Please let me know if you want on or off this ping list.
Posted on 06/27/2002 6:52:53 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes
The original Pledge, composed by Francis Bellamy, read:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
1923 - At the first National Flag Conference, the words "the Flag of the United States" are inserted.
1942 - Congress officially recognizes the Pledge.
1943 - The U.S. Supreme Court rules that youngsters cannot be compelled to recite the Pledge in WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). The case is heard on behalf of parents and students belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect, who argued that their religious faith prohibited them from saluting the symbols of a worldly government.
1950s - The Red Scare: In a search for "commies", congressional committees and state legislative panels question citizens about their political and religious beliefs.
1952 - The Knights of Columbus adopts a resolution urging the inclusion of the word "God" in the Pledge.
Flag Day, June 14, 1954 - President Eisenhower signs a measure adding the words "under God" to the Pledge.
1956 - The secular phrase "E Pluribus Unum" ("Out of many, one") is replaced with "In God We Trust" as the national motto. President Eisenhower first institutes the annual "National Prayer Breakfast" held in the White House. The phrase "So help me God" is added to the oath taken by Federal judges and other officials.
Many of you continue to assert that the Founders would've endorsed this mixture of God and government. But, as you can see, these religious slogans and practices were not adopted until much later during the Red Scare.
It sure does. :)
THAT I agree with! :-)
Wrong. Should this decision stand, which it will not, then Atheism is established as the state religion of this country. GOD is not a religion so therefore it is IMPOSSIBE to establish a religion called GOD.
Please let me know if you want on or off this ping list.
The other part of the PoA. /pork/white meat parody
Out of the mouths of babes..........
It is precisely a reaction against institutional atheism being forced down our throats that is the genesis of the current backlash.
Atheism is a belief in a serendipitous universe hence the term Serendiptarian, or more commonly "Dips" is gaining wide acceptance.
The dips have been using fuzzy logic and incidious inuendo to undermine our cultural heritage and sandblast God out of our community square. Happily, the current debate brings into focus precisely how far we've allowed this infantile world view to encroach upon our national patrimony. It is my hope that the Dip agenda will be clearly seen for what it is and therefore quickly eradicated.
Yeah, 20 years from now the leftists and muslims will be referring to these times as the terror scare or some other term to downplay the real threat that existed.
If under the thread of communists infiltration of America Eisenhower introduced God to the pledge, and we all know that now the communists are history, then it would be appropriate to drop the word God from the pledge? I actually don't care one way or the other. However, I think the liberal leftists who are telling us all the time to be tolerant of others, should practice what they preach. Less than 2% of this country doesn’t believe in God, so why can these minorities tolerate the rest of us? Unless the Moslems want to change the pledge to one nation under Allah!
Institutional atheism? Let me try to say it louder: WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE WORD "GODLESS" TO BE INSERTED INTO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Now, THAT would be institutionalizing atheism in government schools. But, by including the words "under God", which were not in the original version, you are institutionalizing religion.
If atheism were a religion, the government would be giving atheist organizations the same tax-exempt status that religious organizations enjoy. ;)
Definition of Religion: (1) Recognition of God as object of worship; (2) any system of faith or worship.
By compelling nonreligious children to recognize "God" in a pledge of allegiance, the government is establishing religion. The First Amendment doesn't say "establishment of a religion"; it says "establishment of religion."
Look, here's an idea: If you want to require public school students to recite a pledge including the words "under God", why not simply EXEMPT atheists from both school taxes and truancy laws? If you want to consider atheism a religion, why not EXEMPT atheist organizations from other taxes, too? Atheists could simply opt out of sending their children to public school, and YOU can deal with the government indoctrinating your kids. :)
Te philosopher JP Sartre said the everyone must choose between belief/nonbelief, not choosing is also a choice that equates to nonbelief. Likewise, we as a nation must choose whether we are a godless nation or a god-filled nation.
The attempt by Dips to say that they are somehow "above" religion and are therefore an impartial arbiter is absurd. They bring as much faith to the fight as any radical Islamist.
No, it says "an establishment of religion.
Two innocuous words do not constitute establishment, or impose religion, or require anyone to acknowledge any god. Diagram the pledge. It is the nation which is under God, not necessarily individuals in the nation (who are all free to worship or not as they please).
This decision was wrong. One could reasonably argue that the words "under God" should not be recited in public schools, but it is completely unreasonable to insist that the First Amendment forbids this--because it does not. You'll have to amend the constitution if you want NO mention of faith or deity or any subject touching on religious matters by any official/employee of any government institution or any organization that receives federal funding. All you need is a supermajority of states to approve it, and the way things are going in this country you'd have a good chance of ratification. But stop trying to torture the First into saying what you want it to say. Anyone with eyes can see that it simply doesn't say it.
These subjects are taught in the complete absence of a god-centered worldview which is exactly my point. The counterbalancing theories have been suppressed by the institutionalized Serendipitous adherents. By cunningly pretending not to advance a position, the Dips have forced there agenda on an unsuspecting nation.
Now, however, the agenda is clear. Thank you for clarifying it.
Which have been upheld or vindicated in court exactly when? What court has ruled in their favor on the basis of an imagined "right not to hear" something, as they did in this case--when some vicious little gnat of a man decided "opting out" wasn't good enough for his daughter?
C'mon, now, I'm only asking for consistency here...
And I was only asking for an honest evaluation of this ridiculous ruling. You haven't given it. Neither has any other poster spouting the "we're better off without the under God" or "we're better off without the pledge itself" line in the past two days. Y'all can argue the point that we'd be better off without it, but you can't defend the basis of the ruling. Unless judges making law is okay with you?
I told you what you need to do to achieve your objective. It's the only correct way. Don't ask any of us to accept government-by-judge, even in a matter that seems insignificant to YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.