One more victory for the Christians and it sucks!!!

by Atilla 51 Replies latest social current

  • chappy
    chappy

    What do the words "Under God" have to do with Christianity? Seems to me the only people that would have a problem with it would be Athiests and possibly Panthiests. Most of the Athiests I know claim to be pretty enlightened so I don't see why two little words would be offensive to them.

    The way I read the first amendment, the much touted term "seperation of church and state" isn't there. Even if it could be interprited as such, the term "God" is one thing; "church" and "religion" are something entirely different.

    chappy

  • ohiocowboy
    ohiocowboy

    One nation,
    Indivisible,
    With liberty and justice for all.

    Interesting point, Seattleniceguy.

    If one thinks about it, by having the phrase "Under God" right before "Indivisible" seems to make a contradictory statement, as the fact that "God"-(and the belief or disbelief of therein) many times is the very cause of Division amongst people in our nation!

    ThiChi, you may find this site from the Library of Congress interesting Regarding Jefferson's Slaves....For wanting to abolish slavery so bad, he sure did seem to have enough of them....

    http://lcweb.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefflife.html

  • imallgrowedup
    imallgrowedup

    I am also with Thi Chi.

    And for what it is worth, I've had a post deleted for something that was not half the attack on someone else's personal beliefs than this one is to mine. You're damn lucky I don't complain.

    growedup

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    ""ThiChi and Richie,

    If you think all the founding fathers were devout religionists, you ought to read Ben Franklin's autobiography. This intelligent and important man was basically non-religious. His ethics sprung from observations of the natural world, cause and effect, and rational thought. I believe that Franklin would agree that religious overtones have no place in a national pledge.

    SNG""

    ""If you think all the founding fathers were devout religionists""

    Who made this claim? Not I...........

    In fact, Franklin still supported the religious necessity as a foundation of our Nation, and referred to all non Christians as infidels.... I have posted on this topic before, do a search.........

  • Special K
    Special K

    I guess what I learn from this for exjw's or any ex's is to try and get a 50/50 custody of your child if you are in a separation or divorce situation.

    If the J.W. gets full custody then they get more say as to religious training etc.and can usurp what you would like to see happen.. as evident by this particular case.

    whereas if you have 50 % custody than the other ex-partner has no say over what religion (or not) you take your child to when he/she is with you. Sounds fair.

    ----

    As far as the pledge goes. I know what it was like in school to be picked on constantly for having to sit down for O'canada or any other allegiance stuff. School was horrible as a J.W. I don't think any kid should be made to do this.

    I am more accepting of most any religion as long as it doesn't hurt people and make them feel fear and guilt or shame.

    Special K

    -----

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Here is part of the Courts Viewpoint on the Under God remark: I agree 1000%

    II

    The Pledge of Allegiance reads:

    "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." 4 U. S. C. §4.

    As part of an overall effort to "codify and emphasize existing rules and customs pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States of America," see H. R. Rep. No. 2047, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942); S. Rep. No. 1477, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1942), Congress enacted the Pledge on June 22, 1942. Pub. L. 623, ch. 435, §7, 56 Stat. 380, former 36 U. S. C. §1972. Congress amended the Pledge to include the phrase "under God" in 1954. Act of June 14, 1954, ch. 297, §7, 68 Stat. 249. The amendment's sponsor, Representative Rabaut, said its purpose was to contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of atheism. 100 Cong. Rec. 1700 (1954). We do not know what other Members of Congress thought about the purpose of the amendment. Following the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case, Congress passed legislation that made extensive findings about the historic role of religion in the political development of the Nation and reaffirmed the text of the Pledge. Act of Nov. 13, 2002, Pub. L. 107-293, §§1-2, 116 Stat. 2057-2060. To the millions of people who regularly recite the Pledge, and who have no access to, or concern with, such legislation or legislative history, "under God" might mean several different things: that God has guided the destiny of the United States, for example, or that the United States exists under God's authority. How much consideration anyone gives to the phrase probably varies, since the Pledge itself is a patriotic observance focused primarily on the flag and the Nation, and only secondarily on the description of the Nation.

    The phrase "under God" in the Pledge seems, as a historical matter, to sum up the attitude of the Nation's leaders, and to manifest itself in many of our public observances. Examples of patriotic invocations of God and official acknowledgments of religion's role in our Nation's history abound.

    At George Washington's first inauguration on April 30, 1789, he

    "stepped toward the iron rail, where he was to receive the oath of office. The diminutive secretary of the Senate, Samuel Otis, squeezed between the President and Chancellor Livingston and raised up the crimson cushion with a Bible on it. Washington put his right hand on the Bible, opened to Psalm 121:1: 'I raise my eyes toward the hills. Whence shall my help come.' The Chancellor proceeded with the oath: 'Do you solemnly swear that you will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will to the best of your ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?' The President responded, 'I solemnly swear,' and repeated the oath, adding, 'So help me God.' He then bent forward and kissed the Bible before him." M. Riccards, A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundation of the American Presidency, 1700-1800, pp. 73-74 (1987).

    Later the same year, after encouragement from Congress, 3 Washington issued his first Thanksgiving proclamation, which began:

    "Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor--and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me 'to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.' " 4 Papers of George Washington 131: Presidential Series (W. Abbot & D. Twohig eds. 1993).

    Almost all succeeding Presidents have issued similar Thanksgiving proclamations.

    Later Presidents, at critical times in the Nation's history, have likewise invoked the name of God. Abraham Lincoln, concluding his masterful Gettysburg Address in 1863, used the very phrase "under God":

    "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotions to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." 1 Documents of American History 429 (H. Commager ed. 8th ed. 1968).

    Lincoln's equally well known second inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1865, makes repeated references to God, concluding with these famous words:

    "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Id., at 443.

    Woodrow Wilson appeared before Congress in April 1917, to request a declaration of war against Germany. He finished with these words:

    "But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts,--for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own Governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right for such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other." 2 id., at 132.

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, taking the office of the Presidency in the depths of the Great Depression, concluded his first inaugural address with these words: "In this dedication of a nation, we humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us! May He guide me in the days to come!" 2 id., at 242.

    General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would himself serve two terms as President, concluded his "Order of the Day" to the soldiers, sailors, and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force on D-Day--the day on which the Allied Forces successfully landed on the Normandy beaches in France--with these words: "Good Luck! And
    let us all beseech the blessings of Almighty God upon
    this great and noble undertaking," http://www.eisenhower.
    archives.gov/dl/DDay/SoldiersSailorsAirmen.pdf (all Internet materials as visited June 9, 2004, and available in Clerk of Court's case file).

    The motto "In God We Trust" first appeared on the country's coins during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, acting under the authority of an Act of Congress passed in 1864, prescribed that the motto should appear on the two cent coin. The motto was placed on more and more denominations, and since 1938 all United States coins bear the motto. Paper currency followed suit at a slower pace; Federal Reserve notes were so inscribed during the decade of the 1960's. Meanwhile, in 1956, Congress declared that the motto of the United States would be "In God We Trust." Act of July 30, 1956, ch. 795, 70 Stat. 732.

    Our Court Marshal's opening proclamation concludes with the words " 'God save the United States and this honorable Court.' " The language goes back at least as far as 1827. O. Smith, Early Indiana Trials and Sketches: Reminiscences (1858) (quoted in 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 469 (rev. ed. 1926)).

    All of these events strongly suggest that our national culture allows public recognition of our Nation's religious history and character. In the words of the House Report that accompanied the insertion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge: "From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God." H. R. Rep. No. 1693, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1954). Giving additional support to this idea is our national anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner," adopted as such by Congress in 1931. 36 U. S. C. §301 and Historical and Revision Notes. The last verse ends with these words:

    "Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

    "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'

    "And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

    "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

    http://www.bcpl.net/~etowner/anthem.html.

    As pointed out by the Court, California law requires public elementary schools to "conduc[t] ... appropriate patriotic exercises" at the beginning of the schoolday, and notes that the "giving of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America shall satisfy the requirements of this section." Cal. Educ. Code Ann. §52720 (West 1989). The School District complies with this requirement by instructing that "[e]ach elementary school class recite the [P]ledge of [A]llegiance to the [F]lag once each day." App. 149-150. Students who object on religious (or other) grounds may abstain from the recitation. West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943) (holding that the government may not compel school students to recite the Pledge).

    Notwithstanding the voluntary nature of the School District policy, the Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, held that the policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it "impermissibly coerces a religious act." Newdow v. United States Congress, 328 F. 3d 466, 487 (CA9 2003). To reach this result, the court relied primarily on our decision in Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992). That case arose out of a graduation ceremony for a public high school in Providence, Rhode Island. The ceremony was begun with an invocation, and ended with a benediction, given by a local rabbi. The Court held that even though attendance at the ceremony was voluntary, students who objected to the prayers would nonetheless feel coerced to attend and to stand during each prayer. But the Court throughout its opinion referred to the prayer as "an explicit religious exercise," id., at 598, and "a formal religious exercise," id., at 589.

    As the Court notes in its opinion, "the Pledge of Allegiance evolved as a common public acknowledgement of the ideals that our flag symbolizes. Its recitation is a patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity and pride in those principles." Ante, at 2.

    I do not believe that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge converts its recital into a "religious exercise" of the sort described in Lee. Instead, it is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents. The phrase "under God" is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion, but a simple recognition of the fact noted in H. R. Rep. No. 1693, at 2: "From the time of our earliest history our peoples and our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in God." Reciting the Pledge, or listening to others recite it, is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church. 4

    There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress. There may be others who disagree, not with the phrase "under God," but with the phrase "with liberty and justice for all." But surely that would not give such objectors the right to veto the holding of such a ceremony by those willing to participate. Only if it can be said that the phrase "under God" somehow tends to the establishment of a religion in violation of the First Amendment can respondent's claim succeed, where one based on objections to "with liberty and justice for all" fails. Our cases have broadly interpreted this phrase, but none have gone anywhere near as far as the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. The recital, in a patriotic ceremony pledging allegiance to the flag and to the Nation, of the descriptive phrase "under God" cannot possibly lead to the establishment of a religion, or anything like it.

    When courts extend constitutional prohibitions beyond their previously recognized limit, they may restrict democratic choices made by public bodies. Here, Congress prescribed a Pledge of Allegiance, the State of California required patriotic observances in its schools, and the School District chose to comply by requiring teacher-led recital of the Pledge of Allegiance by willing students. Thus, we have three levels of popular government--the national, the state, and the local--collaborating to produce the Elk Grove ceremony. The Constitution only requires that schoolchildren be entitled to abstain from the ceremony if they chose to do so. To give the parent of such a child a sort of "heckler's veto" over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase "under God," is an unwarranted extension of the Establishment Clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance.

  • Crazy151drinker
    Crazy151drinker
    My feeling is that the one nation under God should be removed at once, f*ck the Christians for trying to force their religion upon everyone in this country.

    Errr the only reason you have a country is because of those f*cking Christians. It was those same f*cking Christians who wrote the Bill of Rights that gave YOU the Freedom not to believe.

    The problem with this entire court case is that he claims to have sued on behalf of his daughter- yet his daughter is Christian and has no problem saying it. This is nothing but his own personal vendetta and he is using his daughter to do it. Disgusting.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek

    As a non-American I always find it strange how many arguments between Americans on what is right or wrong seems to depend on the exact wording of their constitution or the supposed intentions or beliefs of the "Founding Fathers". Why does it matter what Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin might have thought? The issue is whether the government of a free country should endorse any particular set of religious beliefs at the expense of those who do not share them.

  • Atilla
    Atilla

    If there is a God, does anyone actually think that a nation can collectively actually curry favor with that powerful creator just because they put his or her name in their pledge or on their money. Who are we kidding? Is it not obvious that God is helping this country or any other country for that matter. Would God even want to be attached to the wars and deeds done by this country?

    Now, I do think that the father of this girl with the pledge case is exploiting his daughter because every time there is a camera around, he goes off. However, I still think it is a good idea, just maybe a different approach would have been better.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    Much ado about nothing. I'm for the pledge.... it isn't mandatory ... if you don't want to say it, don't. I didn't use to care about people chipping away at our traditions, now I'm getting almost militant in retaining them.

    I knew about this case but I did not realize that is was dubbie prez. Eisenhower you actually put the under god phrase into the pledge some 50 years ago when he signed it into law.

    BTW, Eisenhower wasn't a 'dubbie'... His parents were Bible Students in the early 1900's... far from being a JW of today. Eisenhower never joined in his parents religion.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit