arrogance of those who’s faith is for everyone.
Click to expand...

What guy is that? And what does that have to do with the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or evidence of religious belief in the public sector?
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
This I agree with 100%. As no science re origins of the universe is much better than educated guesses of how it all exactly came about, it is important to know how science evolved beginning with religious explanations that morphed into the earlier incomplete (and often erroneous) scientific theories such as a flat earth and the sun revolving around the earth, etc. Little by little man, forever insatiably curious, kept questioning, kept wondering, kept observing, and kept experimenting until we arrived at the science we have today. And you know what? A hundred or a thousand years from now, much of the science we have now will have been proved to also be imperfect and incomplete.

For those few fundamentalist students who have been taught the earth is 6000 years old or some such as that, all the teacher has to do is tell them they are free to believe what they believe, but they're going to have to pass the test on science too. He does not have to destroy their faith to teach science.

The more students learn how science, as well as religion, and other theories of human behavior and development have evolved over the millenia, the better we understand, the more we realize how far we have come and that there is infinitely more possibilities and potential to be discovered yet.

To think that we have all the science now that we will ever have is as naive and narrow minded as those who think God is not the author of science. :smile:
Click to expand...

Disagree and agree with somethings here. Science related theories have to be in step with science, not religion. Science back in the day was intertwined with religion. That's why they found so many things contrary to what they believed and the church tried put an end to science. Students who believe in the Earth being 6000 years old are free to believe that, but like you said they should gain an understanding of science to get an A in their science class. Just want to clear something up. Christian beliefs and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically at odds. I don't think anyone anywhere thinks all the science we have now will be it and although I disagree, I can see where some would see God has no part in science.
 
Columbusite said:
Disagree and agree with somethings here. Science related theories have to be in step with science, not religion. Science back in the day was intertwined with religion. That's why they found so many things contrary to what they believed and the church tried put an end to science. Students who believe in the Earth being 6000 years old are free to believe that, but like you said they should gain an understanding of science to get an A in their science class. Just want to clear something up. Christian beliefs and the origin of the universe are not intrinsically at odds. I don't think anyone anywhere thinks all the science we have now will be it and although I disagree, I can see where some would see God has no part in science.
Click to expand...

We aren't really at disagreement at all I think. I am adamently opposed to any form of education that attempts to destroy a child's faith (or an adult's faith for that matter) as it is not necessary to the teaching of a subject. Any science teacher worth his salt will teach the unprovable with a healthy skepticism for its absolute accuracy; i.e. the 'big bang' theory is the most advanced theory we have now, but it has not yet been proved beyond reasonable doubt; thus there is much more yet to explore and learn.

The reason that God cannot be absolutely dismissed as having a part in science is that nobody can prove that God is not involved. And the reason Creationists should not have the upper hand in scientific theory, is that they cannot prove the existance of God. The wisest course is for both camps to keep an open mind I think.
 
AlbqOwl said:
If you said you are pro-black people as long as black people stay out of sight; if you say you are pro-women so long as they stay in the kitchen; if you say you are pro-music so long as you don't have to listen to it, how seriously would you be taken? To say you are pro-religion so long as you don't have to be around it doesn't make much more sense.
Click to expand...
Who said that they didn’t have to be around it? Who implies that religion should be out of sight? People who know me consider me to be very spiritual person, and I enjoy immensely discussing matters of faith and spirituality. You can’t believe everything Rush Limbaugh says about liberals.
AlbqOwl said:
What rights of yours are taken away by a religious presence? The Constitution assures people of faith that their free exercise of religion shall not be prohibited. So if you get your way and all public venues are stripped of any evidence of religion, whose rights are being infringed? Not yours. But the religious have had their Constitutional right denied.
Click to expand...
Religious presence infringes on no right of mine, I insist that free exercise is a human right. You have no constitutional right to express religious beliefs through government.
AlbqOwl said:
What guy is that? And what does that have to do with the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or evidence of religious belief in the public sector?
Click to expand...
You know very well what guy. The dishonest arrogant crybaby conservative who insists, in the face of all considerations of fairness, that “people of faith” must use the state as a sounding board for religion, that’s who. Don’t you feel a little out of place in a free country?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Whenever my religious beliefs include denying you any legal or inalienable right, then you have an argument.

But the words 'under God' take nothing at all away from you, require nothing of you, impinge on not one iota of your personal freedom, property, pursuit of happiness, security, opportunities, or well being. You are not required to say them, believe them, or approve of them.

To remove those two little words, however, does take away from those who want the words in there.

It doesn't matter whether the words are "under God" or "under Zeus" or "Donald Duck" or "Santa Claus", if they do not infringe on anybody's rights, and the majority wants it that way, then the majority should prevail.

Such should be the rule of thumb in all such matters. If the community wants a creche on the courthouse lawn at Christmastime, if the community wants traditional Christmas music in the winter concert, if the community likes that granite statue engraved with the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse lawn, then it takes nothing at all away from anybody else nor infringes on anybody's rights for that to happen. If the community, however, allows the creche, they also allow a Minnorah if some in the Jewish community want that too. The community should not be allowed to discriminate against one group in favor of another. As long as there is no intentional discrimination, there is no foul.

It comes down to the principle of "the free exercise (of religion) shall not be prohibited" by government. None of these things are an establishment of religion by government. All of these things are the free exercise of religion by a particular community. The ACLU should be required to butt out and the anti-religious should get a hobby or something and learn that they cannot dictate how others shall enjoy their constitutional right to an exercise of religion.

The day a teacher is discriminating against or rewarding children for having a particular religious belief or non belief; the day the community discriminates against one religion in favor of another; etc., then I'll be right there side by side with you protesting that, as that would be a violation of the Constitution.

But there is nothing stated or implied or intended in the Constitution that all vestiges or evidence or practice of religion be removed from public property. The founders made sure the government could neither require religious beliefs from anyone nor reward or punish anyone for the religious beliefs they held. But they never intended that those in government not be religious or express their religious beliefs. And there certainly would have been horrified to see (expressly unconstitutional) laws that stripped all evidence of religion from the public sector.
Click to expand...

We don't have to wait until your or anyone else's religious beliefs do deny our constitutional rights. The simple fact is that the goverment is to stay out of religion and religion out of government. What those words say is that this is a nation "under God" and we don't need our goverment to say that. This alone seems small, but people just use the pledge, 10 commandments in government buildings, school led prayer, etc combined to bolster their claim that "Look! We have all these things approved by the government because it was based on Christianity." And it certainly seems that way on the surface, but just because these things have/are taking place doesn't make them right or constitutional for that matter. So when these are taken away some Christians aren't happy about being treated equally. They want special governmental preference.

So you're for majority rule? Sorry, but that's not what this country is about. This is a republic, not a democracy. When the community wants something unconstitutional they are going to be denied, sooner or later and no amount of whining will change that. The only thing I disagree with you on of the situations listed are the 10 commandments (deja vu). I have already refuted this indepth earlier. Putting them up in a courthouse and the government allowing it is indeed out of line with the 1st amendment respecting an establishment of religion. If you say it doesn't I'd like some proof by a legitimate source. In this case they can never be put up by themselves, but with other religious/secular documents. No one by and large, is trying to kick religion out of the public square. Especially the vast majority getting the phrase "under God" and the 10 commandments taken out of government. The only place it is being taken out of is the government where it doesn't belong. The people in government are free to hold their own religious beliefs, but they are there to represent all of us, not just Christians. You are free to keep the phrase if you wish, but not the government. The pledge is pointless anyway and isn't there a commandment that would prohibit pledging allegiance to a flag? Something about false idols I believe.
 
marchare said:
Who said that they didn’t have to be around it? Who implies that religion should be out of sight? People who know me consider me to be very spiritual person, and I enjoy immensely discussing matters of faith and spirituality. You can’t believe everything Rush Limbaugh says about liberals.?
Click to expand...

Several have said that religion should be practiced in private and not 'imposed' on others. If you are in that camp, all you have to do is say so. Nobody has mentioned Rush Limbaugh but you. Maybe you should choose a different radio program?

Religious presence infringes on no right of mine, I insist that free exercise is a human right. You have no constitutional right to express religious beliefs through government.
Click to expand...

I have every right to express religious beliefs through government or anywhere else. The only thing neither I nor the government can do is to require you to believe what is expressed nor reward nor punish you for what you do or do not believe respective to religion.

You know very well what guy. The dishonest arrogant crybaby conservative who insists, in the face of all considerations of fairness, that “people of faith” must use the state as a sounding board for religion, that’s who. Don’t you feel a little out of place in a free country?
Click to expand...

Don't you feel a little silly about not framing a logical argument and having to resort instead to ad hominem aspersions and erroneous statements?
 
Well said, Columbusite!
AlbqOwl said:
I have every right to express religious beliefs through government or anywhere else. The only thing neither I nor the government can do is to require you to believe what is expressed nor reward nor punish you for what you do or do not believe respective to religion.
Click to expand...
Please note that this frightened person insists that he is “militant” about the First Amendment. And no, I don’t feel silly, I am dead serous.
 
marchare said:
Well said, Columbusite!Please note that this frightened person insists that he is “militant” about the First Amendment. And no, I don’t feel silly, I am dead serous.
Click to expand...

Nobody is more militant about the First Amendment than I am. The difference that may exist beween us is that I choose to restrict neither your rights nor mine as respective to the rights affirmed by the First Amendment.
 
You have the right to write books, publish sectarian papers, wear symbols in public, teach anything, worship as you please, stand on a corner in any city proselytizing ‘till you turn blue in the face, go door to door witnessing, pray as you wish, communion, confession, be free of taxation of your faith, etc. etc. etc. etc. I think I know why you need the state. The state, unlike your church, has real power over someone like me and my children. How selfish and arrogant.
 
marchare said:
You have the right to write books, publish sectarian papers, wear symbols in public, teach anything, worship as you please, stand on a corner in any city proselytizing ‘till you turn blue in the face, go door to door witnessing, pray as you wish, communion, confession, be free of taxation of your faith, etc. etc. etc. etc. I think I know why you need the state. The state, unlike your church, has real power over someone like me and my children. How selfish and arrogant.
Click to expand...

What have I said that would make you believe I would use the State in any way to coerce you or your children? What have I said that restricts you in any way respective to your or your children's faith or lack thereof? What have I said that suggests I should have any right or advantage over you in any way? What have I said that is anything other than I choose to defend my Constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion, and to free speech anywhere, any place, and any time even if that speech happens to have religious overtones?

And while you're at it, please provide your rationale for any notion that the Constitution requires that government be devoid of religious overtones?
 
You clearly believe that “my Constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion” translates into the right to “an establishment of religion” by the state. You have “free speech anywhere, any place, and any time even if that speech happens to have religious overtones”, the state simply doesn’t have that right.
The rational follows

Amendment 1:
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.

Please note also that it doesn’t say “particular religion”, and that God is not mentioned anywhere in our constitution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
What have I said that would make you believe I would use the State in any way to coerce you or your children? What have I said that restricts you in any way respective to your or your children's faith or lack thereof? What have I said that suggests I should have any right or advantage over you in any way? What have I said that is anything other than I choose to defend my Constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion, and to free speech anywhere, any place, and any time even if that speech happens to have religious overtones?

And while you're at it, please provide your rationale for any notion that the Constitution requires that government be devoid of religious overtones?
Click to expand...

You may not force it on others, but that doesn't mean others won't. That's why religion was kept out of our government. Read the Constitution with the knowledge that the framers deliberately left out religion except in two instances regarding people's freedom of religion and no religious test for office. So we see religion is kept separate from government. That is the rationale. You suggest you have an advantage when you are for government sponsored religion (although I can see you don't mean it this way, but it is). In this case, Christianity. Here is an article by a professor of constitutional law that sums up the pledge situation (note that this was in response to the past ruling but still applies today).
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5966
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom