Let those who have tongues, speak.
posted on 10/16/2003 7:34:13 AM PDT
Please, would every Christian on FreeRepublic take a stand, here and now? If not now, when? If not here, where? If not us, then who?
posted on 10/16/2003 7:35:37 AM PDT
You are too late.
Most Americans now think for themselves.
posted on 10/16/2003 7:51:19 AM PDT
(May the UN rest in peace)
The noun, Pledge of Allegiance, should not be used to describe the derivative and atheistic pledge. I suggest conservatives quickly rename the atheist pledge to prevent it from smoothly transitioning from the actual Pledge of Allegiance to the secular humanist pledge.
In fact all such secular humanist acts in the culture war need a modifier. I once heard the ages of history described as the age of faith, and the age of reason. I might suggest we are now in the age of aggressive rebellion or persecution. So maybe the new pledge is the pledge of rebellion or the pledge of persecution.
" now reviewing whether the phrase "under God" should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance"
like it was before 1950, when America was truly fighting God's enemies of Nazism and Japanese imperialism?
Sorry, but "God" was put into the pledge for political reasons and hasn't always been a part of the nation's Christian heritage.
posted on 10/16/2003 8:01:20 AM PDT
The other religions are going to demand equal time, equal billing, etc...and they will get it.
posted on 10/16/2003 8:04:37 AM PDT
I thought God was on the Taliban's side. Just ask them.
posted on 10/16/2003 8:08:33 AM PDT
by Jim Cane
This missive has some interesting implications:
1) One cannot pledge allegiance to the country without pledging allegiance to the Christian God.
2) The Christian religion cannot survive unless it is propped up by the government.
I don't agree. I just don't see how a "pledge" written by a Socialist is so desperately crucial to the survival of the nation or the Christian religion.
Yes, before anybody starts ranting, those are not direct quotes from the article. But if there are better explanations as to why this issue is so titanic I would be interested in hearing them.
posted on 10/16/2003 8:12:22 AM PDT
"...Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.
One pledges allegiance with their heart.
posted on 10/16/2003 8:25:21 AM PDT
("He who is always looking up seldom finds others' lost change...")
SPOTREP - CALL TO ARMS
We must raise an outcry that reaches not only to the ACLU, not only to our schools, not only to the courts, not only to the Congress of the United States...
I stand with you. But the battle is much bigger and deeper than the "under God" issue. It is a battle of worldviews - secular humanism vs. Christianity. Only one can dominate society.
Francis Schaeffer in "Christian Manifesto" says that Civil Disobedience is called for when governments or courts make bad laws. We should DISOBEY them just as the abolitionists did, just as Roy Moore did! It is time to DEFY the evil rulings of bad judges. What are they going to do if millions of people defy their rulings? NOTHING they can do but watch it happen.
Why didn't that doctor defy that judge who ordered the feeding tube removed from Terry Schiavo? I would have! That doctor is no better than the Nazis who "were just following orders." I don't follow bad orders - I don't care who issues them. I answer to God, not men. When men believe they are God, they have forfeited their authority, as God ordains all leaders to do good. When they stop doing good, they have forfeited their authority. That is what the American Revolution was all about ultimately, wasn't it?
posted on 10/16/2003 9:26:47 AM PDT
"The Liberal Secular Extremists cite the mythical "wall of separation" clause... which appears nowhere in our Constitution."
No, there is no "wall of separation" clause, but there is an "establishment clause" in the First Amendment that has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the late 1940s as meaning there is be a separation of church and state. Because they interpret the laws, the Supreme Court has as much authority as the Constitution. I understand this and have tremendous respect for the law of the land.
"If indeed our Rights as enumerated in our Constitution are inalienablethat is, cannot be taken from usbecause, as our founders wrote, they are granted to us by God the Creator Himself, what praytell becomes of those "Rights" once God is forbidden His rightful place... or even any place... in our society or Government?"
I assume this refers to the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, which are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. If one is to accept that as law, then it would be just as easy to say state support of Christianity affects the pursuit of happiness of non-Christians. Which brings me to...
"Whether our discourse in this matter offends some Muslims or Krishnas is not at issue. It is, in fact, a non-issue, and has no place in our deliberations. It is a diversion concocted by those who hate God."
Why is this a non-issue? The inalienable rights mentioned here are granted to all Americans, no?
I don't need my religion to be in public places or supported by my government. As long as I can pray when I want to and go to church when I want to, I will never see my government as an opponent. This is because I realize that the establishment clause says no religion may be supported by the state, and that extends to all religions, not just Christianity.
posted on 10/16/2003 9:39:47 AM PDT
("I'm hanging on to a Solid Rock, made before the foundation of the world" -- Bob Dylan)
If indeed our Rights as enumerated in our Constitution are inalienablethat is, cannot be taken from usbecause, as our founders wrote, they are granted to us by God the Creator Himself, what praytell becomes of those "Rights" once God is forbidden His rightful place... or even any place... in our society or Government?
G, this is a straw man argument.
The guy in California is an atheist who objected to his daughter being forced to recite the pledge, containing "under God". One of the possible outcomes of the SCOTUS could very well be that he has no standing. He was not forced to recite, and his daughter is a Christian who says she doesn't mind the pledge as it is.
It's a silly case.
But others are not, like Judge Moore in Alabama. It was not so much his monument, but what he said. He had previously been upheld in his Ten Commandments plaque in his courtroom. But a 2-1/2 ton monument in the rotunda, combined with statements like "God's law is above secular law" and "Our laws are founded on the Ten Commandments" got it bounced.
Our secular law does not, and should not, address religious matters - if we want to protect individual rights, including freedom of religion. No one stopped Moore from doing anything in his personal life. All of his fellow Alabama Supreme Court justices, and the very Christian Alabama Attorney General, quite rightly stopped him from abusing his government position to advance a religious agenda.
While there certainly our people who reject God, this claim of God being removed from people's lives is alarmist at best.
posted on 10/16/2003 10:25:24 AM PDT
Getting rid of the statist drivel that is the Pledge is fine by me. Do any of you who stand so strongly behind it realizing what you're pledging your loyalty to? It's not our constitution, it's to the current government of the United States of America. When you recite it you are pledging your support more to the current elected government and the bureacracy than to our government's framework. That is a damn good reason to find any way to throw that pile of dog $hit for a pledge out. It should be "I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the republic that that it established," not "I pledge allegiance to the flag...."
Must read: Davis Limbaugh's new book "Persecution" that spells out the evil agenda of the secularists and their RAT supporters. Their agenda is to destroy Judeo-Christian religions and do it openly. Satan is extending his influence and the war is on now more than ever!
I'm not sure I see where you're going with this. Let's see if we can't actually establish a dialogue here. Short of pretending to believe in something that I do not, what would you have me, an atheist, do?
posted on 10/16/2003 12:57:16 PM PDT
One man in California has the Supreme Court of this land now reviewing whether the phrase "under God" should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance
As a Christian I have a question. Why should I say a Socialist pledge to a symbol whether it has 'under God' in it or not? Did the men who established this nation of states say it? Scrap the whole pledge.
posted on 10/16/2003 2:05:10 PM PDT
One man in California has the Supreme Court of this land now reviewing whether the phrase "under God" should be removed from our Pledge of Allegiance.
I just can't get excited and exercised any more when some nut gets a favorable court decision.
They usually win Pyrrhic victories.
I simply obtain a "One Nation Under God" bumper sticker and encourage others to do the same.
This clown will have "Under God" in his face more for the rest of his life than he ever imagined in his worst nightmare.
posted on 10/17/2003 7:02:22 AM PDT
(40% of Californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Time To Engage God's (America's) Enemies ]
America is busy deporting "GOD" as we speak, not illegal aliens... We have met the enemy and he's US... Americas house is on fire, half of us are setting them and half of us are putting them out... Americas political scene is like a 3 stooges movie... but its not very funny when you're inside the house..
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson