Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 566
  1. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It's not just a non-faith issue. Many religions have several gods or none, such as some forms of Buddhism.

    Maybe (if you insist on the modernist god part) you could say "one nation under gods" since not everybody believes in the same god or gods?
    Or do this: "one nation under god(s)"
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Or do this: "one nation under god(s)"
    Yeah, right after the back of my $20 says "In God(s) We Trust".

    Ugh.
    I'm back!
  3. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Or do this: "one nation under god(s)"
    As long as god is in there huh?
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    ... ...
    Go here if you're tired of being .
    It'll be fun.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    Yeah, right after the back of my $20 says "In God(s) We Trust".

    Ugh.
    Go here if you're tired of being .
    It'll be fun.
  6. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #86  
    You want to get all technical with it. You got it.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    I have an idea for those who are vehemently against "under God" in the Pledge. I'll send you my Paypal account, and you can wire all of your money on over to me. It would be highly hypocritical of you to denounce the Pledge as violating the Constitution (which, as we all know but try to pretend otherwise, it doesn't), but yet walk around with a pocketful of $20s. So without the need to involve the already overburdened courts system, I'll relieve you of your offensive bills. That way you'll be able to have a clear conscience knowing that your "rights" haven't been violated.

    Maybe I'll transfer some of it into Canadian dollars or pesos so that you won't be completely destitute. Deal?

    Newdow is a perfect example of how overly litigious our society has become.
    Um, yea. I believe that was already addressed above and yes it will be next.
  8. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    As long as god is in there huh?
    Not just god. The nation part, too.
  9. #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hizd4Life
    "one nation under god" It does not specify what god one nation is under. Most religion has a particular god. So not being able to recite what the nation(US) was built on is a bunch of crap. I will stand and say it proudly because I am an American!!!


    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.


    Amen... May god bless us all!
    So majority religion wins?
    Try re-reading the constitution.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Not just god. The nation part, too.
    So why not just change it to "One nation, indivisible..."?
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    Some would still take issue with it, probably under some jingoistic reasoning.
    And that would be more to the issue. Having a problem with saying the pledge over not wanting to pledge to one's country is quite to the point.

    Having a problem with pledging to one's country because you don't want to pledge that that country is under a deity is quite another.
  12. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So why not just change it to "One nation, indivisible..."?
    Too socialistic. Need to emphasize religious expression.
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting Question:

    By the way, the pledge as it stands IS "constitutional." How do I know this?

    Because the legislation that established it was passed by Congress, Signed by the President and allowed to stand by the Supreme Court.

    That is the consitutional process. Is it not?

    And, in the interest of precedent, shouldn't it be left alone?
    No, and it will go before the Supreme court. You really can't argue that it's constitutional and as any person of religion should understand, the gov't should not be in the biz of promoting any type of faith.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Too socialistic. Need to emphasize religious expression.
    Why?
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No, and it will go before the Supreme court. You really can't argue that it's constitutional and as any person of religion should understand, the gov't should not be in the biz of promoting any type of faith.
    What type of faith is the gov't promoting by allowing schools to recite the pledge?
  16. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Why?
    Because we're not a communist republic.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by naivete
    Because we're not a communist republic.
    We need to emphasize religion to show we are not communist? This makes zero sense.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    So, if anything, a judge that rules that a group (school children) are prohibited from reciting the pledge because of the term under God then that judge is going against the 1st amendment prohibiting free exercise of religion.
    But it also infringes on my rights by stating that we are one nation under "god", thereby acknowledging the existence of a "god" which is contrary to my theological beliefs. The government can not support a theological belief system in such a blatant way that is 100% contradictory to my own.

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Why should the court get involved in this at all? To be honest I do not even see how this has anything to do with any religion. How does that statement promote one religion over another?
    It isnít about promoting one religion over any other, its about promoting the existence of a god.

    Why not go back to the way the Pledge was originally written, with out the "under god" line?
    iPhone in the Washington DC area.
  19. naivete's Avatar
    Posts
    636 Posts
    Global Posts
    640 Global Posts
    #99  
    For those of you who think this is a victory for athiest and non-christians, think again. This is a political maneuver to make sure no one can EVER try to purge the words "under god" from the pledge of allegiance. John Roberts is going to take this case and shove it down the throats of unconstitutionalism.

    You should thank the judge who ruled on the case in california who did this to try to raise questions on Robert.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by AnteL0pe
    But it also infringes on my rights by stating that we are one nation under "god", thereby acknowledging the existence of a "god" which is contrary to my theological beliefs. The government can not support a theological belief system in such a blatant way that is 100% contradictory to my own.


    It isnít about promoting one religion over any other, its about promoting the existence of a god.

    Why not go back to the way the Pledge was originally written, with out the "under god" line?
    I could agree with your argument if reciting the pledge was mandatory. I do not know of any public institution that requires an individual to recite the pledge.

    Going with your thought process of the gov't supporting a theological belief system by the words under god then we should look at all things that are related. The obivous would be a holiday on Dec. 25th recognizing the birth of Jesus Christ, the holiday that is celebrated on Jan. 1st, since it recognizes the beginning of a new calender year AD (year of our Lord) instead of BC. Someone will have to develop a new calender
    Last edited by cardio; 09/15/2005 at 11:40 AM.
Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions