House OKs Bill to Protect Pledge

freako104 said:
That I have to disagree with. Removing it will just be that: removing it. By having it there is forcing of one's beliefs there. Without it, there is not one.
Click to expand...

I must respectfully disagree with this. No one forces anything down your throat by recitation.

I have my own issues with the pledge. That is why, on the one monthly occasion when it is recited in my presence, I mumble over it. Because I do not pledge my allegiance to the flag; I pledge it to my God, my family, my country (as much as I fear and loathe its government), and yes, a different flag. One that I wager maybe half a dozen people on here have ever seen and no more than two of them would recognize if you DID see it.

If you choose not to believe in God, that is your choice and I will defend your right to make that choice even as I disagree with the choice itself. But you have the option of saying those two words or not. Make that choice as well. Leave the rest of us in peace, as I do when I am called upon to pledge my allegiances.
 
chcr said:
He was a christian socialist, not a communist and if you can find any socialist rhetoric in his pledge, please point it out because I have missed it.
Click to expand...

You do remember the post in question, right?
I disremember which thread it's in now, and since the old computer is now so many ashes I don't have the f'ing bookmark.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
You do remember the post in question, right?
I disremember which thread it's in now, and since the old computer is now so many ashes I don't have the f'ing bookmark.
Click to expand...
SnP, I don't always remember what I posted fifteen minutes ago, but I think I know which one you mean.
 
Well, unlike a number of our fellow members, I don't like posting about a matter without some knowledge of the subject at hand. I know it flies in the face of forum posting in general, but there it is. ;)

If a lot of self-proclaimed conservatives understood the author at all (and they were consistent) they'd be lobbying to have the pledge outlawed altogether, wouldn't they? :lol:
 
spike said:
No, it's removing personal religious beliefs from the equation.
Click to expand...

And how, exactly, is the phrase "Under God" a personal religious belief? Before you answer, you'd best think it through to its entirety...
 
chcr said:
Gotholic said:
chcr said:
See, in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom of christianity. ;)
Click to expand...
More like freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. ;) :p
Click to expand...
Semantic bullshit and I suspect you know it. If you simply can't help being that obtuse, keep quiet unless you have something cogent and intelligent to add.
Click to expand...

How hypocritical of you.

My comment was just a spin off of your semantics. :shrug:

Anyways, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government cannot acknowledge God. Having "Under God" in the pledge is perfectly fine. You are not forced to say those words nor believe in them.

You have the freedom to believe in what you want. But regardless of what you believe, it does not change the fact that the US has a religious monotheistic heritage.

Every state constitution acknowledges God.
 
Gotholic said:
Anyways, there is nothing in the Constitution that says the government cannot acknowledge God. Having "Under God" in the pledge is perfectly fine. You are not forced to say those words nor believe in them.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I never said there was.

Main Entry: sar·casm
Pronunciation: 'sär-"ka-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwar&s- to cut
1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm
Click to expand...

I'll just tag 'em all from now on for clarity.

[sarcasm]Evidently you can be sarcastic but it's not okay for someone to be sarcastic in return?[/sarcasm]
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
I must respectfully disagree with this. No one forces anything down your throat by recitation.

I have my own issues with the pledge. That is why, on the one monthly occasion when it is recited in my presence, I mumble over it. Because I do not pledge my allegiance to the flag; I pledge it to my God, my family, my country (as much as I fear and loathe its government), and yes, a different flag. One that I wager maybe half a dozen people on here have ever seen and no more than two of them would recognize if you DID see it.

If you choose not to believe in God, that is your choice and I will defend your right to make that choice even as I disagree with the choice itself. But you have the option of saying those two words or not. Make that choice as well. Leave the rest of us in peace, as I do when I am called upon to pledge my allegiances.
Click to expand...




I agree you do not have to say them. I don't think they should have been added though. But I can agree with what you said.
 
chcr said:
See, in America we have freedom of religion, not freedom of christianity. ;)
Click to expand...

Not to mention Judaism & Islam ;)

(what about that whole Declaration of Independence thing?)
 
spike said:
No, it's removing personal religious beliefs from the equation.
Click to expand...

No, he's right. Either one side or the other is gonna have its way. Since the anti-religion group keeps getting its way, what harm comes from keeping it? Has anyone ever died from saying (or skipping) a few words?

They were added as a response to god-less communism. I don't think they should have been but hey, no animals were killed in making of this addition.
 
Despite my overt Baptist leanings, I agree with chic on this'n. Freedom of religion IMO implies the freedom to have none.

My overt Baptist leanings also teach me that I/we as Christians are not commanded to force our beliefs on anyone else, merely to be ready at any time to bear witness and to seek the salvation/conversion/insert your favorite term here of our friends, family, and associates. If someone rejects the message, I/we have done as commanded, and should then pray that someone else can get through to them.

AFAIK, nowhere in the US constitution or in the Bible is acceptance of any set of beliefs a prerequisite for citizenship in a free country. Allah might think otherwise, but Allah is full of shit anyway.
 
I'm against religion by decree. I also think that citizens should have the right to follow, practice or avoid any/all religions-by their choice. However, the BIll fo Rights says
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Click to expand...
Since God is relatively generic (as opposed to specific apostles like Jesus or Muhammed), the use of the term God is not creating a state religion-unless it forces the citizenry to say the aforementioned passages (I quietly skip that part). On the other hand, removing God from government texts & papers, etc, might abridge the freedom to exercise ones right.

Hence, it is the $64,000 question...Can government use religious tenets without establishing an official religion? As long as we're not using specific models, I say yes. (I affirm my oath)
 
OK. And then the $64,000.95 question becomes:

Does the very mention of a diety (real or perceived before knees jerk) define an affront to anyone's personal freedoms?

For the record, if the Supreme Being of choice in this country were to become, say, Bilbonojak Overlord of Axle Grease tomorrow, and all our currency reflected that change, and his/her name were added to the pledge, I still wouldn't say the pledge. That ain't the part that hacks me. I would continue to worship as before, and nothing in my day to day life would change that much. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. Bilbonojak or no.

If I am to respect the rights of others to hold their beliefs, I should be afforded the same courtesy. We all see how well that's working out.
 
How about aspects where religion is thrust upon us? Remember all of the lovely movies and tv show courtroom dramas? ...where the command of the court was to raise your right hand and place the other on the Bible and swear to God that you were telling the truth? Refusal means the wrath of the state.

I know they slowly tried to dull the knife a little by twisting it in most places to 'swear or affirm'... but to me it amounts to pretty much the same thing.



Insfar as the 'freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion' thing: I have seen it in use in my own state. Our state governor in the 80s used to quote it all the time... and practice it accordingly. Even our current governor is a mild theocrat. In fact, I cannot recall a governor here that was not a theocrat all the way back to reconstruction... at least in lipservice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top