Nazirite
Member
Personally, I don’t see why this bothers people so much. All the other problems our country is facing and some folks are concerned about two little words.
Let's go back to the good old days when this wasn't even an issue.
Nazirite, that's what I used to think.Personally, I don’t see why this bothers people so much. All the other problems our country is facing and some folks are concerned about two little words.
[party line]Clearly our forefathers intended for God to be mentioned in the pledge. [/party line]
You mean the good old days when the Bible or Bible verses were used on a daily basis in most public schools in the U.S. (not just the "Bible Belt") as a primer for reading? You mean the days when the Ten Commandments were posted and taught in public school? Or, perhaps you mean the days when every school day opened (and often closed) with a daily prayer? Yeah, that whole "God" thing in the Pledge was a radical break from what the Founding Fathers intended or promoted.Let's go back to the good old days when this wasn't even an issue.
The words "under God" is in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Should it be there? Frankly, I don't know, but it is.
If you say the pledge and leave "under God" out, nobody will send you to jail.
If you stand and keep your mouth shut, nobody will send you to jail.
If you refuse to stand, and refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, nobody will send you to jail.
This, to me, is where a judge should have no reason to even look at the Pledge. There is no law broken if you don't say the Pledge; there is no harm if you do.
So, why in the hell is a judge outlawing something that isn't a law anyway?
This looks to me like one more activist judge is trying to get God out of our society.
You mean the good old days when the Bible or Bible verses were used on a daily basis in most public schools in the U.S. (not just the "Bible Belt") as a primer for reading? You mean the days when the Ten Commandments were posted and taught in public school? Or, perhaps you mean the days when every school day opened (and often closed) with a daily prayer? Yeah, that whole "God" thing in the Pledge was a radical break from what the Founding Fathers intended or promoted.
I would love this to be the case, but the liberal elite in power know that most parents, even those that are not religious, will choose a school with a religious or conservative bent because that is where discipline will be enforced. The liberals hate this because the public school system is where they spoon feed their agenda to the young.Eventually they will get it with vouchers. There is a angry, concerned large group out there that is being pushed in a manner they do not like. They are going to demand FREEDOM. Let there being red diaper baby schools, atheist schools, secular schools and religious schools that all children have vouchers to choose where to go.
Not every one that does not believe in the implied Christian god of the pledge is an atheist.If you include 'God', then you're respecting Christianity (and the like) and prohibiting the free exercise of atheism. If you exclude 'God', then you're respecting atheism but prohibiting the free exercise of Christianity (etc).
Vouchers are essential to Stop the Insanity and the indoctrination. - longeyes
I agree.Not every one that does not believe in the implied Christian god of the pledge is an atheist.
That arguement is self-contradictory - you can't have it both ways. EITHER "under God" is by nature religious, in which case the gov has no authority to restrict an individual's use of it. OR "under God" isn't religious, in which case there are no grounds to bar it under the 1A. So which is it?The free exercise of Christianity is not being prohibited the governments endorsement of Christianity is.