House Protects God in Pledge of Allegiance

Fox News ^ | 6/19/06

[bnelson44]

WASHINGTON — The House, citing the nation's religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase "under God."

The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate where its future is uncertain.

"We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage," said Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn. "It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God."

[sedwards]

"A license to learn to read English? What orphace to you pull this crap out of..."

Is an example of pulling an extreme to make a point in the discussion I was having. The right is currently going to certain extremes attacking non-issues such as flag-burning and gay marriage while ignoring real issues of the day. Read my entire set of comments from the start.

[Quick1]

So if Karl Marx said we should have the right to bear arms, you would oppose it on those grounds?

Keep the illogical arguments coming. Marx would never say that. Even if he did, I wouldn't force school children to recite his words because they sound nice.

[patriciaruth]

Explain how flag burning is not a form of political speech.

Setting fire to things without a burn permit is generally arson.

[sedwards]

"I'm not the only American who then and now believes that our nation exists only by the grace of God, and thus it is only right that we acknowledge our dependence on the Creator for our future survival."

Sorry wrong. You cannot sell that logic and Christians should stop buying it. Our government exists out of violation of the book of Romans chapter 13. It was founded by a bunch of Deists that did not care what the word of God said in regards to submission to authority.

[OneWingedShark]

>Your Venn diagram while being a nice argument is not what you posted and more to the point not what the right argues.

I maintain that it IS what I posted, furthermore who cares what 'the right' argues!? I'm arguing for me, that's what the Freedom of Speech is about!

>I agree with it in theory however your original statement implied nothing of the sort and more to the point strict constructionists never use such an argument.

Granted, I didn't use a sarcasm tag. But what do you mean by "constructionist"? And who said I'm a strict one?

>Its either its in the Constitution or its not.

That would be trivially true, logically. T v F = T, Always.

>Your "Separation of Church and State" fad comment is the most insane thing yet.

Is it? I was saying that the Government was quite possibly overstepping its bounds, into that of the Church's domain... or does "Separation of Church and State" only apply to the Church when it tries to influence a political view?

If you say yes to that then you are basically advocating a position where the Church is relegated to the back spot of a person's life, and this is completely at odds with the [common sense] viewpoint that [most] people are, in fact, holistic beings. (That is to say they are not totally different people depending on the situation, that is it is still the same person.)

Any time you would say that religion should not have a place in politics then you are effectively saying that morals (because we typically learn them in church) do not either. I do not want a leader in office who, thinking that a certain law is morally repugnant, still passes it into law.

> Go read Jeffersons writings..he wrote that statement twice. Next your going to try to argue he, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Madison, etc were Christains. I've got news for you, THEY WERE DEISTS

First, Washington was definitely NOT a deiest, a deist would not write the praise of answered prayers. Second, Jefferson was a deiest... until he decided that he had been mistaken and changed his viewpoint later-on in his life.

>You never did address my point about if the government should build telecommunication networks for high-speed internet (they build highways, so why not information highways, how about fiber optic to every town along the interstate and internet nearly free for all).

Because it seems a trap either way, as does the hypothetical you present below. But, let me say in my own opinion, that the Government is too big. I think it should be much, much smaller.

The reason this smells the trap is because if I say government shouldn't, then you would say I am against Free Speech; if I say that it should, then you will say that I am agreeing with you that the Government should do things not outlined in the constitution. Also your lumping it together with your next hypothetical statement with an OR could mean that you would see an anti-education slant to a negative response.

However, despite all this, I will give you an answer. In the beginning of the transit system, that is interstates and such, Congress used military funds to develop the infrastructure. (And they may have used the Army Corp. of Engineers too, I don't recall.) They justified the construction with the reason that it would make the deployment of troops anywhere in the country easier and more efficient. They were right in their assumption.

Now, the Internet had a similar beginning, as ARAPNET (spelling may be off), which was to be used for 'uninterpretable communication to missile controllers' I believe is the actual phrase, if not then it is the intent.

I am perfectly happy with the way Internet came to be, that is the original infrastructure was expanded via private/capitalistic means.

> or if passing a law banning learning would be unconstitutional in your mind.

There's already the NEA. Or are you going to tell me that they're really educating the general populous [effectively] when a high-school diploma isn't worth the paper it's printed on?

It's my opinion that a person with a HS diploma should be able to get a decent paying job with chances for advancement; I regard the failure of such state to be that of the public education system.

[sarc] Besides, with our stellar success with "The War on Drugs" we could use a "War on Education". [/sarc]

>I expect you would go right along with a law requiring a license to learn to read English so people could never understand Lockes ideas that influenced Jefferson and Madison.

How in the name of Jesus Christ did you reach that conclusion? Or are you just trying to provoke me?

> As long as people can hear the word of God get saved and die nothing else matters does it?

Here you are completely warping Christian thought into something that it is not. If I were to say "yes" then you would retort about my lack of empathy, it "No" then you would retort that my faith is meaningless.

However, again, I will try to answer you to the best of my ability. "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9b)" This sets the general tone for the overall answer, that God doesn't want anyone to perish, Right? Wrong.

In James two good works quotes stand out: "Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith." and "Faith without works is dead".

That means that, *gasp*, other things DO matter.

As Paul said about freedom: "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient", basically saying that while he was legally free to do anything it may not be in the best interest of his ministry to do so. It's the exact same statement as "Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."

A like mentality can be applied to "soul saving", and that is 'being nice to someone and being good to someone, may be entirely different things.' It may not be 'nice' to let someone make a painful mistake that you once, but sometimes you need to in order to do them good.

Having said that, Christ Himself thanks those who clothe the naked, who feed the poor, who visit the prisoner as if they truly were good deeds done to Himself.

So, it is therefore intuitively obvious that I SHOULD do good works and also that God wants to save people. (And the two are NOT mutually exclusive, like you seem to think... just remember Mother Teresa.)

>Who cares if they are slaves along the way because the bible allowed it therefore the United States Consitution violates a God given right.

Is being a slave mutually exclusive to your Rights? Or is it merely that you don't have the same freedoms as the Freeman would? You forget that Paul wrote to the Slaves telling them that they were free in Christ, and that the Freemen were Slaves in Christ... that there should be equity in the church. James also states that a Christian should not be 'a respector of persons'.

Perhaps there is no God given right to be a Freeman. However, there _IS_ a constitutional one, so the point is moot.

> Or what about multiple wives? Last I checked David, Solomon, Gideon, Jacob, Job etc all had more than one woman.

Jesus said that marriage was supposed to follow the model that God laid out in Eden, that is the one-man/one-woman marriage. Obviously, if the Son of God says that is the way it SHOULD be, then it is so. The other multiple-wives thing would be therefore not 'what God had in mind'. However it was legal, again you are trying to merge a dichotomy into a single entity. And just because people go against God's plan, doesn't mean that He can't use them... In fact, it's because we didn't follow His plan that He came in the form of Jesus of Nazareth to die so that we could BE part of His plan (instead of just following it).

[patriciaruth]

Not trying to sell anything.

If you don't want to pledge loyalty to higher authority then don't say the pledge at all, as the pledge itself, even without "under God", is a form of submission.

Most people in the U.S. believe our nation depends on God's grace, and after the foxhole experience of WWII and while facing the expansion of godless communism, our fathers were mindful of that.

Some of us are mindful today that we need God on our side in this long clash with the Satanic verses of Islam.

[Always Right]

It was founded by a bunch of Deists that did not care what the word of God said in regards to submission to authority.

Most of our founders did not wear their particular relgion on their sleeve as part of their public life, but many including Washington were very much Christian in their private life.

[patriciaruth]

Okay, newbie, let's address your inaccurate statement that our country was "founded by a bunch of Deists that did not care what the word of God said..."

1. George Washington was the indispensible man without whom our nation and our Constitution would never have existed.

2. Thanksgiving Day is a day to thank God for the existence of our country. President George Washington's Thanksgiving Day proclamation follows.

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

[Always Right]

Washington was dedicated to attending Church and had pews in several churches. George Washington's adapted daughter who was Martha's granddaughter, who lived with George for twenty years said you 'that one might as well question Washington's patriotism as question his Christianity'. Of course I am sure today's athiests know Washington's faith better than his family did. Calling Washington a Deists is just ignorant.

[1035rep]

"Some of us are mindful today that we need God on our side in this long clash with the Satanic verses of Islam."

We also need him because of those nasty liberals 

[patriciaruth]

I don't mind the liberals so much. It's the left wing fascists that are scary.

[stands2reason]

So if a pledge with God in it is so all fired important, why didn't our founding fathers make one up?

[1035rep]

I don't even know what DUH is

Democratic Underground.  It is a very stinky place, with very smelly liberal and commie loving posters 

[patriciaruth]

So if a pledge with God in it is so all fired important, why didn't our founding fathers make one up?

They prayed regularly and children prayed regularly in school back then. Probably never occured to them that belief in God would be under attack like it is today.

[Always Right]

The First Prayer in Congress
September 6, 1774
by; Rev. Jacob Duche

O' Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from Thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee, to Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give; take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them Wisdom in Council and Valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, 0' God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people.

Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior. Amen

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Mine is one and the same as yours and though he be the strongest and we may be inconsequential to ourselves we are not to him !

[do the dhue]

How is it Socialists? Maybe you should look up who it was originally written by.

Since you make the claim, could you help us out and point us to some data? Thanks

[mjaneangels@aolcom]

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

There is a period after original Jurisdiction in the third line of the quote. That means it is a completed thought.

Starting with "In all the other cases... is another and different thought.

[phillyfanatic]

Odd though, that the Pubs could not get enough votes from the new morality Dems to define marriage!!! Where was Barak Obama charging into the House from his Senate perch to remind the new Dems, that they are looking for religious voters, ahem!!!!!!!

[Jacquerie]

Burning the flag on the courthouse steps with prepublicity to local news media is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Both are solely designed to incite.

On the other hand, if like Gandhi, you think God gave you the right to either shout "fire" or burn flags off your back porch now and then, have at it.