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."

[OneWingedShark]

Since the Warren court, judges have wrapped politically based decisions in various penumbras and emanations of made up and lately, international or even Nigerian law. Then they get angry when we criticize them as we would any other pol.

Quite right, it's disgusting that our own judicirary has no pride, integrity, or commitment regarding the sovergnty of the United States of America.

I can only imagine how they could use this in their decision-making process, especially in regards to 'intrepreting' our Constitution to find more rights not explicitly mentioned.

Sometimes one really wishes that Tar-and-Feathering was a real option.

[OneWingedShark]

>What year was that picture from? I was a child of the early 50's and we never saluted the flag like that...always with the hand over the heart!!

Probably the 30s, maybe 1940-41, there was a debate on how the flag was to be saluted and they decided against that way because that was thought to be too similar to what the Nazis were using.

[sedwards]

How many times does it have to be mentioned

It does not grant rights, it enumerates them.

Once again just because its not listed in the Constitution does not mean you do not have the right. Read that AGAIN. The piece of paper DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHTS. It only lists some of them. Think about that when you talk about passing amendments for gay marriage or any other issue of the day and read the 9th and 10th amendment.

[Always Right]

It does not grant rights, it enumerates them.

The Constitution grants limited power to the government. The bill of rights enumerated several rights to the people mainly to gain support for the document which in hindsight was a good thing because the courts would have taken away our inalienable rights a long time ago.

Think about that when you talk about passing amendments for gay marriage or any other issue of the day and read the 9th and 10th amendment.

Amending the Constitution would be in perfect agreement with those Amendments. The Constitution can be amended to grant additional powers to the federal government.

[OneWingedShark]

> The piece of paper DOES NOT GIVE YOU ANY RIGHTS.

No, but God DOES. And my main point was more the foolishness of the Supreme Court and it's blatant disregard for their own position (i.e. that of the highest legal court in the US) with regards to [the US's] sovereignty...

Remember the old "If everyone else was to jump off a cliff..." question that moms would ask? I see this as being, at the core, basically the same thing. What should FORIGN LAW have to do with ANY American law? They are separate and distinct. What does it matter if the French have outlawed capital punishment in our own country or states?

Should we fall into step with all the other nations of the world? And, if so, would it be based on the number of countries (like, say Africa and Europeans) or maybe population based (like China and India)? Maybe you'd like to see the government tell you how many children you can or cannot have... but I don't think it's really any of the government's business.

It's like when the Army went to beret and I asked 'why?', I received from my NCOs the answer of "every other army in the world is wearing it." ... that reply always made me think, 'If all the other armies in the world greeted their NCOs by spitting on them would you want to do that to?'

[sedwards]

FORIGN LAW does matter if American Law violates inalienable God given rights. Of course some forign law also violates others inalienable rights as does other American law. Its for the court to review and decide. The Supreme Court being the highest arbitrator is well within its rights to look at that. If you don't like it and want to limit government then using your argument you should propose an amendment instead limiting the sources the Supremes can look at when making a decision.

Regarding the government telling you how you can and cannot live, thats what government and law does. Thats its point and its up to the courts to decide if the law violates your God given rights.

Saying "It's not in the Constitution" is a fallacy the right has used and keeps using regarding every issue from privacy to marriage.

[sedwards]

"....because the courts would have taken away our inalienable rights a long time ago."

The last time I checked it was the right always yelling, privacy is not listed in the Constitution whenever a law is being passed by a legislative body limiting privacy and the courts shut it down.

The right to learn is not listed either but I dare say if someone tried to pass a law restricting teaching English somewhere you would be up in arms.

[sedwards]

"The above pic, which you pulled off of Wiki is the BELLAMY Salute, with palms up - not, NOT the Nazi (or Roman) one which I think you're trying to infer."

If you try, you know reading. It says palms down. Or better yet look at the picture.

[Gone GF]

Thanks goodness they're spending their time on the really important stuff -- flag burning, "God" in the pledge, gay "marriage." I'd be really disappointed with them if they tried to do something about runaway spending, illegal aliens, SS and Medicare, shoring up the military, fraud -- silly things like that.

[stands2reason]

What does that have to do with the pledge?

[Republicus2001]

Thanks for your support
-God

[Old Professer]

Re the headline; God is not a registered lobbyist.

[OneWingedShark]

> FORIGN LAW does matter if American Law violates inalienable God given rights.

I would agree with you on two conditions, one that the law was thoroughly examined, researched that is, and two if they weren't used to push a politico-worldview agenda into the law.

> The Supreme Court being the highest arbitrator is well within its rights to look at that.

Agreed, however a consistency in their rulings would be nice, and some would argue required, for a good continuation of the Rule of Law.

>If you don't like it and want to limit government then using your argument you should propose an amendment instead limiting the sources the Supremes can look at when making a decision.

No, I am emphatically not. I am however ridiculing what I perceive as 'international peer-pressure' the whole reason of my last anctidote.

> Regarding the government telling you how you can and cannot live, thats what government and law does.

The Government is supposed to direct, not regulate the society it governs. Else how could the phrase 'deriving its powers from the people' ever be applied to it?

> Saying "It's not in the Constitution" is a fallacy the right has used and keeps using regarding every issue from privacy to marriage.

Contra-wise, just because it's not mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean it's of any relevance/jurisdiction of the Government's.

For example, I don't believe it's the government's job to provide welfare! Rather, I think that is the Church's responsibility (even traditionally, the time that the Church in America stopped providing the welfare was the great depression, when everyone needed it, and I'm sure even then you could find stories of Churches doing good social works). And it could be argued that the government's establishment of a welfare class would amount to a state-instituted religion wherein the state is praised as a savior (via the aid programs).

[sedwards]

"Contra-wise, just because it's not mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean it's of any relevance/jurisdiction of the Government's."

Thats no excuse for perpetrating the lie that if its not in the Constitution then then right does not exist. Don't try to justify your fallacy from before with another wrong.

"For example, I don't believe it's the government's job to provide welfare! Rather, I think that is the Church's responsibility (even traditionally, the time that the Church in America stopped providing the welfare was the great depression, when everyone needed it, and I'm sure even then you could find stories of Churches doing good social works). And it could be argued that the government's establishment of a welfare class would amount to a state-instituted religion wherein the state is praised as a savior (via the aid programs)."

I tithe to my church so it can help others as well as pay its bills, it does good works and try to be as neutral as possible to who it helps in regards to salvation, condition, etc but you cannot tell me the few Churches that met the demand of the soup-lines from the 39 crash would have done so forever. It took a war to get us out of the depression and the churches could not meet a five year or longer demand.

If "don't feed the animals" is your logic then the Church should not feed the animals either.
To counter your argument I could say that telecommunications falls under interstate commerce and sense the government provides a highway system they should also own a telecommunications backbone and provide fiber just like a highway and post office to every single hamlet in America.
Sometimes the government has to step in when no one else does. Thats its job. If the Churches were doing a effective job there would be no demand for government services. supply and demand again. Are you saying with God on your side, you cannot win vs an agnostic at best United States government?

[fgoodwin]

The pledge is "unofficial"? You might want to take at Title 4, section 4 of the United States Code.

[OneWingedShark]

You're saying that because a right is not mentioned, dosen't mean that it is not a right. I am saying that just because a right isn't mentioned in the constitution dosen't mean it IS a right.

*sigh* - Okay, pull out a pen and paper, let's try a Venn diagram.

1. Draw a nice, big rectangle and label it STATEMENTS.
   

   This is a bounding rectangle; nothing will be drawn outside of it.

2. Next, draw a circle in the rectangle, label it GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
3. Draw a dashed smaller circle completly within GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, label it CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS #1.
4. Draw a second similarly sized dashed circle that overlays part of the GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and some of the STATEMENTS (null space in the rectangle.); label this CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS #2.
5. Draw a third dashed circle that does not intersect GOD GIVEN RIGHTS and label it CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS #3.

CR# = CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS GGR = GOD GIVEN RIGHTS

You are opperating under the assumption that CR1 is the correct model and that placing the tip of your pencil in GGR but not in CR1 and you have a Right which is not in the constitution. And that is correct; HOWEVER if you place your pencil-tip outside of GGR you now have a point that is not in CR1, therefore the virtue of being outside of CR1 DOES NOT mean that the point is indeed a right.

Now, if you were to place the pencil-tip to a point inside CR2, but just outside GGR you have what might be termed a 'man given right' or perhaps a 'Constitutionally granted right'. It is obviously not part of GGR, but it may be a good idea for society, like say an equally applied sales tax.

CR3 would represent the model of the Constitution's enumeration to be totally false, that is that none of them are in fact given by God.

Now in CR3 we couald also have a constitution that has been so misconstrued by precived rights, whims, and political fadisim that it no longer contains ANY God-given rights.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? Honestly?
Good, because I'm not finished yet... I'm going to address the other points you brought up in your last reply now.

I tithe to my church so it can help others as well as pay its bills, it does good works and try to be as neutral as possible to who it helps in regards to salvation, condition, etc [snip]

That's good, both that you understand that your church has operating expenses and that you [I assume] are helping take part in God's work here on Earth. It's surprising how many people don't realize that about churches.

[unsnip]but you cannot tell me the few Churches that met the demand of the soup-lines from the 39 crash would have done so forever.

No, I'm not saying that at all... in fact, I belive that I said that they couldn't keep up with the demand from EVERYONE. That is the task was beyond their human resources, which is quite different than saying the Church was completely ineffectual.

It took a war to get us out of the depression and the churches could not meet a five year or longer demand. While I am certain that some churchs wouldn't last, I think we would both be surprised how many would have lasted trying to do what Christ admonished them to do in Revelations (Feed the poor, clothe the naked, ect) especially as the Church has proven especially hard to destroy as a whole. (And in fact, I belive in Revelation it mentions that it won't be destroyed... apostate, but not destroyed.)

If "don't feed the animals" is your logic then the Church should not feed the animals either.

Matthew 6:26 - "Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?"

Obviously God has priorities, and the souls of mankind is at the top of the list... I fail to see a 'don't feed the animals' mentality here.

[snip]If the Churches were doing a effective job there would be no demand for government services. supply and demand again. Are you saying with God on your side, you cannot win vs an agnostic at best United States government?

That's true, like what the serpent said to eve was true. Let's take a look at the sequence of events shall we?

• The depression.
• Some Curches are unable to keep up with the flood of needs.
• Government starts up programs to provide work, ala the CCC.
• War jumpstarts the econemy, thought there is evidence of it recovering naturally.
• War ends, but government stays in the Curche's relm by setting up Wellfare programs.
• "Seperation of Church and State" fad arises, however the Government still sits in the Curch's territory, however the Curch is still allowed to operate within it.

"If the Churches were doing a effective job there would be no demand for government services."
If the Church were to provide that level of job, then there would be kickback from the government. Beuracrices are notorius for looking out for their own buracracy before doing their job... that is there would be reprocussions if the church was to put wellfare workers out of business.

Are you saying with God on your side, you cannot win vs an agnostic at best United States government?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. I hope that what I was trying to say was clear after the Venn diagram, but just in case...
What I was originally saying is that there seems to be a trend of the supreme court issuing bad (foolish, inconsistant, and/or inapproprate) rulings. For example, the displays of the Ten Commandments that are constitutional vs. unconstitutional. For example, the ruling that private property can be taken away and given to another entity for development. (Much like the government taking away your house and giving it to the bank so it can build a bigger lobby.)
And finally, the inversion fallacy for which I hope you used the Venn diagram to see my point. (It's the one that's bolded after the "HOWEVER".)

Anyway, I think that should settle it.

[Condor51]

No it's UP:

Before World War II, the Pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart during the phrase "I pledge allegiance". The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase "to the Flag", and it remained outstretched during the rest of the pledge, with the palm facing upward, as if to lift the flag. An earlier version, the Bellamy salute, also ended with the arm outstretched and the palm upwards, but began with the right hand in a military salute, not over the heart. Both of these salutes differed from the Roman salute, where the palm was toward the ground. However, during the war the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the right hand ove

[Jacquerie]

Sometimes one really wishes that Tar-and-Feathering was a real option.

The courts are out of control to the point that your as yet unused option may become reality. Well, I can at least hope so.

Members of the other two branches must at least occasionally look over their shoulders for outraged citizens bent on firing them. Our black robed philosopher-king oracles merely study entrails or whatever they look at for guidance and then make the law of the land. Our constitutional system is not supposed to work that way and it may be too late to reform it. I honestly despise our federal courts for what they have done to our country.

[Jacquerie]

For sedwards, welcome to FR.

Am I to understand you are not pleased that unlike our federal courts, Congress attempted to follow the prescribed constitutional route to amend the Constitution?

[sedwards]

Your Venn diagram while being a nice argument is not what you posted and more to the point not what the right argues. 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. Its either its in the Constitution or its not.

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

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) or if passing a law banning learning would be unconstitutional in your mind.
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. As long as people can hear the word of God get saved and die nothing else matters does it? Who cares if they are slaves along the way because the bible allowed it therefore the United States Consitution violates a God given right. Or what about multiple wives? Last I checked David, Solomon, Gideon, Jacob, Job etc all had more than one woman.