Keep the Pledge of Allegiance Legal

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Bro. James Reed, Dec 9, 2002.

  1. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I thought this would be a good way to get the signatures needed for this. Simply read the following and click the link at the bottom of the page to sign the petition supporting the pledge of allegiance. God Bless. Bro. James. For months, we've been waiting for the 9th Circuit Court to
    take the next step in the crucial Pledge of Allegiance case.

    FINALLY...

    We have two critically important updates that we need to
    share with you..

    Last week, the original three-judge panel issued two orders
    in support of their ruling this summer that banned the
    Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional.

    First:
    COURT REJECTS THE U.S. SENATE'S ATTEMPT TO
    INTERVENE AS A PARTY TO THE CASE.

    Second:
    COURT DECIDES THAT THE MOTHER OF THE GIRL ON WHOSE BEHALF
    THE CASE WAS FILED HAD "NO PROTECTABLE INTEREST" IN THE
    CASE...

    In spite of the fact that the mother, not the father has
    sole custody of the little girl.

    It now seems clear that the father, Michael Newdow, was
    been simply using his daughter to pursue his own anti-God
    agenda.

    JUST LISTEN TO WHAT THE JUDGES SAID IN THEIR RULING:

    They equated the reciting of the pledge with "unconstitutionally
    indoctrinating [Newdow's] impressionable young daughter on a
    daily basis."
    This week, we're shipping the newest Amicus Brief with over
    50,000 co-signers! (We would have sent it sooner, but were
    told by the court that we must bind 23 copies of the Brief--
    that's more than 1,100 pages for each!).

    But we must spread the word on these latest rulings!

    The mainstream media isn't even reporting these latest
    hostile orders (it seems the court's delay tactics are
    succeeding in diffusing public pressure!).

    Here's what we're asking you to do:

    * * * * * * * ACTION ITEM

    FORWARD THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS
    TO UPDATE THEM ON THIS CRUCIAL CASE.

    ENCOURAGE THEM TO JOIN YOU IN SIGNING
    THIS PETITION BY CLICKING HERE:

    http://gfir.ws/14/pledge.asp?PID=2334287&P=1
     
  2. Reborn James

    Reborn James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I pledge allegiance.... to the flag?!?"

    Brother, you have your priorities wrong. The "Under God" controversy is a red herring. Christians should be pledging their allegiance to no one but Jesus.

    I instruct my children to not say the pledge in school. It is unChristian and unAmerican. The pledge was written by a socialist!
     
  3. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    190
    The pledge is not illegal. :rolleyes:

    The only thing that the court declare illegal was the school using official school time and their influence to motivate the children to make the theological affirmation ("One nation under God") that is in the pledge.

    Christians have little credibility when they get up in arms about issues like this and fail to do the hard stuff like love their neighbor and tell others about the Lord.
     
  4. Reborn James

    Reborn James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2002
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is because most Christians are "talking" New Testament while "living" Old Testament.
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey folks, I live in the area under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit. The pladge is alive and well at our public schools and other pulic activities. Nothing has changed, since, within a day of the ruling, the order was stayed pending higher judicial review.

    Most people aren't all that concerned; the ruling is expected to be overturned by the US Supreme Court on appeal (the 9th district is the most overturned court in the nation).
     
  6. Loren B

    Loren B
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2000
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fight should not be only to keep the pledge legal as it stands but to keep our legal system firmly entrenched in the Judeo-Christian Ethic in which it was formed. Then all this nonsense would be over.
     
  7. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nonsense. Right. :rolleyes:

    The phrase is, in fact, an establishment of Judeo-Christian religious beliefs, and as such, should not be in the pledge.

    How is it nonsense to keep the spirit and letter of the Constitution alive?
     
  8. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Stubbornkelly, read the first two paragraphs of the Dec. of Independence. Obviously, the founders believed in God and even said so. "...endowed by their Creator..." Obviously, this is unconstitutional and people are NOT guaranteed rights as the document says. :rolleyes:

    [ December 12, 2002, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James Reed ]
     
  9. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whatever we know or do not know of the framers' religious beliefs, the word "Creator" is not the sole property of Christians to represent God.

    Most religions refer to a creator (big "c" or little "c," depending on who you talk to).

    But still, given what you just said, how can you explain the first amendment's anti-establishment clause?
     
  10. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    The phrase "one nation under God" in the pledge of allegience does not violate the 1st Amendment restriction of recognition an establishment of religion. However, "one nation under Jesus Christ" would. Of course, since Baptists are categorically in favor of the separation of church and state, we would be against that anyway ;)

    Kelly's right on this one. The purpose of the D of I was not to espouse a religious belief. It was to make a public statement that among the reasons the US decided to become independent was the belief that the English Crown had denied rights to its citizens, rights which had been given not by the Crown, but endowed upon all people by their creator. The US vowed, not to give rights, but to guarantee these endowed rights.

    Additionally, the first amendment was penned to not only forbid the state from recognizing an official religion, but to guarantee religious freedoms to all the land's inhabitants, regardless of religious creed.

    [ December 12, 2002, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]
     
  11. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly, I don't see that as being much different than saying "one nation under Jesus Christ." Sure, "one nation under God" doesn't specifically endorse Christianity, but the only other religion I know of that it would also be considered to endorse is Judaism. The capitalization of "G" is a Judeo-Christian phenomenon, and as such, it's use is the endorsement of Judaism and Christianity.

    Now, if you want to argue that endorsing both, but not just one, is okay under the first amendment, then that's one thing, but "God" is a Judeo-Christian word and as such, is an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian god.
     
  12. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read what I asked you to? It also refers to "G"od in the Dec. of Independence. And I do believe we are entitled to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also, the framers did not want a religious body to take over the country, as was the case in Spain, Italy with Catholicism, and England with the Anglican Church. If you were not in favor of these churches, you were tortured or put to death. THAT, was the reason for the non-establishment of religion in this country. Does this add up to you. In fact, when settlers from the U.S. wanted to settle Texas when it was held by Mexico/Spain, they had to swear allegiance to and convert to Catholicism. I don't see that happening in this country. Now, that said, if someone doesn't want to say the pledge with the rest of us, that is their business. But, don't contend that the rest of us Judeo-Christian believers also have no right to say it, in public or otherwise. I also believe that teachers and school officials should be allowed to lead prayer at schools. Not mandatory, of course. I'm not one who is trying to force my religion down anyone's throat, but at the same time, I don't want them taking away my rights to voice those beliefs. God Bless. [​IMG] Bro. James - Hoping God shows you the light.
     
  13. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I do believe we are entitled to freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

    This applies to all religions, including, but not limited to, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Shinto. It also applies to being able to refrain from participating in organized religion if one desires.
     
  14. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. My point was that we are guaranteed freedom of religion. To practice what we believe. Not freedom from religion. Perhaps I should explain what I meant by this. Yes we are free to practice any religion in this country, or abstain from doing so if we so choose. But, say the 1-2% of atheists in this country should not be allowed to disallow the rest of us our freedom to worship how we choose. Does that make any sense? Please let me know if I need to explain it better. The way it is written, even though I wrote it, sounds kinda weird to me. Anyway, the way I meant freedom from religion was making everyone who has a religion, back away to make the atheists feel better. In a way, they want to rid this nation of religion so they don't have to hear about it. That would be freedom from religion, no religion at all, which would make all atheists exceedingly happy. Hopefully, all good Christians in the USA are fighting this. I have no problem if someone doesn't want to believe in God. It's not up to me to change their minds. Only God can do that. What I am saying is that we should be allowed to pray, sing, fellowship, or whatever about God wherever and whenever we choose; within reason of course; i.e. I wouldn't get an a P.A. and sing Amazing Grace to my neighborhood at 3am. I hope everyone can get what I am saying. I think if we all think about it, we can agree. How about it? [​IMG] God Bless. Bro. James
     
  15. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    6,659
    Likes Received:
    190
    True.

    It also means we have the freedom to abstain from religion and religious practices without being treated as second-class citizens.

    Amen!

    Atheists can't and don't disallow your freedom to worship. But people who advocate separation of church and state (a historic Baptist principle that we fought to have included in the Constitution -- the foundation of our government and laws) don't want the government meddling in religion - that includes promoting/supporting it or hindering it. The government should be completely neutral toward religion.

    I think I understand you fine. [​IMG] It sounds like the argument made by people like David Barton and those of like mind.

    I think this is a mischaracterization of separation of church and state. I don't care how atheists *feel* -- I am concerned about presenting the Christian faith as a civil religion -- a "faith" that is faithless and meaningless.

    Some atheists would indeed like that. Of course people of faith (many of them here at Baptist Board) continue to promote separation of church and state to the glory of God.

    Nope. Actually, I think all good Christians would likely support separation of church and state when they understand Baptist history and the history of persecution and the corruption of the gospel that occurs when church and state are united.

    Amen. Why try to persuade non-believers to profess something they do not believe, like "one nation under God"?

    You can. No one is stopping you from doing that on your own time according to your conscience. Just don't ask the government to help you or promote your religious point of view to others.

    Yeah... not a very good witness. [​IMG]

    I think we can. Just don't ask me to reject separation of church and state.
     
  16. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not rejecting the idea of the separation of church and state. I just want to make sure we don't let the minority atheists in this country take away our freedom to worship. That is what I meant when I said good Christians should fight this. I want to keep the freedom of religion in this country. Now, as for "in God we trust," I believe it should stay exactly where it is in the Pledge of Allegiance. If someone doesn't want to say "in God we trust" that is their business, but I don't want them to take away from the rest of the population that wants their kids to say the pledge in school. I do not think it should be mandatory. I do think they should at least stand to show respect for our religion and for the country that allows them to live without fear of persecution, at least physical, for being atheist. In another country, they would either say it or be beaten/killed. To my own personal opinion, I think this country should be a dictatorship with me as Dictator. :D Actually, if it were up to me, I would have had the U.S. endorse Christianity in general, but not force it upon people. Oh well, I wasn't there 200 years ago, though I do know some who could have been. :D God Bless. Bro. James
     
  17. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if a Muslim American recites the Pledge and says "One nation under God", do you really think the Muslim is thinking Allah? No way... it is very clearly the God Jehovah. Does a Buddhist think the Pledge is talking about Buddha? The Wiccan thinking it is referring to some Goddess?

    The problem is that it is a Fact that God Jehovah was the God originally implied in the phrase and therefore it is an establishment of religion and thus violates the Constitutional Amendment.

    Plus, I don't mind leaving God out of any Government Propaganda that it wishes to team up with for the purpose of controlling the people. We don't need the Government to push religion, it needs to stay out of the Religion area and stay in the taxing, lying, railroading, and violating our other human rights... like all Governments do.

    Other than keeping the roads up and crime down to a minimum, I have very little use for Governments, I respect even less, their idea of manipulating God's connection in my life. That's for me and my Church to do, not Al Gore, Bush, or Trent Lott to do. It appears they have enough on their plates already.
     
  18. stubbornkelly

    stubbornkelly
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've read the Declaration of Independence. I didn't need to read it again.

    I got your point, and I refuted its validity in this conversation.

    In any case, it's not illegal to say the pledge as it currently stands. No ruling would make it illegal to say it that way. The ruling affected only the official, government endorsed version of the pledge.

    And as it should have. in no way does removing "under God" from the pledge infringe on your right to worship as you choose.

    It wouldn't even have been illegal for kids to say "under God" at school - only for the government to maintain the phrase in the pledge.
     
  19. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if a Muslim American recites the Pledge and says "One nation under God", do you really think the Muslim is thinking Allah?

    I asked a Muslim that question. THe answer to the question is "yes".
     
  20. post-it

    post-it
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/post-it.jpg>

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,785
    Likes Received:
    0
    In that case why is America supporting the Statement that Allah is the God that America is under. Even in this case, the statement "Under God" is an establishment of Religion.
     

Share This Page

Loading...