One nation under God...
- Thread starter Jeslek
- Start date
Ok, about 16.5% of the US population was alive when it was the other way. So I think it would be silly to change it back to a tradition that less than 16.5% of the population MIGHT remember. Maybe it was changed, but is changing back somehow going to be better? My point is, that for 83.5% of the population THIS, what we have now is OUR tradition. I don't think that is so inconsistent with my argument.
here is where I got the numbers if you need a reference
http://www.aoa.gov/aoa/STATS/Census2000/2000-1990-Pop.html
Ok and this too might be of interest:
http://www.geobop.com/Symbols/World/NA/US/pledge/
Therefore, since the plege was changed in 1954, only 16.5% the people MIGHT remember it for those 12 years!!! Since it only BECAME "the official plege of allegiance" in 1942, and in its 60 years in existence it spent all but 12 of them as it is now, it would indeed be revising our history.
As for putting "in god we trust" on money, I'm not sure when that happened, but that wasn't the issue either reallly. Since it apparently has been this way for quite some time, changing it would be disgarding our heritage and tradition just the same.
here is where I got the numbers if you need a reference
http://www.aoa.gov/aoa/STATS/Census2000/2000-1990-Pop.html
Ok and this too might be of interest:
http://www.geobop.com/Symbols/World/NA/US/pledge/
Therefore, since the plege was changed in 1954, only 16.5% the people MIGHT remember it for those 12 years!!! Since it only BECAME "the official plege of allegiance" in 1942, and in its 60 years in existence it spent all but 12 of them as it is now, it would indeed be revising our history.
As for putting "in god we trust" on money, I'm not sure when that happened, but that wasn't the issue either reallly. Since it apparently has been this way for quite some time, changing it would be disgarding our heritage and tradition just the same.
unclehobart
New Member
The Declaration of Independence was just a 'fuck you' note to jolly ol' king George. Its not a law of any kind. It could have mentioned God, waffles, molesting kittens, and internal combustion engines for all it matters. Saying 'creator' and the like within it has no bearing on US legalities.
All power is within the Constitution itself. Amendment 1 is the biggest baddest cornerstone we have in protecting ourselves from government supression. It says that the populace can do what it feels on an individual basis unto itself so long as they dont muck with their neighbors and that the government is to stay out of the issue altogether.
All power is within the Constitution itself. Amendment 1 is the biggest baddest cornerstone we have in protecting ourselves from government supression. It says that the populace can do what it feels on an individual basis unto itself so long as they dont muck with their neighbors and that the government is to stay out of the issue altogether.
unclehobart
New Member
Chipping away in small increments over time at the foundation of civil rights is even more insidious as losing them overnight. When done slow enough, people are ignorant to the loss and reamin docile as sheep accepting anything and everything that comes along as a seemingly good idea at the time ... but in the end, makes then into slaves. Keep printing up more gems like that ^ up there. Youre just making my case for me without my having to lift a finger.RD_151 said:
People read too much into these words IMO.
But ok, if we will break it down, an estabishment of religion is the key phase you need to focus on here. What does this mean exactly? And what does it refer to? All religion, all beliefs of religious nature, or what? Is does saying the word god imply "an establishment of religion?" Or is it a more general term? See, it doesn't say you can't mention the word or names of gods, it never say anything resembling that. It speaks specifically about making laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Well that means you can't make laws that discriminate against Buddists, Muslims, Catholics etc etc, or somehow imposes the will on the gov't upon them. It doesn't say that the government can't use the word "God" anywhere. Further, it says respecting "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well, preventing children in schools from saying the word "God" or praying is as unconstituional is it gets from reading that last statement, but its happening!!!
I hate all this constitutional garbage and the arguments associated with it. It just doesn't say what everyone assumes it does. I forgot that there was REALLY no such thing as a "separation for church and state" until freako104 reminded me, and prompted me to reread it for myself. Nah, we hear spin and what was "read into it" so often that the true meanings and intents are long since obscured.
Ok, take it out, rewrite to currency. As I said, I'm indifferent to that issue. I just don't agree with the logic behind doing it. I could careless if its done (even though I argued against it), its the logic and reasoning being used to justify it that bothes me. I could care less about the ends, but I care about the means, if that makes any sense..
ris
New Member
RD_151 said:
go back to the first page where i approached it through legalese, it seems pretty clear to me. in basic terms the government can make no law respecting [so therefore with respect to or with regards to] an establishment of religion..
the 1950s decision to change the pledge was a law with respect of religion [or the establishment of religion as an organised form] so therefore contravenes the above quote and is therefore unconsititutional.
ris,
I really never thought much at all about this topic. I'm kind of glad LL brought it up. Personally, I wouldn't have exected that it only dated to 1942, or that it was ever changed, as it was in 1952. I read what you wrote originally, the first time too, but does adopting a "pledge of allegiance" such as this constitute making a law? Was there some statute that forces one to swear to live "uinder god." I'm not trying to be a smart ass or something, I'm just not that familiar with this topic. How does one go about adobpting an official statement like this? Is there some LAW somewhere with respect to "an establishment of religion" here? I'm not that familiar with this topic, but as I read it, it has to do with laws, and "an establishment of religion" which I can only take to mean a specific religion or creating a state sponsored national religion. I don't see how this is doing that. If it is in some way, the argument is still very tenuous in the absence of an actually law with respect to "an establishment of religion." I can see how this could get twisted. I catch myself writing and thinking its says "no law respecting religion" but that has a distinctly different meaning than "no law respecting an establishment of religion." Maybe the subtle difference between the two isn't so clear, but clearly there is a difference!!!
I really never thought much at all about this topic. I'm kind of glad LL brought it up. Personally, I wouldn't have exected that it only dated to 1942, or that it was ever changed, as it was in 1952. I read what you wrote originally, the first time too, but does adopting a "pledge of allegiance" such as this constitute making a law? Was there some statute that forces one to swear to live "uinder god." I'm not trying to be a smart ass or something, I'm just not that familiar with this topic. How does one go about adobpting an official statement like this? Is there some LAW somewhere with respect to "an establishment of religion" here? I'm not that familiar with this topic, but as I read it, it has to do with laws, and "an establishment of religion" which I can only take to mean a specific religion or creating a state sponsored national religion. I don't see how this is doing that. If it is in some way, the argument is still very tenuous in the absence of an actually law with respect to "an establishment of religion." I can see how this could get twisted. I catch myself writing and thinking its says "no law respecting religion" but that has a distinctly different meaning than "no law respecting an establishment of religion." Maybe the subtle difference between the two isn't so clear, but clearly there is a difference!!!
Ya know what, I really hate law. I'm glad I didn't go to law school now. I would find it very frustrating. Everything turns into a sematic argument, because you have have to look to the defintion of the word establishment in this case 
Like I said, I'm indifferent. It depends what view you want to support. I guess you can make it say either depending on your motives. Ah, lets just burn the constitution and start over, it would save a lot of controversy Or maybe not
Like I said, I'm indifferent. It depends what view you want to support. I guess you can make it say either depending on your motives. Ah, lets just burn the constitution and start over, it would save a lot of controversy
Or maybe not
ris
New Member
the term 'no law respecting an establishment of religion' does not mean state defined religion, to do so it would have to read as 'establishment of a religion'. the term under a legal frame refers to an establishment of religion, confering on religion its status as already estabished, so therefore it cannot be created.
i use the pledge as example but it could equally refer to the currency issue, which, more pertinently, cannot be opted from.
i use the pledge as example but it could equally refer to the currency issue, which, more pertinently, cannot be opted from.
ris
New Member
RD_151 said:Ya know what, I really hate law. I'm glad I didn't go to law school now. I would find it very frustrating. Everything turns into a sematic argument, because you have have to look to the defintion of the word establishment in this case
Like I said, I'm indifferent. It depends what view you want to support. I guess you can make it say either depending on your motives. Ah, lets just burn the constitution and start over, it would save a lot of controversy
as i said, your argument displays somehting other than indifference
i'm no law student, although i studied a good deal of contract law as part of my studies and will have to learn a lot more in the future. building contracts are usually a lot more explicit than this, but not always
i wouldn't say burn the constitution as such but i think there is a deal of movement in it that is the cause of a great amount of strife [such as in this case, and gun control etc]. being objective, many of its principles are still strong and highly pertinent, some are part of an 18thc world view that may not be relevant to modern life.
and in all honesty its done a fine job to date and no-one would ever be able to write a new one that everyone agreed with
MitchSchaft
New Member
This argument is like saying the 2nd Amendment only allows the National Guard to bear arms. The 2nd is written as plainly as the 1st.
Putting "God" on our currency and the PoA is blaintantly unconstitutional. Our government has no right to make any "law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm a Christian myself, but I'm not that blind.
You know what the irony of the Pledge of Allegiance is? It was written by a socialist....
Putting "God" on our currency and the PoA is blaintantly unconstitutional. Our government has no right to make any "law respecting an establishment of religion". I'm a Christian myself, but I'm not that blind.
You know what the irony of the Pledge of Allegiance is? It was written by a socialist....
Respect
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1560
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD
- re·spect·er noun
Establishment
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established
there are the definitions that fit. It seems as though using God in an official capacity violates teh 1st amendment.
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1560
1 a : to consider worthy of high regard : ESTEEM b : to refrain from interfering with
2 : to have reference to : CONCERN
synonym see REGARD
- re·spect·er noun
Establishment
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group <the literary establishment>
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established
there are the definitions that fit. It seems as though using God in an official capacity violates teh 1st amendment.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
As I said back in June when this first came up...
Right now most conservatives are in favor of school choice. If they could get control of the schools, how long would they be committed to choice? If they really believed in freedom, they wouldn't be trying to make this a "Christian Nation."
Right now most conservatives are in favor of school choice. If they could get control of the schools, how long would they be committed to choice? If they really believed in freedom, they wouldn't be trying to make this a "Christian Nation."
ihcra
New Member
unclehobart said:
but then might the country not also be made up of people who believe that a different form of governemnt and bureacracy would be prefereable to the one by which they are governed?
is it not precisely the place of the government as represenative of the majority to make proclamation over the populace that is in itself not homogoenous?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Okay...back to the topic. Wait a sec while I get this gas can poured out (that's petrol to you barbaric UK citizens )...
Each time the whole idea of God is brought up, no matter by whom, we get this kind of argument. Here's my take on this...
1. Is the US Government forcing you to go to a particular church?
If the answer is no, then the state has not promoted a religion. Anything else is just hot air.
2. Is the US Government forcing you to swear allegiance to a deity, or deities with the pledge of allegiance?
If the answer is no, then the state is not promoting any religion. Anything else is just hot air.
If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, please tell me exactly what church and/or God the constitution clearly spells out. Put it in bold print, and make the size '20' so that nobody will miss it. Just remember...Christian is not a church, and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all follow the same God...at least according to the Muslims I know. Also remember that the Christian belief system is seperated out into different sects, so saying 'Christian' as a religion is not only a cop-out, but lazy to boot.
)...Each time the whole idea of God is brought up, no matter by whom, we get this kind of argument. Here's my take on this...
1. Is the US Government forcing you to go to a particular church?
If the answer is no, then the state has not promoted a religion. Anything else is just hot air.
2. Is the US Government forcing you to swear allegiance to a deity, or deities with the pledge of allegiance?
If the answer is no, then the state is not promoting any religion. Anything else is just hot air.
If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, please tell me exactly what church and/or God the constitution clearly spells out. Put it in bold print, and make the size '20' so that nobody will miss it. Just remember...Christian is not a church, and Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all follow the same God...at least according to the Muslims I know. Also remember that the Christian belief system is seperated out into different sects, so saying 'Christian' as a religion is not only a cop-out, but lazy to boot.
freako104
Well-Known Member
rd_151 i am not actully on your side as i am against under god being in the pledge. but i will admit i agree with Gato for once. the gov't inst forcing religion just god. god is not religion. as i said id like it to be taken out only becuse not everyone believes in god. and i believe it was unclehobart who said it shouldnt have been put there in the first place. and as far as there not being anything about separation of church and state gonz had a quote on one of these threads by Thomas Jefferson. Gonz could you repost the quote? thanks.
