ONE MORE THING: Should NEW CITIZENS be made to Pledge Alliegence to this County? [I'm sure they do now] (I mean some may not be Christians and they still have to say under God] It seems in our Zeal to remove religion and all things related to it .. . we are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water Rocket River
Note that the definition includes 'powers'. That could mean 'Gods', not just 'God'. Or in a new age interpretation, maybe the 'powers' are people, no God. Also, you forgot to mention that 'freedom of religion' also encompasses no religion at all, thus, no God.
You guys need to review the establishment clause, the country cannot establish a religion. That said, acknowledgement of a diety is not establishment, and therefore the nation has every right to say under God, because that is not the establishment of religion. I mean there are restrictions on freedom of religion, like you can't just say you have a religion in which you go around serially raping and murdering little kids and then expect to be protected by freedom of religion clause. I mean it is so easy to make the reverse argument from your deduction Batman, why can't one pray in public school, say with the Santa Fe prayer case. It seems as if that is a total infringement on freedom of religion. So, back to the pledge. Well, it does have the weight of Ameirca's heritage behind it, to quote from Ike on why we should say Under God, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war." The country has always acknowledged a creator, from the very inception of the declaration. Nota Bene: Most modern day "atheists" couldn't be a real atheist if they tried. They just disprove to themselves a Theistic God, and substitute it with Love, Happiness, saftey, self- sufficiency, etc. etc.
Couple problems with your arguments. 1) When we say our country is "under God," it is a clear reference to the Judeo-Christian God. No other religion refers to their deity as God, but instead uses a different word (Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh, Zeus, Shiva, etc.) or (in the case of certain religions) doesn't include the concept of gods. If the phrase was "under divine providence," then you could argue that such an insertion does not establish any religion. But by using the term specifically associated with Christianity, this phrase essentially says "Ours is a Christian nation" and thus establishes a religion. This country was founded by people who were escaping religious intolerance, and our founders realized that a country established under religion was doomed to similar problems. Forcing people to say America is "under God" often creates an atmosphere of alienation and intolerance for those who do not adhere to Christianity. I don't think that's what America should be about, and while the founders were Christians or deists, I think they would agree. 2) The problem with the Santa Fe case is not that the girl couldn't pray at the football game. The problem was that she insisted on making a ceremony of her praying (using the PA system) with all of the attendees. By permitting this, the school essentially forced a religious ceremony on all of the attendees, regardless of their religious opinions. The girl could have prayed anytime she wanted and with no interference. The courts simply said "Don't do it over the PA."
Didn't you read my post? This is the site that MR. MEOWGI put a link to. http://history.vineyard.net//pledge.htm The Pledge wasn't written by the founding fathers. In it's original form, it didn't have the "under God" part. That was added in back in 1954 for anti-communism purposes.
Count me among those that would like the words "under God" to be removed, restoring the pledge to it's pre-1954 state. I voted that the pledge should be allowed in public school, but I definitely think that those words should be removed. I believe in the pledge and I think it is important to recite it, especially for young people. They may be "just words," but they are very important words for Americans to have ingrained. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I got chills just typing that.
Saying ours is a Christian Nation does not equate with the establishment of religion. Now, our nation was set up with Christian values, which is not the establishment of religion. Now take some of the founding fathers views. Everyone says that Jefferson was for seperation, but he really only shows that in half of the documents he produced. He flip flops like General Clark on this issue. See what Washington has to say: Farewell Address (Excerpt on Religion and Morality) George Washington September 19, 1796 Printer-Friendly Version [Religion and morality are necessary conditions of the preservation of free government. — TGW] …Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. ’Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric Promote then as an object of primary importance, Institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened…. [From George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 521-22.] Another from Georgie... To the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island George Washington August 18, 1790 Printer-Friendly Version [Free exercise of religion is a natural right, but only on condition of performance of the duties of citizenship. — TGW] [Washington is responding to a congratulatory letter from the Jews in Newport, where he had recently visited on a presidential tour of the Northeast.] Gentlemen: While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens. The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people. The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness,upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy. [George Washington, A Collection, ed. W.B. Allen (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1989), 545-546.] So, Maybe changing the word would be better, but to me its the same no matter what. And nobody forces them to say the pledge. As far as the Santa Fe case goes, why should she not be able to express her religious beliefs. Shiite, we allow govt. grants for art that comes damn close to porno so that these artists can express their freedom of speech. To me it seems like you lose a lot.
