Posted on 06/28/2002 6:42:21 PM PDT by davidosborne
Mr. Brad Edmonds states: Let me be among those who say that the court got this one right,...........
Lew Rockwell/Brad Edmonds Comments on the 9th Circuit Decision....
If you DISAGREE with this gentleman as I do, I suggest following the link and letting him know...
FReegards,
Why weren't Jim Crow laws struck down within 40 years of their creation in the South? The law is unfortunately whatever a majority of people want it to be.
Thank you, It seems that with all this separation of Church and State Nonsense we actually forget what our constitution actually says and means. All our founding fathers did was prohibit the establishment of a state religion like the Church of England, or Lutherans in Germany. In modern terms, they would not want the federal gov't to support or embrace one particular denomination i.e. declare America to be a southern baptist nation, or supply tax dollars to build (only) lutheran churches.
When we apply the Founding Fathers intentions to this case, the court's reasoning becomes a joke. The word GOD could apply equally well to any and all Christian traditions as well as many non-Christian religions. There is no single denomination to be "established."
And even if these words were identified with a single religious tradition or denomination, How could saying the words under God in a pledge of allegiance to the Flag equal the establishment of an official state church??? We are not swearing allegiance to a church, but to our flag.
It seems that the court has to look at the entire situation to declare that the united states has established an official church. As long as we don't do things like financially support one individual tradition, or grant special favors/rights it's members. I don't see how we can have a state religion. After all, the founding fathers who approved the 1st amendment, also began their work with prayer, and established congressional chaplains.
By the way, I am a servant of Jesus the Christ (a Christian), and I agree the government in its official capacity should not condone any particular religion. I do not believe that is what the pledge does, it only recognizes that something greater exists, and to me is just wasted words, but does not violate the first ammendment.
It's ironic, but the vast majority of devote Christians are terrified of the Gov't establishing a state church, especially if it's their own. We've seen the harm that can be done when the gov't contols a church. State Churches are dead churches. In england, the Prime Minister actually picks the head of the Church of England. How would you like to have had Bill Clinton pick the head of your denomination?
It is vitally important that we stand tall and fight the secular bigots on this issue. For two reasons, the first being that our founding fathers considered the moral voice of religion an essential part of our gov't. I forget my source but one of the fathers wrote that a religious membership was essential for running for office. He didn't want or require membership in any particular denomination, rather he recognized that a religious faith provides moral guidence and a belief that gov't leaders are accountable to a higher power.
And secondly the bigots won't stop with Christians and the Gov't. They won't stop until real Christianity is outlawed, or at least invisible. And if we let them destroy the anti-establishment clause, they wont stop there. They will attack the free-exercise clause too.
Good try, but not quite. Reference of any kind to a supernatural being is indeed religion. Parsing "a" vs. "an" vs. "the" is not the solution. The Pledge, by being the Official Pledge (with "under God" being added by Congress in 1954), is indeed unconstitutional, and by adding "under God" Congress made a law. They shouldn't have. Even more egregious is the word "indivisible," clearly anathema to the founders. Even Lincoln agreed, before he drank of the corrupting powers of the presidency. Here's a quote of his from 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."
My personal pledge is, "I pledge allegiance to my God and my conscience."
As to freedom of speech, people can still say anything they want. You are free to stand on your property and say "I pledge allegiance to the US, which is a nation established as under the rule of Jesus Christ as he is understood by 7th-day Adventists." But you don't have a right to make it the official pledge of the nation. Freedom is precious; you waste mine by requiring that I bow to the God you worship.
Mr. Edmonds,
Thank you for your reply. I must, however, take issue. Once again, I must go to the Bill of Rights and the Founding Fathers' intents. There is no "separation of church and state" in the constitution. That phrase came out of the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
As I'm sure you know, the Founding Fathers did not want there to be any particular religion that the United States endorsed, i.e., as occurred in England with the Church of England. They did not want the President of the United States to pick the head of a particular religion, either. They wanted to ensure that someone who was a Deist would not be precluded from serving our government because they chose to be a Deist rather than, say, a Catholic Church, Seventh Day Adventist, or a Quaker, or any one of numerous other religious affiliations.
Our government cannot "establish" a religion. But neither can it prohibit the expression of religion or religious beliefs. They wanted to protect the citizenry from being forced to join one particular religious sect. But they also wanted to protect the religious rights of people, which they deemed to be extremely important.
When one says "one nation, under God," we espouse our pledge to this Country, and are not pledging our faith to any particular religion, or to the God as I may understand Him, or the God as someone else may understand "Her." And if someone is an atheist, they are free to not say that phrase in the Pledge, as is any person who wishes to not Pledge their allegiance to America. No one has ever been forced to say the Pledge.
The 9th Circuit's ruling has taken away the rights of thousands. Two men have decided that the Founding Fathers were wrong: we shall not be a country where we have "freedom of religion," rather, it shall be "free of religion." And that is not freedom at all.
Sounds like your sentiments are similar.
Sounds like you don't understand the ruling. Congress made a law, and they shouldn't have. Or didn't you know that it was already illegal to force anyone to say the pledge since 1943? Or that Congress added "under God" in 1954, as McCarthyite ranting against the godless Red Menace? Or that it's possible to be a Christian and want government to keep themselves divorced from religion? Or that it's possible to attempt to disagree with someone without impugning their motives or making any statements whatsoever about their beliefs on issues aside from the one being discussed?
Why do the liberals always twist things around to make it out as if a disagreement with them is a "personal attack" against them? I've done no such thing. I have criticized his and the judges' stance on the "under God" phrase in the pledge. Well, I responded this way to him:
Mr. Edmonds, I do understand the ruling. I am aware of the 1943 law, forbidding the Pledge being said under force. I am also aware of the motivation behind why Congress added "under God" as a reaction to the McCarthyism that existed at that time. But the word "God" or "our Lord" can be found in numerous of our country's documents, from years before 1943 and since.
I am concerned with the promotion of the idea that "freedom of religion" should be and can be twisted into "freedom from religion." That one word changes the entire original intent and takes away the religious liberty upon which our country was founded and is based. People always have motives......good or bad. The Founding Fathers' motives were for the freedom to express, in speech and religion, whatever the form. We must look to the consequences of things either promoted or forbidden. What you promote, and what the judges of the 9th Circuit have forbidden, is not constitutional, sir. That I impugn.
I think I shall not hear another word from Mr. Edmonds.
Just don't force me not to say them. Don't tell me it's unconstitutiomnal to say them. I'll fight that tooth and nail.
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.