[Desertdog]

There is a poll on the website asking if he should be recalled. Right now it is 80% for recall.

Politician Who Won't Say Pledge Of Allegiance May Be Recalled
http://www.local6.com/news/3999438/detail.html


DENVER -- A recall election is now set for an Estes Park, Colo., trustee who refuses to stand up and recite the Pledge of Allegiance during the Town Board meetings.

David Habecker sits while others stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

"I have not been standing for the Pledge of Allegiance due to a conflict I have with the wording of the pledge, specifically the words 'under God,'" Councilman David Habecker said.

Habecker said it's a violation of church and state to include the words in the pledge and for that reason, he won't stand.

The board began reciting the pledge before meetings earlier this year at the suggestion of Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark. She suggested it as a way to show respect for the country during wartime.

Jeffrey-Clark said Habecker is expressing his personal views, not representing townspeople, when he sits down.

Habecker, who's served on the Town Board for 12 years, said he doesn't oppose the meaning of the pledge, and considers himself a patriot.

But some other council members and residents are upset about his actions and have enough signatures to hold a recall election. That recall election will occur Tuesday, Feb. 15.

All residents will vote on whether to recall David Habecker and a choice for his replacement in the event the recall passes. The recall is expected to cost a few thousand dollars.

"I'm sad for the community, that there is that much intolerance in our community. But if the people want to have a voice in what's going on, this is their way of doing it. And I will respect whatever the wishes of the community are," Habecker said.

Estes Park, which has about 5,500 residents, is the eastern gateway to Rocky Mountain National Park about 60 miles northwest of Denver.

[fulloflead]

What if he's an atheist?

Should he still be forced to state that this is a nation under God or lose his job? :rolleyes:

[OpenRoad]

Habecker said it's a violation of church and state to include the words in the pledge and for that reason, he won't stand.

If he won the lottery, do you think he'd refuse payment because of that pesky, "In God We Trust" on the bills.

[MikeB]

What if he's an atheist?

I'm an atheist. I've felt slightly uncomfortable while saying the "under God" part. I've felt uncomfortable doing a lot of things and/or been offended by a lot of things I have seen or heard in my life though. That's just kinda the way life is. If it really bothers him he could at least stand and not say anything or just not say the under God part as I have done sometimes in the past. That would be the respectful thing to do.

[fulloflead]

OpenRoad,

"If he won the lottery, do you think he'd refuse payment because of that pesky, "In God We Trust" on the bills."

I've heard that argument from 10-year-olds. :rolleyes:
It's not like he has a choice. In a country with such diverse religious beliefs is it right that our money still says that? Screw the muslums, hindus, buddists... etc?
In fact our money used to have all kinds of different phrases on it... they discontinued the other phrases, but it wasn't PC to discontinue "In God We Trust".

[2nd Amendment]

What if he's an atheist?

Should he still be forced to state that this is a nation under God or lose his job?

Nope. He can instead be removed by the same people who gave him the job. Or should they be forced to put up with his antics if they find them unacceptable?

[fulloflead]

Antics? Exercising his freedom is antics?

You should be ashamed.

[R.H. Lee]

Habecker said it's a violation of church and state to include the words in the pledge and for that reason, he won't stand.
Then he's an idiot who doesn't understand (and has probably never read) the Constitution. Why should he represent people who do and have?
Dump him-now.

[MikeB]

In fact our money used to have all kinds of different phrases on it... they discontinued the other phrases, but it wasn't PC to discontinue "In God We Trust".

Not to pick nits, but actually the phrase In God We Trust is actually fairly new on Bills and only dates back to about the Civil War on coins. It started shortly after the Civil War on some coins and was then discontinued after a few years - I forget how long. It started on coins again around 1909 I think. It wasn't on bills until the latter 1950's.

[Michigander]

If we look to the Constitution for guidance, then I think he would have no obligation to cite any pledge concerning or relating to any religion:

Article. VI.

Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
(emphasis added)

[2nd Amendment]

In a country with such diverse religious beliefs...

And I hear that from 10 year olds. We are not a country of diverse religious beliefs. We are a Christian nation with a smattering of other religions. In broad swaths of this nation you can live your whole life and not encounter more than a couple non-christians(at least in name). And, of course, when you do you can be pretty secure in the assumption they won't have much tolerance for your Christianity.

Also, of course there is something our hypothetical non-believing loto winner can do: Chase down some gold coins, or foreign currency, without the horrid phrase on it and do some exchanging. Not bloody likely, eh?

[2nd Amendment]

Antics? Exercising his freedom is antics?

You should be ashamed.

He is an elected official. He has no "freedom" in relation to his job. If the people who elected him feel he is not properly representing them then they have the right to remove him. The only way I would be ashamed is if they failed to do so in this case. If you feel that makes me intolerant I assure you, you are correct.

[Chris Rhines]

A classic example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

- Chris

[Gordon Fink]

So the good people of Estes Park have enough time on their hands to organize and execute the recall of an elected official merely because he won’t recite a meaningless pledge of allegiance to a colorful piece of cloth? Perhaps they would be better served by recalling all the politicians who regularly violate their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, including their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion. Of course, then they would need a lot of new politicians.

~G. Fink

[2nd Amendment]

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Refers to appointments and confirmations, etc. Not what standards the electorate uses to choose who they wish to represent them. The bulk of the electorate has always applied a religious standard to every level of government office.

[Standing Wolf]

He is an elected official. He has no "freedom" in relation to his job.

You don't give up your civil rights when you take a government job. He still has freedom of—and from—religion.

This lifelong atheist stands for the Pledge of Allegiance, but leaves out the "under God" part.

[R.H. Lee]

Antics? Exercising his freedom is antics?

And his constituents are free to remove him from office, if they like. He serves at their pleasure.

[Flyboy]

...this is where I stir the pot by reminding everybody that "under God" is not traditional in the Pledge; it was added (at the request of Eisenhower) specifically to differentiate us from the "godless Communists." It might be worth perusing the 9th Circuit's ruling; they picked up on this fact. SCOTUS, in fine style, ducked the issue entirely by deciding that Newdow lacked standing, and threw the whole thing out with a decision not to decide.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering.

[Michigander]

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Refers to appointments and confirmations, etc. Not what standards the electorate uses to choose who they wish to represent them. The bulk of the electorate has always applied a religious standard to every level of government office.

As I said: If we look to the Constituion for guidance...

[2nd Amendment]

"The Pledge" had a number of variations, over time and locality, before being aligned by congess in 1943. Both of my 90+ year-old grandmothers can remember "under God" in the Pledge when they were in school in the teens/twenties and after '42(one taught elementary in that time period). Ike didn't think up "Under God" from the sparkling shallows of his own mind. He'd heard it, or some advisor had heard it, being said that way somewhere in the past and they chose to standardize it.

So in short about the only pledge that did NOT contain Under God with certainty, depending on where you were, was the original penned by Minister Francis Bellamy.

[R.H. Lee]

If this guy is not open minded enough to understand that most of his constituents are not athiests, then he is too narrow minded and intolerant to represent them. He should be removed on that basis alone.

[Michigander]

If this guy is not open minded enough to understand that most of his constituents are not athiests, then he is too narrow minded and intolerant to represent them. He should be removed on that basis alone.

The opposite could also be said about those who elected him and did not know (or care) that he was an athiest. :scrutiny:

[Lone_Gunman]

What this amounts to is just a case of someone not wanting to have to accept responsibility for their actions.

Remember when the Dixie Chicks made a stupid comment in France about President Bush, and were subsequently boo'ed upon return to the US? The Dixie Chicks have the right to speak out however they want. But they learned that everyone else has the same right too. It cost them a lot of money.

Same thing here. This guy has every right not to say the Pledge of Allegiance for whatever reason. Its his right, and should not disqualify him from office in and of itself, but if the electorate decides to vote him out, or remove him in any other legal way over this, then that is their perogative.

Personally, I would prefer the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag be gotten rid of entirely. It should be replaced with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Constitution.

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

If a group wants to stand and recite a jewish prayer, or if I'm at a Toronto hocky game and they play the Canadian National Anthem, the result for me is the same as it should be for this guy. Stand quietly out of respect for everyone else's beliefs, and simply remain silent instead of recite something I don't agree with or do not show allegance to. As far as I'm concerned, this guy is in the same catagory as the people who can't take 30 sec out of their conversation during the Star-Spangled Banner. Save the STATEMENTS for later!

[Turkey Creek]

Everyone in this country has an equal right to do and say as they choose confined by certain parameters of law- this is the way it should be- but when individuals or their supporters whine about the resulting adverse reactions instituted by others who disagree, and who are expressing their equal freedom of word and action, that's when it really starts to squash my grapes- do and say as you choose but don't cry about it when it turns around and bites you in the butt- what ever happened to the notion of accepting responsibility for your actions?- does this guy have the right to sit and not recite the pledge, certainly- does his constituency have the right to have him removed for this, if they disagree in numbers enough, certainly- we are equal in our freedoms, equal in our responsibilities to these freedoms, and equal in accepting the consequences of how we exercise these freedoms

[Greg L]

I don't have a problem with the recall. NOT because he won't recite the Pledge, but because this horse's hind end won't even stand up and stand there quietly showing respect for those that are. When I'm visiting a friend's church I will stand with the rest of the people there to sing a hymn or kneel to pray. The fact that their beliefs don't exactly match mine doesn't enter into it, it is common courtesy to not make a scene in their place of worship. As was mentioned a couple of posts up, when a Canadian hockey team comes to town they also play the Canadian anthem. I'll remain standing with my hat off for theirs too.

[ksnecktieman]

I wish someone would show me in the constitution where it says I have a right not to be offended,,,,, I missed that part.. I am an athiest, I do not share your god. My god is in my brain, and it is what I determine is best for me. As I see it "god" is a term for a superior being, if you believe in one, does it matter what name you use for him? And If you do not believe in one, is it troublesome for you to transmute the term "god" into "mother nature", or "genetics", or "the goodness in all of us".

If you wish to be offended,,, enjoy yourself,,, but do not expect me to feel guilt because you are offended.

Enjoy your "god" or "gods" or lack of them, but do it with discretion, and do not try to claim you are a crusader for "godlessness", I think most of us are really tired of hearing about it.

[fulloflead]

His constituents? How many of you are from Estes Park, Colorado?

You're all SO in LOVE with the idea of mixing religion and government that you're pissed off about somebody taking a stand for something he believes in in a little town nowhere near you. If it were another issue; ANY OTHER issue that this guy was being recalled for you wouldn't even be discussing it. But when ever it has to do with GOD, a good portion of the people in this country simply lose their minds.

If our government ever wanted to REALLY opress the people, RELIGION would be an EXCELLENT tool for it and most of you would follow off the cliff like lemings.

[Bob41081]

I feel the man should stand out of respect. Can someone explain to me how say"under God" in the Pledge shows govrnment support of religion.

Bob

[Michigander]

...but when individuals or their supporters whine about the resulting adverse reactions instituted by others who disagree, and who are expressing their equal freedom of word and action, that's when it really starts to squash my grapes- do and say as you choose but don't cry about it when it turns around and bites you in the butt- what ever happened to the notion of accepting responsibility for your actions?- ...

Again, this could be said about the electors as much as for the elected. As a matter of fact, Mr. Habecker does not seem to be the one whining in the first place:

"I'm sad for the community, that there is that much intolerance in our community. But if the people want to have a voice in what's going on, this is their way of doing it. And I will respect whatever the wishes of the community are," Habecker said.

It's the electors who are whining about a guy they elected.

[Orthonym]

As someone has written above, the "Under God" part was inserted later.

That's a MINOR quibble. IIRC, the Pledge was written by one of the Bellamy brothers, who were big-government "Pwogs" (Republican Corporate Socialists) in the 1880s or thenabouts. G. Gordon Liddy recalls having to stand up and do what seems very like a Nazi salute while reciting that litany in the 1930s. I believe he said they changed it to putting the hand over the heart when people saw pictures of how the National Socialists saluted THEIR flag.

There was no need for such a pledge when my ancestors fought in the Revolution, or against the loathesome damnedyankee invaders; it was understood that one was loyal to his country and people.

I believe Mr. Bellamy (and I'm putting the best possible face on his devious designs) was trying to help the recent masses of immigrants assimilate quickly, in the worst possible way.

That "One Nation, Indivisible" clause is most particularly repugnant and loathesome to me, so much so that I'll never, God willing, recite that or any other part of the screed. My Great-Grandfather lost an eyeball at Chancellorsville trying to divide the polity, and I think that he was in the right.

[ETCss Phil McCrackin]

Invariably, whenever religion is mentioned at all in a discussion, all the extremely anti-religion people come out of nowhere with the standard, "How dare you try to make me acknowledge YOUR......god!" I believe that the huge "Seperation of church and state" and "forced religion" aspects of the "under God" issue is far less important that the very simple and oft overlooked idea of mutual RESPECT. If I'm in a group that chooses as a majority to open its meetings with chants to the spoon gods, then I will show them the common freaking courtesy that they deserve, by standing and remaining quiet for the duration of their antics.......despite my thoughts.

It is not an act of submission or even of acceptance, only a mature show of respect for others beliefs. Too many times people are only concerned with what pleases, or displeases them. This is the root of the disgusting "PC" movement in America today.

[Michigander]

If it were up to me, I would prefer a voluntary pledge to the State (in my case, Michigan) as opposed to a pledge to the United States.

Well, except for those in California and New Jersey. They could and should probably continue to pledge allegiance to the Union.

And, just as I see it as sacrilige to have "In God We Trust" on (any) currency, I believe it to be at least disingenuous to say "under God" in a pledge to allegiance to any nation or state.

While I'm at it, is the phrase, "God Bless America" a command or a request?

And does "America" include Canada and Mexico? Central and South America too?

[R.H. Lee]

The FF guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. There is no 'separation'. It is a spurious fictitous argument. Our right to say "under God" is protected speech-the First Amendment, dontcha know.

[Michigander]

The FF guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. There is no 'separation'. It is a spurious fictitous argument. Our right to say "under God" is protected speech-the First Amendment, dontcha know.

I would not say anything to the contrary.

I'm looking at it from the other side.

To me, people mindlessly reciting a pledge where they invoke the name of God is disrespectful to God. At least in my mind.

My religion teaches that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil, so to me, having "In God We Trust" on currency is at best ridiculous and at worst a cruel joke.

Also, I have always found it suspect that people in various nations arond the Earth and at various times throughout history have faught battles and wars "in the name of God," or at least with "God on their side." Just does not compute.

My religion also teaches me to love my enemies. So why should I ask or command God to "bless America" as opposed to the whole world?

That's all I'm saying. Constitutionally, anyone can believe what they want and practice their religion/beliefs how they see fit as long as it does not infringe upon other's rights and freedoms.

But religiously, connecting God with state or nation is disengenuous. Maybe hopeful, but when we look around at our country, is it really a country of God or one that you believe God would bless over others?

[Chris Rhines]

Just so everyone knows exactly what they are defending:

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/wallace139.html

- Chris

[DRZinn]

Although others have already said it:

If you don't believe in God, that's fine. DON'T SAY THAT PART. But don't use the pledge to make a statement.

[R.H. Lee]

Just so everyone knows exactly what they are defending
{shrug} We need a healthy dose of nationalism in this country.

[Michigander]

If you don't believe in God, that's fine. DON'T SAY THAT PART. But don't use the pledge to make a statement.

Don't use the pledge to make a statment. I posit that a pledge is a statement.

{shrug} We need a healthy dose of nationalism in this country.Are you sure you didn't mean "We need a healthy dose of nationalism in this state"?

j/k

As our country deteriorates, I believe it will become more and more difficult to encourage doses of nationalism, aside from natural disasters and/or acts of war/terrorism. Even in those cases, the nationalism is short-lived.

[dav]

As a matter of respect, I stand during the pledge of allegiance.

As others stated above, my objection is that it is a pledge to a flag, not to the state, country, union, government or anything else... just a flag. Or, to be biblical, an idol.

I made up my own pledge in grade school (in the sixties) when I got in trouble for refusing to say 'under God'. That is the pledge I say while others are saying whatever they feel like saying.

My pledge is meaningful to me. Hopefully theirs is meaningful to them.

Refusing the pledge simply makes me think it is laziness or disrespect. It does not make me think they are 'making a statement', since I have no way to know what statement they might be making.

[Sindawe]

As a non-Christian, I omit the "..Under God.." and insert "...my deity of Law..." in its place. Standing is a sign of respect. This chap is free to not stand of course, and his constituents are free to fire him at the next election cycle, or get a recall going to vote him out sooner if it so pleased them. Doubt that will happen, given the propensity of most folks to not just not bother with politics and elections.
Personally, I would prefer the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag be gotten rid of entirely. It should be replaced with a Pledge of Allegiance to the Constitution.
I concur totally Lone_Gunman. The flag is just a symbol, what is truly of import are the ideas expressed in the Constitution.

[cracked butt]

I've said this before and will say it again: your inalienable rights end when you are under the employment of someone else.

If the man is acting in a way that is disagreeable to the people who may or may not have voted for him in his district, he shouldn't be suprised if they give him the boot.

[why_me]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/wallace/bellamy.gif

Know what happens when you dont say under god during the pledge.
The other kids start thinking your a godless atheist. I just read of a kid that got to pass out candy canes in school. Each candy cane talked about god and had an invitation. I want to go to that school and hand out chicken bones. Bless the kids under voodoo gods and invite them to an animal sacrifice?
Is that offensive to you? Probably, but what the hell if that kid can bring religon into public schools so can I. How about i insert the name Valhalla instead of god in the pledge and when that part comes i yell it at the top of my lungs. One nation under VALHALLA!!!

This country is in no way founded as a christian country.
The treaty of tripoli passed unanimously so states

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[cracked butt]

You have the right to go against the grain of society all you want, but don't be suprised when there are negative social consequences for it. You have the right to worship rocks or chicken bones, just as much as I have a right to reject your ideas.

[JPL]

Politicians serve at the will of the people who elected them.

It's his right to refuse to say the pledge.

It's also the right of the voters to recall him.

[Powderman]

So the good people of Estes Park have enough time on their hands to organize and execute the recall of an elected official merely because he won’t recite a meaningless pledge of allegiance to a colorful piece of cloth?


Meaningless?

I don't think so.

Hundreds of thousands of men and women, now at rest in those stark gardens of stone, felt that those words were not meaningless.

Colorful piece of cloth?

That colorful piece of cloth carries the blood of good men and women, spilled so that you can still have the freedom to say that it--the piece of cloth--is worthless.

That colorful piece of cloth carries the tears and sorrow of parents, whose children did not come home--and those who will never come home again.

That colorful piece of cloth meant so much to some of our prisoners of war that they risked horrible torture and certain death to carry small replicas of it. In the darkness and despair of their prisons, beaten beyond belief, and broken in body, they clutched that colorful piece of cloth and gained strength and resolve to carry on through each night.

That colorful piece of cloth meant so much to soldiers in past conflicts that they willingly went to their deaths to ensure that it would not touch the ground in battle.

And, that colorful piece of cloth carries the spirit and the resolve of those, who--like myself--would readily lay down our lives to ensure that that colorful piece of cloth will fly free.

The Flag of the United States of America is much more than a piece of cloth. It is the embodiment of freedom; a beacon shining in the darkness of intolerance, hatred and cruelty to humans everywhere. Under that Flag, it doesn't matter what religion you follow, or what beliefs you have.

But remember this: the Flag will stand for freedom, and the spirit of man, as long as we are willing to defend it. With our work, with our words, and if necessary, with our bodies, our blood, and our very lives.

[pax]

As a Christian, I am adamantly opposed to the words "under God" in our pledge of allegiance.

For awhile, I thought it just didn't matter. Given that people usually mean nothing at all when they say it, what difference could it possibly make to anyone whether they said it or not?

But then I thought a little deeper. "Do to others as you would have them do unto you." I am a Christian, and the Christ I claim to follow said that. What does that mean for me, here and now?

Many Christians have been martyred through the ages. Often they were killed not so much because they proclaimed the name of Jesus Christ, but because they refused to mouth the name of another god, a god in whom they did not believe.

The Christians in Rome, for instance, were thrown to the lions not simply because they worshipped Christ. The Romans worshipped many gods, after all; what was one more to them? No, the Christians were thrown to the lions because they refused to proclaim that the emperor was a god. They thus showed themselves to be rebels, anti-patriots, potential threats to the country.

The Christians in Rome refused to say the patriotic words even though most educated Romans regarded the proclamation as a purely symbolic thing, devoid of almost every meaning save that of loyalty to the emperor and patriotism to the country. But the Christians wouldn't do it. They would not mouth the name of a god in whom they did not believe, not even to save their lives.

"Do to others as you would have them do unto you."

If I had to claim the name of Allah or the name of Baal, to proclaim myself a believer in Vishnu or the Reverend Moon, in order to pledge allegiance to the flag of this country that I love -- I wouldn't say the pledge. I couldn't. If I said the pledge, I would be denying the God who died for me, and betraying the truth I believe. And for what? For a god made of stars and stripes? For an altar made of fabric and dye? For a mere symbol? I'd rather die myself.

"Do to others as you would have them do unto you."

I would not want to be placed in the position of denying either the country I love or the truth I believe. Such a thought is monstrous, unbearable.

So how could I do that to another?

pax

He does not believe, that does not live according to his belief. -- Thomas Fuller

[cracked butt]

Pax,
Noone is going to hang you for standing up with your hat off, hand over heart, reciting the "Pledge" while omitting the words "under God" if they don't suit you. That is pretty much an accepted standard.

If a politician isn't willing to Pledge any kind of Allegience to his country, he has no business being in office, unless of course the people who he represents feels the exact same way.

[pax]

cracked ~

I say the words, because I believe 'em.

But I don't believe those words ought to be in the Pledge. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I don't blame that politician one bit, since in his shoes, I might do the same thing myself. If I had to say "under Vishnu" or "under Allah" -- or at least, be perceived as saying under Vishnu or Allah -- in order to pledge allegiance to my country, well, I mightn't say the pledge at all.

So how could I judge someone else for doing what I would do myself if the shoe were on the other foot?

pax

For every axiom, there is an equal and opposite reaxiom.

[why_me]

why cant people be free not to recite it?quote
The Flag of the United States of America is much more than a piece of cloth. It is the embodiment of freedom; a beacon shining in the darkness of intolerance, hatred and cruelty to humans everywhere. Under that Flag, it doesn't matter what religion you follow, or what beliefs you have.

But remember this: the Flag will stand for freedom, and the spirit of man, as long as we are willing to defend it. With our work, with our words, and if necessary, with our bodies, our blood, and our very lives.

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0803/pledge.html

[dustind]

We are a Christian nation with a smattering of other religions. In broad swaths of this nation you can live your whole life and not encounter more than a couple non-christians(at least in name). And, of course, when you do you can be pretty secure in the assumption they won't have much tolerance for your Christianity. I just looked up statistics online from a few web sites. I seem to get that the number of Americans who are religious (all religions combined) is 80-90%, and steadily falling. Old people are more likely to be religious than middle aged people, and young people are the least likely to be religious. Christians are loosing percent of members the fastest.

I also do not think Christians can claim any abundance of tolerance towards other religious beliefs, or people's lifestyles.

I am an athiest who believes the words should be taken out, but not because I am an athiest. I doubt many people would stand if the pledge said "under satan."

Edit: I say the pledge, but leave out "under god."

[RealGun]

"One nation under God", "so help me God", "In God We Trust" are all Trojan horses. Now the Christians claim that it's THEIR country. Any judge who thinks otherwise is labeled "activist". This man is dead-on correct, but he will need to deal with which battles he picks. He is certainly not a politician.

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

I think a good idea would be for people like this to recite an alternative pledge, something like:

"I pledge allegience, To the Constitution, Of the United States of America;

And to the Republic, That it protects

One Nation, One People, Indivisible;

With liberty and justice for all."

But then again I have a problem with compelled oaths in the first place.

[Art Eatman]

No way I can see the flag as a "meaningless piece of cloth". It's a symbol. It's a symbol of a set of ideas. The ideas never have been realized and probably never will, but that's irrelevant.

One idea is to strive to be better in the treatment of one's fellow man. Freedom and equality and fair play and all that sort of idealism.

It takes no talent whatsoever to roll over like a scared puppy and say, "Those ideals are just too hard to try for!" The old, "Oh, I couldn't do that..." bit of nonsense we've all heard.

If it's good for an individual to try to better himself, why is it not good for people acting together as a society to try to achieve ideals?

Symbols do indeed have meaning. Doesn't matter whether it's Chevy's "bowtie" on a NASCAR fan's tee-shirt, the Red Cross, or a TV news program's crime segment with a handgun-logo as the lead-in.

Or a flag...

Art

[CannibalCrowley]

Here's a good litmus test for this issue, would you feel the same no matter what deity followed "under"? If changing God to Satan, Allah, Vishnu, Zues, would bother you while God does not; then your prejudice is deciding the issue for you instead of what is actually right.

But remember this: the Flag will stand for freedom, and the spirit of man, as long as we are willing to defend it. With our work, with our words, and if necessary, with our bodies, our blood, and our very lives.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0803/pledge.htmlI'm currently at work so I can't view the link, but you do know that landoverbaptist/org is satire, right?If a politician isn't willing to Pledge any kind of Allegience to his country, he has no business being in office, unless of course the people who he represents feels the exact same way.First off, the pledge is to the flag (sheesh, it's in the first line) not to his country so you have no point.I feel the man should stand out of respect. Can someone explain to me how say"under God" in the Pledge shows govrnment support of religion.The words "under god" were put into the pledge for that very reason.Our right to say "under God" is protected speech-the First Amendment, dontcha know.Wow, Superman couldn't have made that leap. No one is trying to stop people from saying "under God", they just don't think that the phrase should be sponsored by the government.We are a Christian nation with a smattering of other religions.Do you have some documentation to back this up? The Constitution is a pretty secular document. In addition, the Treaty of Tripoli states that we aren't a Christian nation. Are there any government documents which state otherwise?

[2nd Amendment]

http://members.aol.com/EndTheWall/TrinityHistory.htm

http://www.forerunner.com/ccbc/X0007_Our_Supreme_Court.html

http://www.helpsaveamerica.com/supreme-court.htm

And the tale of the Treaty of Tripoli:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

More on request...

Also note that 70%+ of the population of this nation still call themselves Christian, whether they "are" or not. This is especially interesting considering the fixation the left has on "democracy", which is nothing more or less than majority rule. 50% + 1 make the rules. As such by their own claimed views the opinions of the minority are meaningless.

[why_me]

After considering but three other of Justice Brewer's opinions, The Attorney General concluded:

Justice Brewer was a son of a Christian missionary, and the son's life, like the father's was one of service. For six and forty years he served the people, hearing causes and judging "righteously between every man and his brother and the stranger that is with him." And in the discharge of this great office he did ever obey the injunction laid upon the judges of Israel by their great lawgiver:

Judge Roy Moore would have the same Opinions.
I dont and neither did George Wahington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin,Ethan Allen,Charles Dearborn, John Adams James Madison

More on request

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

the Treaty of Tripoli states that we aren't a Christian nation. Are there any government documents which state otherwise?

No, what the treaty says is this: "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion, . . ."

That's a long way from saying that the US wasn't then a predominantly Christian nation. Most people did attend church regularly and were Christian.

The statement in the treaty was added only as an expedient way of calming the fears of the Muslim ruler in Lybia that the US intended to prosecute a religious war against him. It's hardly dispositive or binding on whether the US Government was "founded on Christian principles."

[2nd Amendment]

Thank you, Why Me. Thanks for demonstrating one of the weakest tactics in debate(second only to hauling out the "you're a Nazi" line): Attack the messenger. And you compound it by ignoring the other quotes. Pretty much settles the issue, eh? Especially considering the Treaty of Tripoli doesn't mean what you folks wish it did. :rolleyes:

Oh, note, don't give that list of Founders as support for your stance. They doin't support you either.

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

http://www.linda.net/no-deist.html (mention of the American/Great Britain peace treaty)

[why_me]

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God are never mentioned in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion." They meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.

[Chaz]

First off, the pledge is to the flag (sheesh, it's in the first line) not to his country so you have no point.

What about "... And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands?"

regardless as to whether he says "Under God" or not he still serves at the pleasure of his constituents. If they want him to go for such a reason so be it.

[why_me]

Thomas Jefferson

In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814


"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
- "Notes on Virginia"


"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
- letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787



"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests."
- to John Adams, 1803
.


"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
- to Baron von Humboldt, 1813
.


"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind."
- to Carey, 1816
.


"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-in his private journal, Feb. 1800
.


"It is not to be understood that I am with him (Jesus Christ) in all his doctrines. I am a Materialist; he takes the side of Spiritualism, he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." - to Carey, 1816
.


"The priests of the superstition, a bloodthirsty race, are as cruel and remorseless as the being whom they represented as the family God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob, and the local God of Israel. That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore."
- to Story, Aug. 4, 1820
.


"The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man. But compare with these the demoralizing dogmas of Calvin.
1. That there are three Gods.
2. That good works, or the love of our neighbor, is nothing.
3. That faith is every thing, and the more incomprehensible the proposition, the more merit the faith.
4. That reason in religion is of unlawful use.
5. That God, from the beginning, elected certain individuals to be saved, and certain others to be damned; and that no crimes of the former can damn them; no virtues of the latter save."
- to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.


"Difference of opinion is advantageous in religion. The several sects perform the office of a common censor over each other. Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Notes on Virginia"
.

"Creeds have been the bane of the Christian church ... made of Christendom a slaughter-house."
- to Benjamin Waterhouse, Jun. 26, 1822
.


"Let us, then, fellow citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of a bitter and bloody persecutions." .


"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." .

"It has been fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and then I considered it merely the ravings of a maniac."
. "The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come, when the mystical generation [birth] of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation [birth] of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
- to John Adams, Apr. 11, 1823

[2nd Amendment]

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion."

No, it doesn't. This is what happens when you don't read info that conflicts with your views.

As for the rest, you said it yourself. The Founders sought to NOT establish an official government religion. Nothing more. This is a totally separate issue from whether this nation was (and is) a primarily Christian nation founded by primarily Christians and built primarily upon Christian ideals. You are attempting to infuse and argue a totally different issue.

Meanwhile, back to the point of this thread which remains: He is an elected official and serves at the pleasure of those he "represents". If they feel he is no longer representative then their reasons are not up for debate just because someone doesn't like those reasons.

[Joe Demko]

I guess the part I don't get is why some are so insistant that "under God" and similar phrases must be part of government related things like the pledge and our currency. I guess they are the same folks that think we must have mangers on the courthouse lawn and copies of the Ten Commandments in the courtroom. Are you so insecure, or is your god so insecure, that these things are necessary? You are the one who believes, so pray as much as you like however you like, but leave the government and your fellow citizens out of it. If I had my way, the government would be completely neutral on the topic of religion. There would be no mention of any god(s) on currency, no officially sanctioned holidays, no pledges about being under any god(s). Pray to whomever or whatever you like, citizen, on your own time and without the imprimatur of the state.

[why_me]

"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but what we did."
- letter to his father, 1738



". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
.


"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
- "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", 1728
.


"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
- Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
.


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
.

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
-in Poor Richard's Almanac

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
.

"I looked around for God's judgments, but saw no signs of them."

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

[why_me]

Annals of Congress, 5th Congress
Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
MAMET, Treasurer.
AMET, Minister of Marine.
SOLIMAN KAYA.
GALIL, General of the Troops.
MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
AMET, Chamberlain.
ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
MAMET, Secretary.

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of
January, 1797, by


HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.

[2nd Amendment]

Thx for the additional quotes. And in light of the others they mean what? Especially since the bulk are either from much later or, as with the Morris quote, hearsay(while many others you may provide are, as shown by me, taken out of context). It's usually good to read the opposing data. I have, which is why I no longer accept your claims.

[2nd Amendment]

Again: (From http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html )

A full text of the treaty may be found here. ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm )
All agree that there are vagaries involving the Arabic text of the treaty, which was translated into English by the American official, John Barlow. A skeptical site here offers the following:

The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

Like I said, read what is offered you, instead of parroting the same old discredited lines.

[why_me]

I agree you should be able to show your faith on goverment property. As long as I also have equal access and right next to the manger i can have a Blood alter and sacrifice animals for my religon santeria. And i get to Yell One nation under THOR! instead of Under God.

[2nd Amendment]

By all means, if you can get a majority to support it, then go for it...

[R.H. Lee]

I agree in principle with what Joe Demko said, and believe that is/was the intention of the FF. However, references to God are usual and customary in our country. "In God We Trust" on the currency, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, even Congress begins each session with a prayer.

The 1st Amendment says- "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." Now the leftists have interpreted this to mean there is a "separation" of church and state, and any references to religion and/or God equate to Congress making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, in other words promoting same. However, in so doing, they are attempting to "prohibit the free exercise thereof"-clearly a violation of Constitutional right.

I do not understand how references to God, or even prayer, in a public forum can be interpreted to be a violation of any Constitutional right. The athiests claim they are "offended" by such references. AFAIK, there is no Constitutional right to not be offended. Neither can the state prohibit the "free exercise" of religion, as they are now doing in public schools, for example.

Whether or not this guy wants to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance is entirely up to him, but he cannot compel everyone else to stop saying the Pledge either. I don't know how this thread drifted to whether or not the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation", a moot point IMO. His contituents can remove him from office for any reason whatsoever. I would not be surprised if the ACLU runs to obtain an injunction against removal, however, on some fictitious grounds that his Constitutional rights have been violated.

[why_me]

Article 11 still states what i said.
I usually dont do this BUT your source is hardly unbiased with reagards to interpreting the treaty of tripoli.

More generally, we can't imagine how the absence of Article 11 in the Arabic version effects the separationist argument. It was the English version of the treaty that was approved by President Adams and Secretary Pickering, and this version unquestionably contained Article 11. Similarly, when the Senate ratified the treaty, they did so knowing full well that the English version declared that the United States was not a Christian nation. The separationist implications of the treaty can't be escaped by arguing that the Arabic version may not have contained Article 11; the President, Secretary of State, and Senate thought it did, but approved the treaty anyway.

[2nd Amendment]

Why the English version was ratified is addressed in the link. As for bias, there are no unbiased sites on any issue. But feel free to tell me why you make the (currently unsupported) claim, especially considering the data he cites comes from http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html which supports your claims, though as noted above his "logic" is refuted.

[why_me]

Is this guy is not compelling anyone to do anything. He is not interested in doing the pledge thing that all. Its got the fundies all up in arms cause they perceive him as a godless atheist. Who is compelling who and why is this even news?
Every one wants freedom of religon and many people want freedom from religon. If we incorporate religon into our daily lives it will not be the utopia you think people of different religons maybe even the atheists will be ostracised, excluded, and in conflict.
Most people who want the goverment to Sponsor there deity will not tolerate the deities of other religons. When i stated how about if i said one nation under valhalla, the option i was given was just dont say under god if you are offended.
Religon has absolutely no place in the goverment. Thats not oppressing your religon it is protecting it.

Hey second amendment
WE SIGNED THE ENGLISH VERSION IT HAD ARTICLE 11 IN IT
http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html ----Your link
Thanks for the link you proved my point
Conclusion: History revisionists of the so-called “religious right” strain to repudiate the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli as irrelevant and unofficial; they make much ado about the fact that Barlow’s version in English was a poor paraphrase of the version in Arabic; and they grind their teeth over the fact that it was the only English version in existence and the only one considered when the Senate of the United States read, accepted, approved, and ratified the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli. The fact which completely destroys their argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called “religious right” revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (p. 365).

[rock jock]

I'd vote him out in a heartbeat. Why? Because its my right to do so. Mr. Fool should have realized this before he decided to make a statement as an elected official.

[2nd Amendment]

And as I said, his Spin is refuted. Why is it the actual revisionists(the tiny atheist minority) always have to leave things out? Oh, yes, because if they don't there is no support for their claims. In this case the greatest example of this kind of convenient editing would be the fact the Treaty of Tripoli was a failure and was replaced by another[ treaty between the same parties.

The second treaty not only, as with the original, does not contain "Article 11" but neither does the ratified English translation. Now why would that be if "Article 11" were meaningful...?

For those who just don't want to bother with reading all the crap the short version of the Treaty of Tripoli is that "Article 11" was originally attributed as a quote of George Washington. This of course fell apart with a little research. Thus "Article 11" was then cited as part of a binding treaty and thus given credibility...until it was discovered that it was in fact NOT part of the actual treaty. The last gasp of the revisionists has become "Well, it was in the treaty "WE" ratified". Of course the fact that most legislators do not and have never actually read any of the legislation presented to them (especially in a time of conflict as with the Barbary pirates)and would thus have had little to no idea "Article 11" was even there(let alone that it did not exist anywhere else) is conveniently glossed over.

Shortest version, it's an "Urban Legend" which refuses to die because it serves the purpose of baffling those who don't look beyond the surface of the issue.

[Joe Demko]

Mr. Fool should have realized this before he decided to make a statement as an elected official.

Damn straight. We don't want our politicians to have any convictions, much less act on them.

[2nd Amendment]

Of course we do. But why should they expect to not reap the consequences thereof? Or are we going to stop voting against gun-grabbers since, after all, they are only standing by their convictions?

[rock jock]

Damn straight. We don't want our politicians to have any convictions, much less act on them.
Osama bin Laden has convictions also, and is willing to die for them. Do you want him serving as your elected official?

[Joe Demko]

What you guys are trying to say is that you want politicians who have and act on the same convictions you have. To which I reply: Get those politicians elected in the first place.

[Joe Demko]

If a politician is elected who doesn't share your convictions, but you want him to act on your convictions, rather than his, then we are back to my original statement. We don't want our politicians to have any convictions, much less act on them.

[R.H. Lee]

Every one wants freedom of religon and many people want freedom from religon. Go ahead and want. There is no Constitutional guarantee of 'freedom from religion' as freely practiced by other citizens. The guarantee is that Congress shall establish no state religion.

Its got the fundies all up in arms cause they perceive him as a godless atheist Why the pejorative remark? How are you threatened by other citizens beliefs?

[why_me]

By other peoples lack of religon? His not saying the pledge cuase he doesnt like the words Under God has you all up in arms. You want him out. Doesnt matter what good deeds he may have done for his community you want him out cause he doesnt share your religous views. I am not threatened by anyones religon unless it is compulsory. The religous right has an agenda of bringing god into our goverment and schools. Of course the religon is Their religon and no one elses.
So what the guy doesnt say the pledge of allegiance. Some people call this the "prayer" of allegiance and you will hear amen as the last words in it.
It is a pejorative remark calling fundies fundies. Becuase that is who is raising the stink about this issue in the first place. I am sure they already have a religously right candidate for the job. One who will not only say the pledge of allegiance but also have a prayer before the meeting so god can guide them.
i just got off the phone with jesus christ. He said Let it go he didnt die for you to pray to a flag

[2nd Amendment]

If a politician is elected who doesn't share your convictions, but you want him to act on your convictions, rather than his, then we are back to my original statement. We don't want our politicians to have any convictions, much less act on them.

This makes no sense within the context and issues of this very site. You are implying that it is legitimate for us to oppose by all means available those who are elected and do not share, nor act on, our convictions regarding the 2A(and who among us would not employ a recall election against Schumer, Boxer, et al) but wrong for others to do the same on other issues...or just on THIS issue?

[Joe Demko]

I am saying that if you want a politician to act according to your convictions you have two choices:
1. Elect politicians who share your convictions.
2. Elect politicians who will bow to pressure from you rather than stand by their own convictions (if different from you).

Is there a possibility I overlooked?

[2nd Amendment]

Overlooked possibility: Removal of a politician if he doesn't uphold your convictions when you thought, while voting for him, that he would.

As for the other two points: The above allows the constituents to do the first. And in a non-perfect world I'll settle for the second, a politico who does what he's told by his constituents even if it goes against his grain. He's not there to represent himself and if he doesn't like that there is yet another overlooked option available to him: Resignation.

[Joe Demko]

Well, then I guess we are on the same page. We want politicians who do what their consituents tell them to do. The problem will be when the constituents don't all want the same things.

[CannibalCrowley]

It seems like the terms "Christian nation" and "nation of Christians" are being confused.

Christian nation: a nation with both a Christian government and populace
Nation of Christians: no governmental religion, yet much of the population is Christian

Secondly, it looks like more than a few people would fail the litmus test I posted earlier:
Here's a good litmus test for this issue, would you feel the same no matter what deity followed "under"? If changing God to Satan, Allah, Vishnu, Zues, would bother you while God does not; then your prejudice is deciding the issue for you instead of what is actually right.A bigot is still a bigot; whether his prejudice lies with race or religion makes no difference.

[rock jock]

We want politicians who do what their consituents tell them to do. The problem will be when the constituents don't all want the same things.That is a democratic form of govt. in a nutshell. It has worked pretty well for us these past two hundred years.

[Joe Demko]

Well, it has and it hasn't. As the system was originally set up, the idea was that congressmen would fill the "do what their constituents want them to do" role. Senators, since they weren't directly elected and served longer terms, were expected to be a more contemplative body, comprised of men who would act according to their (presumably good and correct) convictions instead of responding to the whims of their constituents. Direct election of senators was a big mistake.
What about appointed officials? Do you want them to act according to their convictions or yours? Before you answer, remember that it is unlikely that you will agree 100% of the time with anybody on every topic. "Activist" judges have thrown a monkey wrench into the works that I don't believe the FF's envisioned.

[Obiwan]

As has been stated...there is no freedom FROM religion...you also do not have a right NOT to be offended...deal with it!

This guy is performing the "adult" equivalent of taking his ball and going home.

If he has a problem with the words Under God then by all means...he doesn't have to say them.

Just like any kid in school

But sitting out the Pledge of Allegiance because of that is simply childish and speaks to a level of maturity that I would rather not see present in government. :cuss:

I completely support his right to try to get the wording changed through legal means (good luck), but this is simply grandstanding and I would vote for recall.

I can't help wondering if he made a stink during his swearing in where I assume God was mentioned at least briefly.

2A is right...he is not there to represent himself...he is a public servant. His job is not to cause problems....he is supposed to help solve problems.

[why_me]

The guy has been a trustee for 12 years. Saying the pledge was added this may By a conservative christian member

See when you add the word under god its not a pledge of allegiance
it is a "prayer" of allegiance

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3386066,00.html

But he agrees with Habecker on one issue - the rising political power of conservative Christians is troubling.

"Any fanatically religious group scares me, especially as a voting block," said Pritchard, who owns a bed and breakfast lodge.

And, when he was gathering signatures, Pritchard said many of the residents who signed did so for what he considers the wrong reasons.

"They thought it was unpatriotic," said Pritchard, who believes Habecker has a constitutional right to free speech but is going about it in the wrong way. "(Some petition signers) don't give a damn about constitutional rights."


Letters to editor estes park
Dear Editor:

Today’s (Dec. 1) article about the recall of Town Board Trustee David Habecker in The Trail-Gazette quotes Mr. Habecker as follows in reference to the recall effort:

“It’s kind of amazing how such a small number of people can dictate how the town is operated,” he said Tuesday. “It’s a process and we’ll just deal with it as it comes.”

He must believe it’s just a few evangelical-types who are driving the issue, but I believe otherwise. I think there are a majority of folks who have become weary of government at all levels undermining respect for religion (particularly Christianity) and the important traditions of the country, and are finally fed up. Maybe we’re finally so sick of attacks on our flag, on our Christmas displays, on the Boy Scouts of America, on the Pledge of Allegiance that we’re doing something...something that starts out “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”

David Tanton
Dear Editor:

I recently received a letter from Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark and would like to thank her for taking the time to address my concerns and having the courage to respond.

In her letter, Mr. Habecker is accused of bringing his own “personal agenda to” his “fiduciary role.” Hauling the Boy Scout troop into the Town meeting, being a vocal supporter of a recall and using local newspapers as your public forum for debate all smack of a very personal agenda.

I have repeatedly heard the argument that Trustee Habecker stood up and recited the pledge for a few months before he decided to discontinue saying it. No offense, but so what? Apparently, he took some time to figure out what he wanted to do about what is obviously a moral dilemma for him. Since when did thoughtful deliberation become an unwelcome quality in an elected official?

That’s like saying there’s something weird about Bush sitting for a few minutes to collect his thoughts in the children’s classroom after hearing the news about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Would it have been preferable if he had jumped up in a blind panic and succeeded in terrifying a bunch of grade-school kids as well as the American public?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that once you become an elected official, you lose your right to legal protest. Americans are probably best known for our fundamental belief in protecting that right. About 228 years ago, a group of officially elected local representatives took the whole concept one step further and drafted the Declaration of Independence. Good thing they aren’t around today—they would have been too busy being recalled.

Linda Wagner

Estes Park

[Nehemiah Scudder]

I heard this guy talk on Air America this morning.

From what I've read and his statements, it didn't seem to be that he was making a big fuss out of it. He didn't even start talking about it publically until the recall vote, all he did was just not say the pledge.

It's not what I would have done, but I don't have a problem with it.

BTW Just registered, so... Hi.

[why_me]

Shows you hypocrisy at its best.
Can you say seperation of church and state
He must believe it’s just a few evangelical-types who are driving the issue, but I believe otherwise. I think there are a majority of folks who have become weary of government at all levels undermining respect for religion (particularly Christianity) and the important traditions of the country, and are finally fed up. Maybe we’re finally so sick of attacks on our flag, on our Christmas displays, on the Boy Scouts of America, on the Pledge of Allegiance that we’re doing something...something that starts out “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
What you do in church and in your own home or on your own property is your business. You can say what you want. Do what you want. BUt i dont want my goverment to have any symbols of religon. God doesnt need your help he is the almighty.Most powerful. ANd when i got an email from him the other day he said most of your displays are pretty tacky and embarrasing

[2nd Amendment]

Can you say seperation of church and state

Can you say "No such thing"? Or do you have a unique copy of the BoR or Constitution which, much like the English translation of the Treaty of Tripoli, include things that were never there before?

BUt i dont want my goverment to have any symbols of religon.

It's not "your" governemnt, it is ours. Your words underscore a key point about the control issues which drive on the anti-religious minority.

God doesnt need your help he is the almighty.Most powerful. ANd when i got an email from him the other day he said most of your displays are pretty tacky and embarrasing

And it's comments like these which serve to marginalize you even further. But when the facts and history don't support one you grab whatever there is available, eh? Fair enough.

[rock jock]

But he agrees with Habecker on one issue - the rising political power of conservative Christians is troubling.
Uh-huh. And I am sure you have the perfect solution for this, right? Gotta hate those religious groups exercising their 1st Amendment Rights.

[RealGun]

2A is right...he is not there to represent himself...he is a public servant. His job is not to cause problems....he is supposed to help solve problems.

He has personal integrity, but may have to pay a price for it. I respect it.

How about this? When a person is sworn to give testimony before a Congressional committee, the oath does not include "so help you God". I know because I took note of that recently watching CSPAN. If a person insisted that the oath include "so help me God" or insisted upon adding that, are they suddenly more in the right than this fellow's refusal to participate in religious references in government? I believe a court oath, perhaps only State or local, would have included "so help me God".

I have no doubt that he will lose his job, but I think it's a shame. Constitutionally, the issue is not relevant to his function. It is an exercise in the tyranny of the majority. It is a perfect example of why religious references should not be in government. If there was no such pledge or controversy surrounding it, these folks could stick to the business for which they were elected and for which their offices were intended.

Evangelicals are dangerous, and don't forget it. People will die because of them. They have before. Christian nation is not far removed from Arian nation in its potential for appealing to people's darker side, bigotry in particular. The Inquisition was a historical example of how bad it can get.

The irony in all this religious fervor is that reportedly church membership is steadily declining. Don't ask me for a source. Feel free to quote to the contrary. I just remember reading that recently.

I would think that gun owners would be generally more sensitive to bigotry in whatever form it might take. Making concessions to gun control or getting used to it is not unlike allowing religion into government. Give 'em an inch and they ask for another mile. That's why I refer to these few key religion items as Trojan horse's.

I follow Americans United for Separation of Church and State. There is at least one issue every week where someone somewhere is trying to inch or leap another step forward in turning our government into an extension of the Christian church. It's insidious and continuous, precisely about what the FF would have been concerned.

I can't quarrel with constitutional amendments, although I would work toward their defeat. But that is the only right way to establish the religious basis of this government. Until then, I hope judges will strike down whatever is not supported by the Constitution, and I will not refer to them as "activist" just because I don't personally favor the decisions. All I have to do is appreciate that the government is supposed to represent everyone. Religion, gender, age, race, and sexual preference are not qualifiers. Pro-life and pro-choice are not qualifiers either.

[why_me]

Does my espousing the view of this country having a seperation of church and state OPPRESS your christian views?
Why must you feel the need that this country is a christian nation? Why cant it be a nation that allows you rightly so to practice your religon,WITHOUT you trying to impose it on others?
OH you are all for putting your symbols over OUR goverment. But i know if i practiced a religon you find offensive and wanted MY religous symbols plastered over our money and goverment you would be foaming at the mouth!
How about if i proselytise satan to your children? What say you? Maybe your daughter would find smoking ganja while practicing rastafarian rites revealing.
Exactly where on geverment property can i spray the slaghtered chicken blood as i offer my sacrifice up to the earth god?
Lets print "In Zeus we trust" on our money too. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
Are ya angry yet? Im praying for you right now to Ballzog the Enourmous
the god of gods. He prays for your soul and watches over you. He is almighty and most powerful. He created heaven and earth and he pays reduced rates on long distance calls too.

[why_me]

Pray the Pledge 11 Step Checklist:

1. If you are not assigned seats in your class, follow the scent of garlic and find a place to sit near some foreign looking student who has swarthy skin that reminds you of anything from either a chunk of coal or a little stray pooty left behind in the whirlpool of toilet water. It is safe to assume that the parents of these students have already wasted a good part of their lives indoctrinating them with a dangerous, made-up, false religion.

2. Before the Pledge begins, if your little classmates haven't noticed that you have your hands folded in prayer, not over your heart, bring it to their attention. If you are bold enough, right before the class gets ready to say the Pledge of Allegiance - shout, "Dear Lord Jesus. . ." and then continue with the rest of the class in unison, "I pledge of allegiance to the flag. . ." This will serve as a testimony to your teacher and the other students, that you are acknowledging that the Pledge of Allegiance is a prayer - right from the start. If the teacher pauses for any reason in the Pledge, look at one of your unsaved classmates and yell, "I feel a victory coming on! Yes, Jesus!" And be sure to end the Pledge with "A-men" as well. You will be surprised how fast it catches on!

3. After the pledge is over, we suggest thanking one or more of your odd looking classmates for joining you in public prayer. This should raise their curiosity.

4. Begin to ask them what it feels like to be a Christian. They may, at first, resist your entreaties, claiming to know what you are so-called "up to." Wear them down any way you can. Finally, when they openly admit that they are not Christians, but actually embrace a false religion, like Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim - this is your opportunity to feign the look of surprise. Try to look as puzzled as you can. Ask them directly why they just falsely stated during the Pledge of Allegiance that they are under your Christian God, but just now admitted that they are not. Tell them you don't appreciate liars and neither will the principal when he gets your note.

5. More often than not, they will probably respond by saying something about "God" being universal, and it can mean whatever they want it to mean. If you can avoid the natural Christian impulse of laughing right out loud in their freshly-slapped faces, take the opportunity to sternly correct them and give them a short history lesson about how there were no Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, or Jews among the Pilgrims or Founding Fathers. Indeed, the Pilgrims were forced to turn on each other until they met the heathen, naked, alcoholic Injuns.

6. Take it a step further and begin to raise your voice slightly. Make it absolutely clear to them that there were no Muslims, Jews or Hindus who gave their lives to create the country that they are sitting in right now. And if their foreign parents want to raise them under a false God, then keep it at home - because Jesus runs THIS classroom!

7. At this point, understand that you have planted a seed of faith, and it should be harvested immediately! Be careful though! Avoid getting too excited. Don't spill the beans and tell them all they're going straight to Hell. Although this is true, we suggest you break it to them gently by reaching into your desk and slowly pulling out your Bible. Do not break eye contact with your potential converts even if you have to grab a tuft of their filthy, unwashed hair to hold them in place!

8. Refer to your Bible as "The Holy Book" and open it slowly like you are expecting the Lord to come out from between the pages and pounce on your soon-to-be-Christian friends. Most foreign trash is very superstitious and will probably become bug-eyed, and possibly soil their drawers, in the face of your new, mysterious powers.. Tell them that this Holy Book says that every single religion in the whole wide world is a false religion. Except for yours.

9. At this point, tell the students that you will be highly offended and consider it a hate crime against your religion if they do not do you the courtesy of bowing their heads and shutting their eyes and repeating after you.

10. Here is your window of opportunity - before anyone has a chance to open their mouth, start to pray this prayer and refuse to be interrupted: Poppa God, My Father in Heaven, we've just finished praying the Pledge of Allegiance to You. Everyone here openly acknowledges that we are not members of one nation under Allah or Buddha, or some other false god but we are one nation under YOU! You are God, the Father and through your Son, Jesus Christ, we acknowledge the sovereignty and ultimate authority of our Christian Nation above all other nations on earth. If any of us here are unsaved, we ask Jesus Christ to come into our hearts and stomp out the demons of Hindu, the demons of Allah, the fat little demons of Buda, and if we are Jewish, we ask you to forgive us for killing your Son and for Barbra Streisand. A-men.

11. If your classmates just prayed that prayer, it means they're saved. Take down their names and addresses and phone numbers immediately. Ask to be dismissed from class. Find a pay phone and call your pastor* with the information so that he can call their parents and tell them the good news - that someone just paid a ransom for their little children and they have been delivered forever into the unbreakable clutches of the Living God. If your pastor knows what he is doing, he will also want to use this opportunity to lead some confused parents to Christ. Before you know it, you will have assisted in securing a hoard of eager, tithing church members to your local church roster.

[R.H. Lee]

The christophobia here is mind boggling. Nobody wants, and nobody is advocating a theocracy. In fact, a theocracy is prohibited by the 1st Amendment. The majority of people in this country believe in God, and the majority of those are Christians. That is the country in which you live.

I don't support religious activism in government for the purpose of compelling anyone to do, not do, or believe anything. OTOH, government has no business restricting the free exercise of religion by individuals on public property. And that is exactly what government is doing right now all over the country, especially in public schools. Forbidding nativity scenes, banning prayer, even going so far as to outlaw Christmas trees or even red and green plates at school functions during this time of year (red and green plates can be interpreted as promoting Christmas, dontcha know, and we can't have that).

So you anti-theists should be warned. The pendulum swings both ways. The harder you swing it in our direction, the harder it will come back at you.

[why_me]

Hqaving other religons practice there first amendment rights on public property?
The aryan nation has a church can they practice there "love" on a campus near you?
Christian oppresion is a myth. If it was occuring in this country your tax exempt status would be taken away you would be arrested. What you percieve as an attack is really just separation of church and state.
It really gauls me that a local school board when properly taken over by majority of evangelicals can effectively ban books.
Or as in the estes park scenario. Get a Whopping 246 votes for a recall election for a guy that has been on the board 12 years.
All becuase in MAY of this year a board member decided there wasnt enough patriotism in the meetings.

[why_me]

sorry double post

[R.H. Lee]

The aryan nation has a church can they practice there "love" on a campus near you?
No. The aryan nation is neither a church nor a religion. It is a white supremacy organization and seeks to deprive some Americans of their God given rights, relegate them to subordinate status, and kill them. Any reasonable person knows that. :rolleyes:

[why_me]

http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/N_Alliance.asp?xpicked=3&item=16

As it happened, the Cosmotheist Church did receive federal, state and local tax-exempt status, although it lost its state exemptions in 1986 for all but 60 acres and any buildings used exclusively for "religious purposes."

I worship a water heater in my basement. If i get a couple of followers i have established a religon. Can my icons of a rusted water heater also be with your manger scene?

[2nd Amendment]

Madeline Murray O'Hair's atheist organization also had tax exempt status. Does that make atheism a religion(it is, of course, but we'll not even go there). And, of course, there's the little item of using government tax exempt status to define a "religion" as support for opposing any religious involvement with/from government...

Like I said to you previously, if you can get enough support then feel free to have whatever wierd celebrations you want. But so far you can't even get a majority, or even a decent sized minority, to oppose Christian examples of worship.

[why_me]

But so far you can't even get a majority, or even a decent sized minority, to oppose Christian examples of worship.

Which goes directly against the idea of a republic. Mob rule doesnt make a democracy. Its been said in this thread before bigotry is bigotry wether it is racial or religous.

[2nd Amendment]

This has not been a Republic for a very long time. It is a functional Democracy(which is why it will not long endure) where the majority makes the decisions on almost everything. Even if it were still a Republic, perhaps even more likely if it were, your type of agenda would still depend on suits and manipulations, not public support.

And bigotry is not bigotry. That is a simplistic mind-set. Racial bigotry has no rational defense, since concrete real-time evidence points to the fallacy of such. OTOH it is highly probable that one religious belief is correct while all others are wrong and it is ALL, including your faith in ego and self called atheism, a matter of faith. Some simply throw around the label of bigot to defend their own views, rather as you are doing in your defense of your religious belief system.

[Michigander]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Where is the confusion?

Did Congress pass a law making "The Pledge of Allegiance" official? Or was it a resolution? Or, in this case, are they one and the same? Are they both acts of Congress and therefore within the intent?

What does the word "respecting" in Amendment I mean? Does it mean, "having anything to do with"? Or perhaps it means, "showing of respect." Either way, by Congress making "The Pledge of Allegiance" official would seem to me to be unconstitutional. Same for "In God We Trust" on currency (assuming that was done by an act of Congress).

As for the "practicing" aspect of religion, the people who want to recall the trustee are not Congress. So, as long as the get the signatures required and follow their local city, county and state law, then I see no problem. They could be removing him because he parts his hair on the right instead of the left. So be it.

[why_me]

And all others are wrong.

OTOH it is highly probable that one religious belief is correct while all others are wrong and it is ALL, including your faith in ego and self called atheism, a matter of faith.

It is also probably highly probable that no religon is right. OTOH thinking less of other people because of other religous views is bigotry

bigotry, dogmatism -- (the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot)

[2nd Amendment]

Simply beating a dead horse at this point. One into which you are not injecting any new life. Being reasonably confident I've more than made my points, I'll leave it with a couple last comments: By that simplistic definition everyone is a bigot about something, and with such a broad application it ceases to have any meaning at all. Also, if no religion is correct then this means, obviously, neither is yours. That's essentially impossible.


Oh, and BTW, I have no problem acknowledging your first couple lines, either. Like I said back on page one, I make none of these hollow pretentions of tolerance such as those you hide your obvious intolerance behind. But enjoy your convictions, they are at least good for the ego.

[Art Eatman]

Geting into personal stuff makes the locks go "Clang".

:), Art