Judge rules that the U.S. Pledge of Alligiance is Unconsitutional

It's irrelevant because it has no bearing on the legality of the pledge's inclusion of the phrase "under God".

 

The Constitution did not mention God and forbade any religious tests for office. Many of them had faith is a god of deism, not the God of the Bible. Are you sure their states required them to be "men of faith" when they included a prohibition of religious tests for office?

You still haven't answered my question about the Muslim teacher.

The solution, don't even say the pledge in public schools. You don't achieve allegience by repitition. Use it in the Christian and home schools where it may indeed be beneficial.

 

Good! Being a teacher provoking thought and response is always part of my motivation in posting a point of view !

 

I agree that what Sky said is what would happen.

 

John I think you mis understand I am asking how it is irrelevant based on what you said that it has no bearing on an idividual action.

 

And you are okay with a Muslim teacher explaining to the class who God is?

I am not comfortable with that.

 

but again like I said this gets us no where.

 

I am not comfoatable with a muslim in this county actually.

 

From that point of view debating the merit of "under God" being constitutional also gets us nowhere, does it?

 

not for gettin solution of getting the country back to God.

 

The denominational affiliations of the participants in the Constitutional Convention were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 3 deists of no particular faith, and 1 person of no faith. Clearly, persons were not required to be Christian, and to make the claim that they were required to be men of faith is a bit far-reaching.

In fact, it would seem rather odd that, if faith was such an issue, that the those same men would require in Article VI of the Constitution that "... all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

To go further, many will argue that the purpose of Amendment I was to only bar the establishment of a state church. If that were true, however, then one would expect to see evidence of this intent in the framing of the Amendment. In fact, the framers rejected versions of the First Amendment that would have done nothing more than bar the establishment of a state church.

 

But how can we deny them their religious liberty without rescinding the First Amendment?

This debate goes a lot deeper than whether we should get upset about "under God" being removed from the pledge.

 

I read it in a book by Barton.

 

We will achieve thay when we heed Moses' advice as stated above.

Well its been an excellent discussion. Thanks to all, but is WAY past my bedtime on this side of the POnd .

 

so then that is what I am asking about how do we get people to do it?

 

You mean it's not? </font>[/QUOTE]It depends on how you classify the extremely conservative part of CA in Orange county and San Diego (lot of military).

 

I said I was going to bed, but have to get in one more.

We return to Bible preaching in our pulpits. We learn to take a stand for Christ and quit running with the world. We show people the love of Christ as their only hope. We do what Christ commissioned us to do. We show the world, by our obedience to God, that, in Moses' words, we are "a wise and understanding people".

Now, good night for real.

 

Oh, wait, that's me. Central OC at its finest

 

David Barton is by no means accurate in his facts. In fact, many of his claims about the early founding fathers and framers are flat out false.