One nation under God...

[Jeslek]

SOURCE: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021113/ap_wo_en_po/us_bush_under_god_1

U.S. president reaffirms references to God in pledge and national motto [/siz]

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush signed into law on Wednesday a bill reaffirming references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance and national motto.

Bush signed the legislation without comment. It reinforces support for the words "under God" in the pledge, and for "In God we trust" as the national motto.
The measure was approved unanimously in the Senate and drew just five no votes in the House of Representatives. Congress rushed to act after a federal appeals court in California ruled in June that the phrase "under God," inserted into the pledge by Congress in 1954, amounted to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

The legislation faulted the court for its "erroneous rationale" and "absurd result."

The new law also modifies the manner in which the Pledge of Allegiance is to be delivered by stating that, when not in uniform, men should remove any nonreligious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Previously, the standard dictated that "any headdress" be removed.

Now I know most of you here are anti-religion, but if you don't believe in God, just don't say it.... I for one like this a lot.

 

[unclehobart]

Without a Constitutional Ammendment.. its still grossly improper.

 

[Gato_Solo]

If one does not believe in God, then why all of the hoopla trying to get God removed from everything? Makes no sense to me.

 

[Jeslek]

I don't see why its imporper. You don't HAVE to say it. You don't HAVE to use the same Pledge. You don't HAVE to say "In God We Trust".

 

[unclehobart]

It promotes the idea of monotheism as the only religious base within a nation that has dozens and dozens of polytheistic Indian and island cultures ... not to mention others of African or Asian origin within our immigrant populace. It is the government and all of its overwhelming power taking sides in an arena that it has no business in, regardless of how trivial it may seem.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Irregardless of the 'promotion' of monotheism, it seems that all of the court challenges to the word God are initiated by atheists. That's why I brought up the question. Besides...you can always substitute God in a pledge with the word Gods. The latest attack in CA especially.

 

[unclehobart]

How do they substitute it on their money? Mono-god is in print form on trillions of little wafers of nickel and copper and green sheets of cotton as the only recognized form of legal tender. If it were just in optional word form I wouldn't care... but its rather permanetly stamped into the cash base. The whole 'god' on money issue was in response to communism in the mid 50s. It was included by the founding fathers for a reason. Its existence was created out of aggression, not reflection.

 

[ris]

being ill-eduacted on the us constitiution as i am i have very little knowledge on the subject. but it seems clear to me that the original constitution [held so dear by so many here] made the division of state and church explicit and this so obviously contravenes it.
as a result the argument seems academic to me.

 

[PT]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here it is, it is rather simple really, but has been interpreted various ways.

 

[Jeslek]

being ill-eduacted on the us constitiution as i am i have very little knowledge on the subject. but it seems clear to me that the original constitution [held so dear by so many here] made the division of state and church explicit and this so obviously contravenes it.
as a result the argument seems academic to me.

"separation of church and state." The ACLU and the liberal media have touted the phrase so many times that most people believe the phrase is in the Constitution. Nowhere is "separation of church and state" referenced in the Constitution. This phrase was in the former Soviet Union's Constitution, but it has never been part of the United States Constitution.

Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy.

Source: http://www.lc.org/OldResources/separation.html

The federal government is by no means imposing on anyone by declaring the "under God" part Constitutional. HOWEVER, forbidding kids to say the Pledge because it contains "under God" is indeed unconstitutional. Bush merely told the judges to get all their marbles together. No one is FORCING anyone to say the specific pledge. You can alter it in any way you want and still say it.

 

[PT]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That part there means that the government has no right whatsoever to even be discussing whether or not God is in anything. IMHO.

 

[Jeslek]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here it is, it is rather simple really, but has been interpreted various ways.

OK, it says up there that Congress shall make no laws prohobiting the free exercise of religion, or respecting an establishment of religion. Now tell me, that "under God" part... Lets see...

respecting an establishment of religion - Quite frankly, that "under God" part can't possibly indicate an establishment of religion because its left to the individual to define God. In some cases, like for me, it means Jehova. For others it means Allah. In other cases, the "God" means multiple gods. And yet for others, it means nothing. So how does that come to respecting an establishment of religion? NOT putting "under God" can also mean the government repecting an establishment of religion: atheism.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - Prohibiting people from pledging allegiance because of that phrase is unconstitutional. However, Bush did NOT prohibit the free exercise of religion. He did NOT force anyone to say those words. You CAN change it if you want.

 

[Jeslek]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That part there means that the government has no right whatsoever to even be discussing whether or not God is in anything. IMHO.

*frown* and what is this religion the government established today then?

 

[Bubba]

i'm staying out of this one, but i would never want the Pledge changed

 

[PT]

They established a religon based on God. Not Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, El,
Elhoim, Al Sadi, Adoni, Jah, etc...

God to most implies christianity. By making the word God part of a government article, they are establishing that the religon of our country is based on God.

 

[ris]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

That part there means that the government has no right whatsoever to even be discussing whether or not God is in anything. IMHO.

*frown* and what is this religion the government established today then?

i'm not sure that statement means the establishment of a religion by congress. in legelese the statement reads no law respecting [so therefore with regard to] an establishment of relgion. the ommision of 'a' before religion makes it a generic coverall, unspecific and therefore covering any established religious group.

if that statement is correct then the addition of 'under god' in the 1950s would appear to be applicable as the congress made law [if ammending the pledge or currency is covered by law, i would have expected the latter to have been] with respect to religion, as a religious statement was the change.

as an outsider, with noting to gain or lose, it just appears to be a clear legal arrangement.

 

[PT]

I should probably say that I really don't care one way or the other if we say the Pledge with or without God, or if God is on my money or not. It's just that if you read the constitution it pretty clearly states that Government is supposed to keep their nose out of religon, which they very clearly have Not done.

 

[Jeslek]

They established a religon based on God. Not Buddha, Jehovah, Yaweh, El,
Elhoim, Al Sadi, Adoni, Jah, etc...

God to most implies christianity. By making the word God part of a government article, they are establishing that the religon of our country is based on God.

No, it NEVER stated Jehova or Yahweh as God. God as we know it is simply a deity. If they mentioned the god by name, yes. But they did not. You are jumping to conclusions and making assumptions here.

 

[PT]

But the other names are names for God. Just a god of a different religon. Ask most English speaking people in the US what religon uses God. A christian religon. Other religons use other names for their God, therefore the government has said that the religon it recognizes is a christian religon. That is establishing a religon of the country, which is unconstitutional.

 

[ris]

i don't think it takes a hard-line cynic to believe the reference to 'god' doesn't means 'generic god deity'.