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.
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.