Bush signs bill reaffirming reference to God in pledge

In GW Bush we trust!

Four House Democrats -- Gary Ackerman and Nydia Velazquez of New York, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Mel Watt of North Carolina -- voted present.

Wimps. At least the dissenters had the courage to vote no.

The House and Senate should now vote on legislation I've introduced calling for those who disagree with the words "In GOD we trust" to get over it. No apologies either, we voted and the majority ruled.

Half of the abstainers and "no" votes belong to the Progressive Caucus (American Haters): Barney Frank, Pete Stark, Jim McDermott, Mel Watt.

Whew! Now that we've got God back in the Pledge, God will be pleased and protect us, and we no longer have to fear those atheist Muslim terrorists who ironically call us Infidels. I'm glad our politicians are doing something meaningful. Of course, Muslim terrorists may say that they trust in God too, but since we don't like that their "trust" results in mass murder, I suppose they must really be atheists in disguise.

But then: maybe radical Muslims are right in trusting God, since He certainly seemed to be doing their bidding last week when all those people were killed in the tornadoes -- as well as those poor schoolchildren in Italy buried after the quake. Saved them a lot of bother with getting explosives, manpower, etc. As I've said before, if terrorists were responsible for those deaths, any decent person would be outraged and sickened. But since they occurred because of "an act of God" we're supposed to "trust" and praise God instead and bask in His eternal love for us. Well, if terrorists kill a whole bunch of people, how do we know this wasn't part of "God's plan," that we cannot, as human beings, rationally fathom? Shouldn't we just trust and praise the terrorists when they commit mass murder for doing God's bidding? Can we be so presumptuous as to know what God's plan really is?

It's ironic that the motivation during the Cold War for removing the secular Pledge and secular National Motto and replacing them both with religious ones, was to draw a distinction between the "religious" U.S. and the "atheistic" Soviet Union. But now that the threat is from RELIGIOUS tyrants, who use religion to justify mass murder, our politicians find it important to affirm our own religiosity. Go figure.

Based on your other posts here, it appears you're on a crusade against "religionists". Might I suggest you read some of our founding documents, especially the D of I.

It's all well and good that you have the freedom to advocate atheism (or advocate against religion). However, as a belief system on which to build a constitutional republic, atheism, and its inherent relativism, certainly falls short. Our system of government is based on the belief that human rights are inalienable and endowed by a Creator. The D of I and the Constitution fall apart without this foundation. The very rights you exert by speaking with such contempt against those who would promote the slightest recognition of God in our national dialog can only be secured by the absolutism that comes from tracing those rights to a creator.

You may choose not to believe it, but its certainly appropriate that Congress reaffirm the most basic belief of our system of government. If anything, from a practical standpoint, it certainly has resulted in more freedom for non-believers than any other society yet created. IMHO, its a small price to pay for you to have the freedom to insult "religionists", whatever that means. It's not like anyone is forcing you to say the words.

Furthermore, if you read the writings of the founders, you will certainly see that the society they envisioned was certainly not one in which religion did not have a place in public life. Church services were routinely held in public facilities at that time, and God's name was invoked routinely, and as a matter of course. There is little doubt that this country was designed to be a Christian nation. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but, alas, the right not to be offended doesn't seem to have been worth mentioning along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This was the easy one...didnt cost a thing

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that "all men are created equal" and have rights derived from God. Despite what Jefferson claimed in the D of I, it is not something self-evident. It is an idea that originated with Thomas Hobbes.

"However, as a belief system on which to build a constitutional republic, atheism, and its inherent relativism, certainly falls short."

Atheism is not a belief system, and certainly cannot be used as a basis for a constitutional republic. Never claimed it did. If you know someone is an atheist, that doesn't tell you what they believe, only what they don't. An atheist can be a person of reason or simply a cynical nihilist. What an atheist does believe outside the issue of the existence of God can be anything, just as a religionist's beliefs outside of the same basic issue can be anything -- which is why you can have atheistic monstrosities like the Soviet Union and religious monstrosities like the Taliban. Religion is no safeguard whatsoever against relativism. Every religious person who sincerely believes that there is a heaven and hell and that certain beliefs and actions will send you to one or the other, necessarily believes that those who don't believe as they do are going to hell. That's relativism. The only safeguard against relativism is reason and objectivity, which is anathema to religion. One believes because one has a subjective faith, not because one can point to some objective fact of reality to prove the existence of God. God is beyond reason, as the religionists say. Belief in God requires faith, not reason. It's subjective and relative.

The most basic belief of our system of government is not a belief in God, but INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Muslim terrorists also share a belief in God. What they DON'T share is a respect for individual rights. My right to voice my opinion about religion in America rests on a legal respect for individual rights -- not a belief in God.

"Furthermore, if you read the writings of the founders, you will certainly see that the society they envisioned was certainly not one in which religion did not have a place in public life."

I have read their writings, and agree with you here. I don't deny that the Founders were religious, but they were smart enough not to try to ram religion down people's throats. I don't have contempt for religion or for any shred of religious sentiment in public life, only for those who seek to use it as a weapon of power over others. If you really trusted the strength and truth of your religion, you would feel no need to force it on others in any legal way.

The Founders believed that the United States couldn't possibly succeed if there weren't a moral populace, and the easiest way to instill morals was through religion. They knew that a forced belief would not be a sincere belief, and that if this country were to succeed, religion and morality would need to be freely and honestly chosen. Note that they could have chosen a religious motto for the U.S., but instead chose a SECULAR one. And if you read what was being discussed at the time of the formation of the Constitution, you would know that many were offended and thought it blasphemy that the framers chose not to acknowledge God in the Constitution (with the very minor exception of "...in the year of our Lord..."). There was a religious preamble drawn up for the Constitution, but it was rejected. And when it was suggested that the words "Jesus Christ" be put into Virginia's statute of religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson commented that "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohometan, the Hindoo and the infidel of every denomination." On what basis do you claim that "There is little doubt that this country was designed to be a Christian nation"? You count on Jefferson's words for one argument, but ignore him in another? Relativism anyone?

To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--S.2690--
S.2690
One Hundred Seventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two
An Act
To reaffirm the reference to one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:

(1) On November 11, 1620, prior to embarking for the shores of America, the Pilgrims signed the Mayflower Compact that declared: `Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and the advancement of the Christian Faith and honor of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,'.

(2) On July 4, 1776, America's Founding Fathers, after appealing to the `Laws of Nature, and of Nature's God' to justify their separation from Great Britain, then declared: `We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'.

(3) In 1781, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and later the Nation's third President, in his work titled `Notes on the State of Virginia' wrote: `God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God. That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.'.

(4) On May 14, 1787, George Washington, as President of the Constitutional Convention, rose to admonish and exhort the delegates and declared: `If to please the people we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God!'.

(5) On July 21, 1789, on the same day that it approved the Establishment Clause concerning religion, the First Congress of the United States also passed the Northwest Ordinance, providing for a territorial government for lands northwest of the Ohio River, which declared: `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'.

(6) On September 25, 1789, the First Congress unanimously approved a resolution calling on President George Washington to proclaim a National Day of Thanksgiving for the people of the United States by declaring, `a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a constitution of government for their safety and happiness.'.

(7) On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered his Gettysburg Address on the site of the battle and declared: `It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.'.

(8) On April 28, 1952, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), in which school children were allowed to be excused from public schools for religious observances and education, Justice William O. Douglas, in writing for the Court stated: `The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concern or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the State and religion would be aliens to each other--hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; `so help me God' in our courtroom oaths--these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: `God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'.

(9) On June 15, 1954, Congress passed and President Eisenhower signed into law a statute that was clearly consistent with the text and intent of the Constitution of the United States, that amended the Pledge of Allegiance to read: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'.

(10) On July 20, 1956, Congress proclaimed that the national motto of the United States is `In God We Trust', and that motto is inscribed above the main door of the Senate, behind the Chair of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and on the currency of the United States.

(11) On June 17, 1963, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), in which compulsory school prayer was held unconstitutional, Justices Goldberg and Harlan, concurring in the decision, stated: `But untutored devotion to the concept of neutrality can lead to invocation or approval of results which partake not simply of that noninterference and noninvolvement with the religious which the Constitution commands, but of a brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious. Such results are not only not compelled by the Constitution, but, it seems to me, are prohibited by it. Neither government nor this Court can or should ignore the significance of the fact that a vast portion of our people believe in and worship God and that many of our legal, political, and personal values derive historically from religious teachings. Government must inevitably take cognizance of the existence of religion and, indeed, under certain circumstances the First Amendment may require that it do so.'.

(12) On March 5, 1984, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Lynch v. Donelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984), in which a city government's display of a nativity scene was held to be constitutional, Chief Justice Burger, writing for the Court, stated: `There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789 . . . [E]xamples of reference to our religious heritage are found in the statutorily prescribed national motto `In God We Trust' (36 U.S.C. 186), which Congress and the President mandated for our currency, see (31 U.S.C. 5112(d)(1) (1982 ed.)), and in the language `One Nation under God', as part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. That pledge is recited by many thousands of public school children--and adults--every year . . . Art galleries supported by public revenues display religious paintings of the 15th and 16th centuries, predominantly inspired by one religious faith. The National Gallery in Washington, maintained with Government support, for example, has long exhibited masterpieces with religious messages, notably the Last Supper, and paintings depicting the Birth of Christ, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages. The very chamber in which oral arguments on this case were heard is decorated with a notable and permanent--not seasonal--symbol of religion: Moses with the Ten Commandments. Congress has long provided chapels in the Capitol for religious worship and meditation.'.

(13) On June 4, 1985, in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985), in which a mandatory moment of silence to be used for meditation or voluntary prayer was held unconstitutional, Justice O'Connor, concurring in the judgment and addressing the contention that the Court's holding would render the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because Congress amended it in 1954 to add the words `under God,' stated `In my view, the words `under God' in the Pledge, as codified at (36 U.S.C. 172), serve as an acknowledgment of religion with `the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing public occasions, [and] expressing confidence in the future.'.

(14) On November 20, 1992, the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Sherman v. Community Consolidated School District 21, 980 F.2d 437 (7th Cir. 1992), held that a school district's policy for voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance including the words `under God' was constitutional.

(15) The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals erroneously held, in Newdow v. U.S. Congress (9th Cir. June 26, 2002), that the Pledge of Allegiance's use of the express religious reference `under God' violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

(16) The erroneous rationale of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow would lead to the absurd result that the Constitution's use of the express religious reference `Year of our Lord' in Article VII violates the First Amendment to the Constitution, and that, therefore, a school district's policy and practice of teacher-led voluntary recitations of the Constitution itself would be unconstitutional.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 4 of title 4, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

`The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: `I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Pledge for decades.

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

(a) REAFFIRMATION- Section 302 of title 36, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 302. National motto

`In God we trust' is the national motto.'.

(b) CODIFICATION- In codifying this subsection, the Office of the Law Revision Counsel shall make no change in section 302, title 36, United States Code, but shall show in the historical and statutory notes that the 107th Congress reaffirmed the exact language that has appeared in the Motto for decades.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

I'll bump this one to the top...

I am actually slightly surprised. I figured they would just "Let California do what it wants" as they normally do.

JMHO...

SR

BTTT for "In God We Trust."

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that "all men are created equal" and have rights derived from God. Despite what Jefferson claimed in the D of I, it is not something self-evident. It is an idea that originated with Thomas Hobbes.

I never said the Bible stated anything. If you're saying that rights are not self-evident, and they don't come from God, then where do they come from? On what basis do we assert them and why aren't they subject to the whims of the government? The fact is, the founders asserted that those enumerated rights, among others, come directly from God and that they should be obvious to anyone reading the document. More than just stating an interesting bit of trivia, they used that assertion to justify their independence.

"We've given it some thought, and we think these are good ideas; that all men are created equal, that we think they should have the following rights..."

Now, you're free to believe this is all smoke and mirrors, but, it is how the founders asserted their right to separate from England, and established the grounds for defining a legitimate government. Congress reasserts this in a minor piece of legislation years later. What is wrong with that? Would you have prefered that Congress instead issued similar legislation denying the existance of God, and thus hacking out the foundation of our form of government. Sure, maybe you'd win out and reason would prevail. Then again, maybe the doctrine of the powerful over the powerless would win out, which, BTW, you can justify with reason, I'll bet.

Atheism is not a belief system, and certainly cannot be used as a basis for a constitutional republic. Never claimed it did. If you know someone is an atheist, that doesn't tell you what they believe, only what they don't. An atheist can be a person of reason or simply a cynical nihilist. What an atheist does believe outside the issue of the existence of God can be anything, just as a religionist's beliefs outside of the same basic issue can be anything -- which is why you can have atheistic monstrosities like the Soviet Union and religious monstrosities like the Taliban. Religion is no safeguard whatsoever against relativism. Every religious person who sincerely believes that there is a heaven and hell and that certain beliefs and actions will send you to one or the other, necessarily believes that those who don't believe as they do are going to hell. That's relativism. The only safeguard against relativism is reason and objectivity, which is anathema to religion. One believes because one has a subjective faith, not because one can point to some objective fact of reality to prove the existence of God. God is beyond reason, as the religionists say. Belief in God requires faith, not reason. It's subjective and relative.

You know and I know we're talking about Christianity here. The founders were Christian, their contemporaries were Christian, the audience of their documents was Christian. They didn't need to spell all of it out. Furthermore, there is a distinction to be made between a religion, and the behavior of its followers. Certainly, if you take any religion, over its entire history (which is sometimes millenia) you're going to find inconsistencies in the behavior of its followers. However I think its fair to say that the concept of the rights of the individual is certainly a Christian concept in the sense of what religion was most responsible for promoting and implementing it.

The founders and their contempories believed in God. They used that faith as the basis for creating this country. By definition, an atheist believes there is no God. Why he believes it is irrelevant. If we, as a country, believe there is no God, than the justification for our rights ceases to exist, as stated by the founders.

I don't buy that reason and religion are incompatible, at least not in the case of Christianity. Certainly, reason isn't a new invention. In fact, you can make a good argument that it was "invented" and nurtured by the Church, at least in the history of Western society. I don't think its altogether inaccurate to say that religion is the search for truth while reason is the search for rationality. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but they can be. Certainly most religions don't claim to have all the answers, only enough of the answers.

The most basic belief of our system of government is not a belief in God, but INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Muslim terrorists also share a belief in God. What they DON'T share is a respect for individual rights. My right to voice my opinion about religion in America rests on a legal respect for individual rights -- not a belief in God.

Once again, individual rights can mean anything to anybody. You can make reasonable arguments to add or detract from any of them. The genious of the founders in asserting that they come from God is that they can then not be questioned, without admitting that God does not exist. Certainly no one of the time would have done so in public, even the King of England.

...I don't have contempt for religion or for any shred of religious sentiment in public life, only for those who seek to use it as a weapon of power over others. If you really trusted the strength and truth of your religion, you would feel no need to force it on others in any legal way.

How is acknowledging the beliefs of the founders being used as a weapon of power, or being forced on others? No one is required to hold those beliefs. No one is required to say the pledge of allegience. No on is forcing anyone into a church or a religion. God is asserted as the source of our rights. The preservation of those rights is the purpose of government. The congress is affirming that through some legislation. I don't see why this is so wrong.

The Founders believed that the United States couldn't possibly succeed if there weren't a moral populace, and the easiest way to instill morals was through religion. They knew that a forced belief would not be a sincere belief, and that if this country were to succeed, religion and morality would need to be freely and honestly chosen. Note that they could have chosen a religious motto for the U.S., but instead chose a SECULAR one. And if you read what was being discussed at the time of the formation of the Constitution, you would know that many were offended and thought it blasphemy that the framers chose not to acknowledge God in the Constitution (with the very minor exception of "...in the year of our Lord..."). There was a religious preamble drawn up for the Constitution, but it was rejected. And when it was suggested that the words "Jesus Christ" be put into Virginia's statute of religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson commented that "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohometan, the Hindoo and the infidel of every denomination." On what basis do you claim that "There is little doubt that this country was designed to be a Christian nation"? You count on Jefferson's words for one argument, but ignore him in another? Relativism anyone?

The constitution is predicated on the declaration. You cannot assert that the delegates had any right to gather for the purpose of writing that document absent the declaration. It was very enlightened and magnanimous of them to keep religion out of the formation of the government (though the right to form a government is asserted as coming from God).

A quote or two from Jefferson:

"How necessary was the care of the Creator in making the moral principle so much a part of our constitution as that no errors of reasoning or of speculation might lead us astray from its observance in practice."

"He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science."

"The God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever"

John Adams:

"Statesmen...may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.

The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty"

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government whith the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct"

Ben Franklin:

"The worship of God is a duty...Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature....I never doubted the existence of the Deity, that he made the world, and governed it by His Providence...The pleasures of this world are rather from God's goodness than our own merit...Whoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world..."

Where do rights come from? "Rights" is a human concept, brought into the world the way any other concept is, through the power of the human mind to conceptualize, and its truthfulness depends on its correspondence to reality, not to any faith. Since rights are not mentioned in the Bible, how do we know that God gave them to us? It might be self-evident to you, but it certainly isn't self-evident to me or to many others. And if God did give us rights, did he give them only to men, since the D of I only says that it's self-evident that "all MEN are created equal?" If women are also created equal, are we then to assume that their rights are not self-evident?

"Now, you're free to believe this is all smoke and mirrors, but, it is how the founders asserted their right to separate from England, and established the grounds for defining a legitimate government."

I don't think it's smoke and mirrors. I believe the founders did the best that they could in the context of their understanding of the world at the time and what could reasonably be accomplished then. Saying that all MEN are created equal is HOW they asserted their right to separate from England and established their grounds, so why aren't we changing the Pledge to say "with liberty and justice for all MEN?" in line with the Founders? If what the Founders' stated in the D of I is to be treated as self-evident, then we have built a country on the self-evident premise that only MEN have rights derived from God. Where then do women's rights come from? Those rights, apparently, aren't self-evident.

"You know and I know we're talking about Christianity here."

You may be talking about Christianity here, but the Pledge inserted the words "under God," not "under Christ." Again, you cite Jefferson on the one hand to justify the idea of God-given rights, but ignore him when he explicitly states that religious liberty was meant not just for different sects of Christianity, but was meant to apply to all religions as well as infidels. This shows you need not be an atheist to be a relativist.

"The genious of the founders in asserting that they come from God is that they can then not be questioned, without admitting that God does not exist. Certainly no one of the time would have done so in public, even the King of England."

Really? Then explain this Jefferson quote: "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 blind-folded fear."

You provided different quotes from Jefferson and others to prove their Christianity, but I know enough of the literature of the time to know that for every quote you can find to support your view, I can find one to support mine (my view being that the Founders were "Christian" only in the most general sense, and that many doubted the mystical elements of the religion - they had more in common with Deists than contemporary Christians). Notice even in your quote from Franklin, he refers specifically to "primitive Christianity." Why the need to qualify the principles of Christianity with "primitive" (hint: elsewhere Franklin calls himself a Deist)? Since you quoted it, please explain.

Someone once pointed out that when looking at quotes from the Founders, one should note whether the quote came from a private letter or a public statement. Certainly you wouldn't judge Bill Clinton's actual commitment to Christianity based on some public comments he might have made about it for political expediency. There's also the other little point that human beings, even the best of them, can be conflicted and inconsistent in their beliefs.

I'm not going to argue ad infinitum on subtleties. I don't think is relevant to what I was hoping to point out.

The DofI says rights come from God (I think we can agree that "their Creator" means God) and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights (obviously, I'm paraphrasing).

Congress passed a bill citing this (as well as a multitude of other examples) and essentially affirming its importance.

You implied that this was somehow spurious/wrong/illigitimate/ridiculous/archaic - I'm not sure what one word sums it up.

I agree this definition of the source of rights might be an outdated concept, perhaps the founders pragmatically used them as a means to an end.

I agree that the concept of "God" is inherently vague as well as an unprovable assertion.

However, unless you can come up with a better definition than the one we have implemented, one that has a better track record of preserving and defining human rights, and then get our founding documents altered/amended to reflect the new paradigm, I don't see what's wrong with this piece of legislation. It's consistent and appropriate as far as I'm concerned, and I'd wager its supported by a majority of Americans, and their elected representatives. Combine that with the fact that no one is forced to say/believe any of this if they choose not to, the only side-effect possibly being feeling uncomforable not participating, and I truly don't see what the problem is.

"I don't see what's wrong with this piece of legislation."

I don't see what's wrong with the original secular National Motto that the Founders themselves chose -- or the original secular Pledge. "E Pluribus Unum" is an eloquent, unifying, inclusive motto. It's also true -- out of many, one. It invites all -- equally. No one is excluded. But "In God We Trust" is only true for those who trust in God. If you're not one of the "We" then you must be one of the "Them," and it taints the non-believer as being somehow unpatriotic for their unbelief -- so it's a divisive motto. No, replacing the secular motto and the secular Pledge with a religious one is not the greatest problem this country faces, comparatively, but it's needlessly divisive and serves no other purpose than to pander to the majority. If you know your history, you'll know that one of the concerns of the Founders was to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Rights exist for minorities. Majorities don't need them.

b u m p

Bush signs bill reaffirming reference to God in pledge

Thursday, November 14, 2002 ASSOCIATED PRESS

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

SEC. 2. ONE NATION UNDER GOD.

`Sec. 4. Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

SEC. 3. REAFFIRMING THAT GOD REMAINS IN OUR MOTTO.

`Sec. 302. National motto

Thursday, November 14, 2002
ASSOCIATED PRESS