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."

[Jimnorwellwarren]

"160 people voted AGAINST GOD?????"

160 folks in congress voted against protecting the acknowlegement of the Diety in the Pledge; let's face it, we know that in their hearts most of them wouldn't even qualify as Diests.

[sedwards]

...burn flags off your back porch now and then, have at it.

I believe he did.

[sedwards]

And people might have said the same about me because I attended churches before coming to know the Lord. The fact remains even if Washington did know the Lord the revolution was in violation of Romans 13

[sedwards]

"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...""

Have to resort to calling names huh? As I just posted and will do so again in regards to your comment.

And people might have said the same about me because I attended churches before coming to know the Lord. The fact remains even if Washington did know the Lord the revolution was in violation of Romans 13.

Did he have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ or did he like Jefferson, Franklin, etc always talk about God in the Deist sense? His actions lead me to think so, he was a freemason, he took part in a revolution that violated the book of Romans Chapter 13 and more to the point you can tell someones makeup by the company they keep and the fact is most of the revolutionaries were Deists.

"When Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Philadelphia, mentioned in a weekly sermon that those in elevated stations set an unhappy example by leaving at communion, Washington ceased attending at all on communion Sundays. Long after Washington died, when asked about Washington's beliefs, Abercrombie replied: "Sir, Washington was a Deist!"

Prove to me he knew the Lord Jesus Christ and I will believe he was saved, until then I will not hold my breath on seeing any of them on the flip side in heaven.

[Always Right]

The fact remains even if Washington did know the Lord the revolution was in violation of Romans 13

So for that sin, we should be a Godless nation?

[sedwards]

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

And I've got news for you, if God wants to allow an evil to arise over us, its going to happen. Besides Romans 13 which I have already quoted, try thinking about this. Christ said render unto Caesar what is Caesars and render unto God what is Gods. Maybe he was implying there really is a separation between to secular and spiritual in Government.

[sedwards]

"So for that sin, we should be a Godless nation?"

Do you mean the Deist one or Jesus Christ? How about we change the pledge to say something along the lines of providence or creator, or how about "under 'Natures God'" as the declaration of Independence says? Some Jews don't like even saying God and put G-d in every writing.

[Houmatt]

I could not help but notice the irony of that statement was totally lost on Nancy.

[sedwards]

We can discuss point by point all the other points in private if you like, I apologize for going off topic in to marriage, Washington's faith or lack thereof....

My point is simply this:

Seeing is how we as Christians cannot even agree on these small things, what right do we have to try to impose our faith on others when our history is one of Deism and agnosictism of the enlightenment?

I WILL NOT SAY THE PLEDGE as it stands even without God in it but adding his name to it makes it worse and here is why. My allegiance is to Christ. Not to some generic God or some country that is passing. Trying to mix the two is insulting to me in any case. My patriotism is for the United States but not some nationalism for a country that was founded in violation of his law, is passing and more to the point I think this whole type of discussion violates Christ saying render unto Caesar what is Caesars and render unto God what is Gods.

My country is a Kingdom and its in heaven.

[Always Right]

Do you mean the Deist one or Jesus Christ?

There is only one God. Even Deist, Jews, Muslims, and Christians agree about that.

[Always Right]

My patriotism is for the United States but not some nationalism for a country that was founded in violation of his law,

Was that suppose to make sense? The country you say was founded in violation of law was the United State. So you have patriotism towards the United States, but not towards the United States?

My country is a Kingdom and its in heaven.

Being part of the Kingdom of God is ultimately the most important. But that is not your country. Your country is the United States, and according to the Bible you are suppose to submit to its authority to the extent it does not violate Gods laws.

[Quick1]

In the age of Google and Wikipedia, I'll give you the same advice my dad gave me from the age of the Encyclopedia: Look it up. You might learn something.

[patriciaruth]

I'm moving on from your "I've got news for you" pronouncements.

I wasn't born yesterday.

Bye, newbie!

[do the dhue]

Horse crap bud.

When I accuse someone, I try to make it easy for people to see the facts. I should not expect to run my mouth and then have other people find the facts for me. I shouldn't have to listen to people spew their spew and then do the daayum research to find out if it is spew our not.

My Dad might tell you to get up off your butt and do it right or don't do it at all.

[Rembrandt]

""We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."

I wonder if Miss America is thanking God in her belief that the ASSAULT will fail or that the CONSTITUTION will fail. Somehow, I think she expects the Constitution to fail so the D anarchists can screw everything up even more than they have already.

[sedwards]

Was that suppose to make sense? The country you say was founded in violation of law was the United State. So you have patriotism towards the United States, but not towards the United States?

Read my comment again. One can be patriotic with out being a nationalist. Some other places do certain things better, a lot of others do things worse.

In the end I support my country except when its wrong, which is more and more these days. Yes it was founded out of un-biblical rebellion by a bunch of Deists but God seemed to honor it. Its not "One nation under God" its "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. Many faiths, one nation. Many states, one union. I find the wrapping of G-d in the flag, in the pledge and on the coinage offensive.

[sedwards]

"Being part of the Kingdom of God is ultimately the most important. But that is not your country. Your country is the United States, and according to the Bible you are suppose to submit to its authority to the extent it does not violate Gods laws."

And when did I say I was not going to submit to that authority? Oh except if they passed a flag burning amendment I would violate that law, but then I believe free speech is a God given right.

[Always Right]

In the end I support my country except when its wrong, which is more and more these days. Yes it was founded out of un-biblical rebellion by a bunch of Deists but God seemed to honor it. Its not "One nation under God" its "E Pluribus Unum". Out of many, one. Many faiths, one nation. Many states, one union. I find the wrapping of G-d in the flag, in the pledge and on the coinage offensive.

Why is it offensive? What is offensive about declaring our nation under God? Do you think a nation is suppose to be over God? You seem to want to condemn our nation because of some alledged sin of our Founders. You are declaring all our founders Deits. Do you really know what was in their hearts? You need to get over yourself and stop condemning this nation. You live in the greatest nation the earth has ever seen and yet it does not meet your approval. Yeah, you are a real patriot. The only thing you seem to love about this country is its most unGodly and fairly recent concept of all, the suppression of Church by the state.

[sedwards]

"Why is it offensive? What is offensive about declaring our nation under God? Do you think a nation is suppose to be over God? You seem to want to condemn our nation because of some alledged sin of our Founders. You are declaring all our founders Deits. Do you really know what was in their hearts? You need to get over yourself and stop condemning this nation. You live in the greatest nation the earth has ever seen and yet it does not meet your approval. Yeah, you are a real patriot. The only thing you seem to love about this country is its most unGodly and fairly recent concept of all, the suppression of Church by the state."


Go back and read my posts. My condemnation is one on the modern right for taking the Lords name in vein and acting as if this point of view, with under God in the pledge or that national motto holds true to the founders intentions. Read some of Madison's writing's on the subject of the church and state sometime, he is the father of the constitution after all. Try reading "The life and writings of Thomas Jefferson" and get his point of view, he influenced most of Madison's way of thinking. Then go back and read Locke whose writings Jefferson based the declaration on and compare and contrast all of that to the book of Romans. The history speaks for itself. The country might have been started out of a rebellion I would not have supported if I was alive then, but I would have supported the separation of the church and state primary because for 1700 years up to that point we just wanted government to leave us the hell alone and not burn us at the stake or feed us to lions.

I find it offensive because to me it borders on taking the lords name in vein. Like it or not this is not a Christan nation. I would much rather live in a monarchy under a benevolent king, as at the very core of my being I and every other human yearns to be under the one true King of kings. So yes it very much meets my disapproval. Try reading about the King of Norway in World War Two sometime and what he did for his country. I would take living under a king like that over living here any day, however God elected to put me here and while I am thankful I am not going to delude myself in to thinking that ours is a government that has ever been a Christian nation because such a thing flies in the face of his plan. We may have Judeo-Christian ethics at our core but ours is not a government type that reflects Gods plan.

I can only say my reasoning follows the same as Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto "In God we trust" rather than the old motto
"My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege..."

[Stone Mountain]

How about a law that mandates all schoolchildren recite this socialist loyalty oath that mentions God?

No kidding. Is there anything more creepy than a bunch of children being forced to mindlessly recite an "oath of allegiance" they have no chance of understanding? I'm sure everyone here would have the vapors if they heard about little kids in Muslim countries being forced to recite oaths of loyalty to Mohammed and their governments, but for some reason, when we indoctrinate our own kids into mouthing loyalty oaths they can't understand, it's fine with everyone. Bizarre.