House OKs Bill to Protect Pledge

Since my question was not answered, I'll throw another into the fray...

If you don't believe in a God, or Gods, then why would the phrase bother you?
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
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?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Of course there are just as many loud-mouthed assholes on that side as on the other. And that, of course, is a legitimate question.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
A television show with a standard courtroom procedure amounts to theocracy?

And y'all thought I was sensitive.
Click to expand...
I only mention such shows because I have never been in courtroom to witness such things first hand. I fugured that you would be able to understand the difference of where I was trying to lead to. What you call a 'standard courtroom procedure', yes; I do call theocracy. It is the incorporation of a single religion by force of the state by fines or incarceration.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Since my question was not answered, I'll throw another into the fray...

If you don't believe in a God, or Gods, then why would the phrase bother you?
Click to expand...
If you do believe in God and the phrase is removed, would it bother you? Its not as if it constitutes a denial of beliefs.
 
Then by that logic, the entire system of government we have is a theocracy. You should spend no currency.

Like it or not, this country was founded on a set of principles. One of the basest of those was the belief in God. If that's too much to swallow, and it's going to impact you (generic) to a fundamental level, then maybe it's time to make some hard decisions. Along with those founding principles was written a provision that allows each person to believe as they see fit. That does not sound theocratic to me in the least, but your mileage may vary. I think some of our brethren in the Middle East could speak a volume or three about theocracy, and would laugh in your face if you called our government a theocracy, but what do I know?

I fail to see how anything you've mentioned amounts to a theocracy. I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. A theocracy would have beheaded you by now for your stance. I'll assume your noggin is firmly attached where you left it last evening. The mention of God by a governmental agency does not define theocracy. If you are to be free to believe as you see fit, why should not the rest of us? Why should the entire country abandon its founding principles because you believe otherwise?

In stark bluntness, it sounds a tad whiny to me. And I never thought I'd say that to you, dude.
 
Hey.. I'll admit that its a soft theocracy at best; perhaps even the weakest Shirley Temple version of one, especially when compared with our muslim brothers over in Sandistan... but the elements of theocracy are there. If I am being whinny, then you are being obtuse in that you will only accept proofs of the most extreme nature.

You are certainly entitled to believe what you wish. I have made no suggestion otherwise. Its just when group A tries to impose their beliefs on group B, or the whole that I have issue.

The principles are also based upon the precarious balancing acts of freedom.
 
The use of GOD is, and has been ruled by the Supreme Court, a generic term relating to said creator in the Constitution & that a vast majority of citizens have at least some passing belief. You may affirm that you shall tell the truth while most will swear to God. In God We Trust, all others pay cash. All men are created equal...by whom? They are also endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...their creator?

The establishment clause says Congress shall not force any one choice upon its citizenry. In Jesus we trust is specific. Swearing to Muhammed is specific...its creates a single source, which violates the 1st. The initial oath of the President, who but one job, is
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...
The addition of affirm is because some religions don't allow swearing to.

The principle behind God, whether real or not is irrelevent, is not harmful in any way. Not one person has ever been brought to their knees for carrying coin with this term. (virtually) All public offices have some mention of a creator in their inscription. It's what we were founded under. Those who get bent can skip the part that disturbs them. A theocracy would forbid that. A theocracy would use specific terms.

Since our founding, we've been a Christian nation that disallows a specific theology to become central. Our Creator, His, God are central to our history. Nobody gets turned out for not believing. In the last generation, especially, there has been a push to remove any mention of any form of deity from our lives. Simultaneously, we've become more jaded, violent & self-centered. Connection? I think there must be.

The Pledge was changed in direct response to the Soviet Union. Communism demands that no form of deity be present in public life. Since there are plenty of other places where God is mentioned in our daily life, it was a silly & unnecessary move. I'd have no problem going back to the original text. Although, the elderly folks that I've spoken about this all say they also said Under God while in school (this would be the 20s & 30s), even though it was not officially part of the Pledge.

If we are going to follow the Stalinist model & remove all mentions of any deity from our public life, we must start with the very paper that gives us our identity. At that point, we may as well have a war & allow the victor the spoils to create another basis for public life since this one is under attack from the inside already.
 
Gonz said:
The use of GOD is, and has been ruled by the Supreme Court, a generic term relating to said creator in the Constitution & that a vast majority of citizens have at least some passing belief.
Click to expand...

I checked an online version of the Constitution, didn't find the word God. Didn't find creator either.

Perhaps you mean the Declaration of Independence? (which is not part of the US Code)
 
Well, yes, the Declaration. Not part of US Code? Which code prohibits use of any of the above terms?
 
Gonz said:
I just wanna use what we have & stop adding crap that's not there.
Click to expand...
That's all I'm saying, except take out all the crap that's already been added. ;)
 
I was referring to the pledge, but while we're at it we could stop the wimmenz from voting... *peepwall*
 
Can't do that. Those redcoats'll be settling in nice and tight if you do.

Besides... thats just another dodge to do away with the 2nd.. our little firearms clause.
 
unclehobart said:
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.
Click to expand...




In court, you can testify without swearing on the Bible if you for any reason are not bound to it. Same with the president. He does not have to swear on the Bible when elected. Also you are in the Bible Belt so your state would be considered more religious than not. In Maryland I have not seen religion have the power here that it does in the more southern and midwest states
 
Gonz said:
Well, yes, the Declaration. Not part of US Code? Which code prohibits use of any of the above terms?
Click to expand...

The Declaration itself is not part of the code, not law. Nothing prohibits the use of the above terms.

Just clarifying, God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top