BUSh Declares Our RIGHTs come from GOD!

by plmkrzy 66 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Gopher

  No, I wouldn't prefer "one nation under the supreme court", because there you emphasize the rule of men and women over the rule of law.

  I'd prefer "one nation, with liberty and justice for all". Simple, and fair for believers and non-believers alike. RIght?

  (I would go back to what it was prior to 1954, when the "under God" phrase was added during an era of anti-Communist hysteria. Well, I think we may have won the cold war against those communists hiding under every bed, etc.)

  Edited by - Gopher on 27 June 2002 19:35:42
• 

  plmkrzy

  I'd prefer "one nation, with liberty and justice for all".

  Gopher thats what it should be left at as far as I'm concerned also. But Bush is on his way down a road to altar or change the constitution to make more sense. He isn't asking for a majority vote OR a minority vote.He is making these decissions. Where is it going to go from there?

  plum
• 

  Kenneson

  Plmkrzy,

  The Supreme Court already has the final say in interpeting the law. Are they not the GB of the U.S. (nine men who tell us all what to do)? Who selected the past judges and current judges?

  Gopher,

  How is reciting the pledge with the words "under God" unfair? As far as I am aware, Jws children don't recite it and atheists should not be forced to recite it nor anyone who objects either. But what about all those who want to recite it containing the words "under God" and will not be allowed to if this case becomes effective? That's fair?
• 

  Gopher

  My earlier post said simplifying the pledge to "one nation with liberty and justice for all" would be fair for believers and non-believers alike.

  By including the words added in 1954, "under God", you exclude individuals who WOULD want to recite the pledge but cannot conscientiously do so.

  I'd like to draw attention to the phrase "for all" -- all should include people of any religious background who wish to recite the pledge. JW's are an exception, because they view the pledge of allegiance as idolatry. But that's not the issue in the 9th circuit court.

  Many American people are reacting at a gut-level here, as if the whole pledge was threatened, and therefore our whole way of life. It isn't.

  This is a matter of "cleaning up" the pledge, so that all people, whether under God or not, could have the freedom to recite it (or not).
• 

  LDH

  An email from my Southern Baptist Fundy Aunt

  Well. I'm HOPPING MAD

  about yesterday's California Federal Court ruling which affects 9 Western States regarding "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance??
  Have I been wrong all along or is this not what our country is founded on ... Godly principles? WE AS CHRISTIAN AMERICANS HAVE TO START STANDING UP FOR OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OR OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE NONE. We have to stop being "politically correct" and not waiver in what we believe.
  
  Well, now ... I'm glad I got that out of my system!!! Man, it makes me fuming mad ... people have died for this flag and to protect this country and some Athiest nutbucket wants to tear it down ... I'll bet HE never fought for us nor our country ... was probably off smoking joints somewhere!!!
  
  Gotta run and go to St. Francisville. You guys have a good one!!
  
  Love,
  Judy

  And my response to her:

  SHIT!!! I lost it let me find it.

  Lisa
• 

  Double Edge

  At the beginning of our nation's Declaration of Independence, it is written.....

  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

  and ends with.....

  And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

  Whether a person believes in God or not, what the 9th Circuit Court did was to mess with our heritage. Don't get on Bush's case for standing up for what is written in The Declaration of Independence.
• 

  Francois

  This thread proves the inserviceability of government schools.

  The civil war WAS NOT fought over civil rights.

  One more time. Please listen.

  The civil war was was fought between the industrialized north (who wanted high trade tariffs with England to protect its industry) and the rural, agrarian south (who opposed high trade tariffs because the north was bleeding the south dry via overcharging for their manufactured goods). The south wanted to secede from the union and set up its own trade relations with England, and very nearly was allowed to go its own way in peace. However, the slavery issue was used by anti-secessionists in the north to fan the flames and keep its markets intact, not for any overweaning and imaginary "civil rights" issue. The secessionists were - almost to a man - northern industrialists who wanted to retain the gold mine represented in their ability to force inflated prices down the throat of the south. That, again, was the primary spark that set off the civil war. And, again, the south very nearly was allowed to leave in peace. (BTW, it would have been a disaster for that to have happened IMHO.)

  Slavery was an issue, but as noted above, a peripheral issue at best. Black & white slaves (there WERE both races kept in slavery, you know) then were used as pawns by the industrialized north, just as civil rights is used, pawnlike, today to mask other, more sinister, agenda. Politics then was the same as politics today: argue loudly about a related, peripheral issue to keep from having to face (or admit) the real motivation head-on. And today the uneducated, the undereducated, the gullible, and partisans like to argue the so-called civil rights cause of the civil war. Nothing could be further from the truth (remember that? Truth?)

  Since the civil rights cause of the civil war is demonstrably merely a red herring, what is the real argument that is being served, hidden, by this falsity today? I don't know. Perhaps those of you who hew to the civil rights argument for the civil war will tell us?

  I used to think that historical revisionism was only practiced in the Soviet Union and in Communist China. It's awfully discouraging to find it being practiced here.

  Francois
• 

  Gopher

  I still don't see how a God-neutral pledge deprives anyone of their right to believe in, or not believe in a God. I happen to believe in God, but don't think such a belief should be forced on anyone.

  Go back to the declaration... where it promised that among our "inalienable rights" are "liberty". Forcing a nationwide pledge to contain "under God" is not liberty.

  That's what the circuit court's first ruling emphasized.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Who selected the past judges and current judges?

  Bush made it VERY CLEAR that HE INTENDS TO. appoint Judges to the Bench that think like he does. He wasn't asking he was telling.

  Did anyone actually HEAR what Bush said on National Television when in conference with the Prime Minister?

  He said ?

  "If it means CHANGING OUR CONSTITUTION then so be it"
• 

  plmkrzy

  I guess my main issue with bush at this point is by his choice of speach he is sounding more and more like a King everyday rather then a President.

  This is not a BUSH BASHING but simply clear observations. I think this whole war has begun to go to his head. And It shows.