Legislator in Pennsylvania Refuses to Say the Pledge of Allegiance (Because "God" is in it)

Independent Sentinel ^ | 10/05/2012 | Sara Noble

[SeekAndFind]

It was just a routine House State Government Committee meeting and Chairman Daryl Metcalfe asked Pennsylvania state representative, Babette Josephs, to lead the patriotic pledge. She refused because it has the word “God” in it.

This is what the dingbat said:

“Based on my First Amendment rights and based on the fact that I really think it’s a prayer. I don’t pray in public.” [Inquisitor]

More from the Inquisitor:

Josephs noted after the meeting that Congress chose to insert “under God” into the pledge when she was about 14 years old. The Democratic politician maintains that the additional wording turned the patriotic statement of allegiance into a prayer, WPXI notes.

Babette Josephs had this to say about the incident:

“How many years ago was 1954? I have not said the Pledge of Allegiance since and I will not say it into the future unless they take those words out and make it less of a prayer. Especially if you’re in elective office and you’re invoking the name of God all the time; to me it’s the height of hypocrisy. I will not do it.”

Here’s the video:

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

abc27 WHTM

Maybe she has a little dementia. She claimed Daryl Metcalfe was angry but he doesn’t sound angry to me. The voters are very wise to have seen through her pettiness – she lost her primary.

It is her right to not say the pledge but it is hardly a prayer. We’re not praying when we say it, we’re pledging allegiance to our country.

I think she would have had more of a case if she led the Pledge and just left out “under God.”

Secularists want to change our history. This is not simply about wanting to separate church and state to the extreme. Secularists want to banish God from everything and prevent believers from mentioning God. The Founders never intended us to ban God and never mention his name.

Secularists want the United States to become an atheistic society.

 

[CaspersGh0sts]

This posts brings back recollections of the recent post about conservative women appearing more feminine...

Someone should just ask this hag to resign immediately if she can’t fill her role properly. There’s nothing special about her.

[paudio]

She refused because it has the word “God” in it.

Her statement of refusing the pledge has the word 'God' in it. Does it mean she was actually praying when she objected to it?

[savagesusie]

But that affirmation of the Constitution is upholding its intent-—which is that our Rights come from God. It is really quite clear and the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and any laws that contradict the Constitution are Null and Void—so John Marshall stated. There has been no elimination of God’s Laws by an amendment that I have seen (yet). When they take the concept of God built into our Constitution, OUT, then we cease to be free. We will be “Ruled by Man” (like Germany, Italy, Russia was/is). “Rule of Law” of our Republic demands a “Higher Law” than man’s.

Stalin is the one who put Separation of Church and State in his Constitution. it doesn’t exist in ours. There is no establishment of religion by Congress when people mention God and Jesus Christ where ever. The government has NO right to censor any religious speech at all, anywhere, even by teachers in government schools. McGuffey Readers were filled with Biblical passages until the 1930’s when the Atheist John Dewey forced God out of the public square and started indoctrinating children into his radical religion—secular humanism, and getting Marxist judges to destroy our legal system and our freedoms.

Atheists used to not be allowed at all—as jurists, in office—not until the socialists were stacked on our courts by Wilson and FDR, did our legal system warp the meaning of the 1st Amendment and insert Stalin’s plank.

When we have a system of Rule of Law which according to Blackstone and the political theorists of that day and hundreds of years later—meant that there is a “Higher Law” than man-made law (which is arbitrary, if not based on “Laws of Nature and nature’s God” which has to be the guiding Principle of our Constitution for Right Reason (which goes back to Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Locke, Blackstone and then, John Marshall).

MLK, Jr. and the Nuremberg Trials AGAIN brought up the idea that there is a Higher Law— God’s Laws which was affirmed in our Court again. There was no trouble stating God for over 200 years in our history......hmmmmmm...... Stating “God” is not establishing any religion (what religion could it possibly be?????) Why is Atheism the only allowed religion in the public square now—when that is Stalin’s type of government? We aren’t a evil dictatorship.

If this woman refuses to acknowledge God Given Rights—than she is not in support of our Founding Documents and the type of government which is based on God’s Laws. They have a right to deny her office—since she couldn’t possibly understand the First Principles of our government.

[savagesusie]

Not if it is “with liberty and justice for all”. With a “Just” system-—there is never any reason to dissolve the union.

If liberty and justice is removed from the Republic-—then yes, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

But the pledge is to a Republic with Liberty and Justice for all—so it makes sense.

[Fresh Wind]

My mind is cluttered with absolutely useless information, so when I read her name is “Babette”, something clicked, and with a little help from Google, it turns out that the old TV show “Ramar of the Jungle” featured an African native who had a pet monkey named Babette.

[silverleaf]

“they” have to take “God” out because this hag cannot stand to just say the pledge and do her own thing on the part that “offends” her

she has to make sure “they” choose silence for all of us

[ThePatriotsFlag]

That’s her right, but it is our right not to have such a person represent us. She is not the problem, she is the RESULT of a problem. A majority if voters in her area voted for her and thus have the same thoughts. We need to start focusing on the people that vote for such a person ... And the solution to the resulting problem could be your next door neighbor ...start there. (BTW ... I say “stood” instead if “stands” in the pledge and will as long as Obama is President. )

[MasterGunner01]

This is an election year. Vote her out of office.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Atheists used to not be allowed at all—as jurists, in office—not until the socialists were stacked on our courts by Wilson and FDR, did our legal system warp the meaning of the 1st Amendment and insert Stalin’s plank.

What part of "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (U.S. Const., Art. VI) do you not understand?

[Our man in washington]

Good points. I will have to think about them, but for the most part, I will say I stand corrected. Thanks!

[Our man in washington]

Good points. I will have to think about them, but for the most part, I will say I stand corrected. Thanks!

[Gertie]

I think if you look a “little deeper” into this you will find that the word “allah” instead of “God” would have been acceptable. The enemy is definatley at the gates.

[dennisw]

Just another superannuated attention ho’..... Jewish lib idiot (I am Jewish and disown her)

[savagesusie]

You are utterly missing my point and that of ALL the Founders.

We have God in our Constitution. It is all over it-—from Natural Law Theory which demands a Designer, to the recognition of Providence, In the Year of our Lord, etc. Everyone knows that the signers of our Supreme Law of the Land demanded a belief in God-Given-Rights. It is as clear as day in the Founding Documents along with no concern about protecting “atheists”—because actually they were marginalized (correctly) until O’Hare and the Marxists moved in to warp our legal system and force atheism in the schools. THAT is unconstitutional. It takes more “Faith” to believe in “nothing created everything” than a belief in God. If there is no God—then we have NO God-given Natural Rights. The stupidity is astounding.

It is the primary Principle of our Constitutional Republic.——Rule of Law which means —there is a “Higher Law” than man made up law which goes all the way back in Western Civilization to Sophocles’ “Antigone”. Are YOU telling me that the meaning of God has changed in our Fixed document?????? That now, when anyone states the word “God”—it establishes a religion. (I don’t even see Congress anywhere). Just WHAT religion is established when you utter the word, “God”?

You don’t “force” anyone to hold a job in the government. If they can’t uphold God-—they aren’t forced to work in the government. Your thinking is so convoluted. They have the freedom to not be a government employee—if they don’t like our LAW OF THE LAND. Fine-—but they will destroy it if they do not acknowledge our Rights come from God. It transforms us into Hilter’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union. They would promote Rule of Man. (Unconstitutional).

Are you saying that People can actually claim to uphold our Constitution-—yet, won’t state that our Natural Rights come from God, when the word God never establishes a religion and it states in our Documents that our Natural Rights come from the Creator-—based on Natural Laws and God’s Laws?

The radical Marxist plank of separation of church and state—isn’t in our Constitution and that warped interpretation of “separation” that is denying freedom of religion in the public square is blatantly unconstitutional.

Saying “God” does not establish any religion—it acknowledges where our Rights in this country come from and people have no “right” to uphold the Constitution if they deny the First Principle of our Constitution.
You think when a teacher or person states the FACTS that our NATURAL RIGHTS COME FROM GOD-—is establishing a religion......Geeesh.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I said nothing about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. I pointed to Article VI of the Constitution, which says that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” What part of that clause don’t you understand?

[savagesusie]

My point was that saying “God” is not a Religion. The religious test was meant for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, (religions), not so-called religions like Atheism, wiccan, Satanism, etc. They were rejected and Founders thought they were mentally ill. They used to not recognize such degenerate practices—since Justice is a Virtue and Just Laws can never constitutionally promote Vice.

Degenerates-—any person who showed lack of character (no Judeo-Christian Ethics)—was not supposed to hold office, either. Founders knew that character matters and degenerates breed degeneracy and corruption.

Everyone since Socrates, knew that all Virtues are connected. If you are deficient in one area—you will be deficient in the other virtues. Just soceties have to promote public Virtue. (Montesquieu and Founders and Aristotle and Cicero and Locke and Blackstone).

We have God-given Rights—although Barney Frank thinks they come from Satan.

Hitler’s “Rule of Man”-—is not “Rule of Law” which has to have God. Even Cicero stated that there are higher laws (Universal Truths) than man-made up laws—arbitrary laws. Arbitrary laws are always unjust (unconstitutional).

We do not force anyone to hold office-—if they don’t want to uphold our God-Given Rights in office-—then they should NOT be allowed to hold office __like for 200 years in this country.

Saying “God” is not a “religious” test-—it is a recognition of the principle of our Rule of Law-—which is Fact.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The religious test was meant for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, (religions), not so-called religions like Atheism, wiccan, Satanism, etc. They were rejected and Founders thought they were mentally ill.

So, according to you, when the Constitution says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office," that means that only Catholics, Protestants and Jews can hold federal office?

What other religions are banned from holding office? Buddhists? Hindus? Moslems? Scientologists? Unitarians? Jehovah's Witnesses? Christian Scientists? Mormons?

And who gets to decide?

[savagesusie]

No—that is what the Founders thought. That only God-Fearing people could hold office since our Constitution is one which has to acknowledge God-Given inalienable rights. To take an oath to such a document—they thought—required one to believe in a Higher Power—the Judeo-Christian God. Atheists were discriminated against—and rightly so—when it came to taking oaths for any office or judgeship.

Are YOU saying that the Founders classified ALL cults as legitimate “religions”. Wiccan???? Atheism?????? Satanism????? Snake worship???? Mormonism??? Hinduism, etc? They treated all “faiths” as a viable “religion”?

“Religions” which didn’t comply with our Constitution—which was “Right and Wrong” according to Judeo-Christian Ethics-—were not accepted as “Religions”.

Some were outright rejected and discriminated against with laws and immigration regulations.

Just note the Supreme Court-—which could be said of all the Founders and this was OVER a hundred years later-—BTW, 24 of the Founders actually founded seminaries and remember there were legally State established religions (only Christian) at the signing of our Constitution.

“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent, our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” U. S. Supreme Court 1892

You deny history and use Marxist revisionism to destroy the very meaning and intent of our Founding Documents. Remember Nietzsche and Marx and the “kill God”—group were haters of Christianity for a reason. Christianity produced a culture whose Ethics gave the world the idea that women had dignity and worth, as did children, and that slavery, homosexuality and pederasty are vile, evil behaviors and that universities and hospitals will do much good for people. Individuality was created because of Christianity.
Collectivism/socialism violates Individualism—in serious ways. We become
serfs under any such system without individual rights. Socialism should be unconstitutional in this country. But as Mark Levine states we are post-constitutional.

These God-killers came AFTER the Age of Reason. True, skepticism existed but outright Atheism was totally rejected in America. Tocqueville writes about the religiosity and he remarks at the Holy Bible being in every house hold—even in the back waters. (So quit trying to deny history-—too many sources document these facts. Also.....John Austin and Legal Positivism would have also been considered incompatible with American jurisprudence.....but it is taught now in all our Universities as how to make “Law” although it denies the fundamental meaning of what constitutes Just Law—Right Reason according to Nature. Marx throws out the nature of men and women to dehumanize them and destroy all family connections—all biology becomes meaningless—why they push perversion and dysfunction—to destroy all possibility of healthy long-term relationships necessary for emotionally healthy people.

When the godless want slaves-—they want ignorant masses and no dignity of man—so that they can control them and eliminate them (as history has proven with all atheist/pagan beliefs). To destroy Christian Ethics-—they must kill God. That is what you are witnessing-—the trying to eliminate God from the American Mind and to relegate Christianity as NOT a Founding First Principle in our Legal System. Without a Higher Power-—there is no Rule of God and NO freedom or Justice possible. It becomes Austin’s world, Might makes Right.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Are YOU saying that the Founders classified ALL cults as legitimate “religions”. Wiccan???? Atheism?????? Satanism????? Snake worship???? Mormonism??? Hinduism, etc? They treated all “faiths” as a viable “religion”?

So you are saying that Mitt Romney is constitutionally ineligible to be President?

[savagesusie]

My statement was referring to 1789 time period and Mormonism has “evolved” over time to where is is in line with our Constitutional Rights of women and minorities.

When Mormons were practicing polygamy-—no. Like Jim Jones’ cult should have received no preferred status as a “religion”. Our Legal System is build on Reason which can never be separated from Faith-—so that faith—like Di’Souza stated in “What is so great about Christianity?”—has to be a Rational Religion that gives dignity and worth to all human beings.

There is Faith in everything—so to say “Christian religion” isn’t allowed in the public square, is, in fact, promoting secular humanism—an atheistic faith—so it is unconstitutional because of the equity clause. You can’t promote one faith over another UNLESS the “faith” like Communism or Atheism denies our God-Given Rights. Then we have a DUTY to discriminate against it because the very principles that give us our “Sacred” Rights is in jeopardy. Atheists will strip us of our God-Given Rights because they “think” they don’t exist. Now, that is fundamentally transforming the ideals of our Founders in a grotesque unconstitutional way. Destroys Rule of Law.

St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Theologiae” aligned Natural Law Theory with Christianity. When adhered to—Christian Ethics are perfect for a government founded on Judeo-Christian Ethics and the Laws of Nature, like the USA. That is why it was superior to other governments. It is in line with Natural Laws so it never has to be totalitarian if there is Public Virtue (defined by Christian ethics—never Satanic ones.) When Just Law coincides with Natural Law (see tagline), people know that it is a Just society—where people can flourish in all teleological ways—how they were designed so that they have the ability to “flourish”. They are masters of themselves and can do their duty.

Marx/islam/socialism/progressivism/paganism reject Natural Laws.

By rejecting Natural Laws you are irrational and come up with all sorts of stupid ideology which worships mother earth, the State, multiple designers of the world or the idea that women are chattel and have no dignity and worth and human beings can be used (or murdered) because they can be eliminated for the “collective” good.

Individualism comes only from Christianity and Natural Moral Law—the idea that the Collective can not impose their ideology on anyone-—mob rule is unacceptable.

Most other ideologies FORCE their ideology on everyone. You only see Freedom of Religion in Christian nations (and the Jewish one). it is not possible with other ideologies because God is the Highest Power in Christian nations—not man—like Hitler. Loyalty is not to the State-—it is to a Higher Power’s Moral Code—call is the Moral Law found in Natural Law Theory-—the oldest moral theory in Western Civilization which—like I say—is in complete alignment with most , if not all, Christian principles, since even before Plato recognized an immortal soul and heaven. ( Designer).

Natural Law Theory and Christianity go hand in hand. There is no conflict like there is when people deny reality——like treating women as inferior human beings (although different in nature than a man) or believing in sodomy of little boys is good. Dignity and worth of ALL human beings during their entire life span and conception—is a Christian concept which tries to eliminate slavery, pederasty, homosexuality and all dehumanizing, vile practices, which lead to brutal, vile societies where no individual rights existed and people are slaves to others or their own flesh.