1923 TURK Poyraz HACKED
quote: Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., called the resolution "a complete and utter waste of our time" and a "preposterous exercise in grandstanding." She eventually voted present.
Why didn't she vote her conscience? Because like ALL democrats, she would never do anything that would jepardize her power and even in Liberal California, voting against God is bad politics.I have never met a single democrat, when it came to principles vs. keeping power, that actually stood on principles. Reason???THEY HAVE NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!Spin
Spin, I think that perhaps Lieberman would be an exception.
This country WAS founded under God..nobody can change that [url=http://www.wepledge.com]www.wepledge.com[/url]
Spin Doctor-Were you to change your statement to:"I have never met a single *politician*, when it came to principles vs. keeping power, that actually stood on principles."I could agree with you!charlie
Erica:There are some excellent reasons for opposing the power of CONGRESS to legislate religion in the pledge -- ESPECIALLY if you are a rock-ribbed Christian.I hear, with very real truth, that the country is becoming less Christian every day. Let's spin that out a bit. It is 2008. President Hillary Clinton and Vice President Maya Angelou have just been inaugurated. Senator John Travolta, avid Scientologist, puts in legislation to have "under Hubbard" substituted for "under God". Following much backroom tussling, the green party has the votes to ENACT the words "under Goddess" as a reference to Gaia. Tough nuts to you minority Christians.If Congress can legislate "God", they can legislate whatever the 'religion du jour' happens to be. Unless you fancy worship of Quetzlcoatl, the South American feathered serpent god, you'd better pray that the ninth Circuit is right..
TJC said:[b]It is 2008. President Hillary Clinton and Vice President Maya Angelou have just been inaugurated. Senator John Travolta, avid Scientologist, puts in legislation to have "under Hubbard" substituted for "under God". Following much backroom tussling, the green party has the votes to ENACT the words "under Goddess" as a reference to Gaia. Tough nuts to you minority Christians.[/b]I think the problem with this senario is that it would have no history or precedent and would fall apart on its merit or lack of.Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian teachings. The textbook of these teachings in the Holy Bible. It is the "Owners Manual" or "The Book of Instructions" for our nation. The Founding Fathers and many others in position of authority ever since have recertified that fact. "America is a Christian nation." This does not mean that all the people were or are Christian. It merely means that there was a Christian consensus and all our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions are based on Christian principles from the Bible. 1620 - The Mayflower Compact written by the Pilgrims before they got off the Mayflower said: "In the presence of God, Amen. We ... do by these presents solemnly and mutually in ye presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves into a civil body politic." 1638 - The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (often called the first American Constitution) said, We "enter into a combination and confederation together to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ which we now profess." It also stated for the first time that men's rights come from God, as later stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Great Law of Pennsylvania Colony said, "Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the good of mankind is the reason and the end of government and therefore government itself is a venerable ordinance of God..." 1772 - Samuel Adams: "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty ... The rights of the colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." 1777 - The First Continental Congress appropriated funds to import for the people 20,000 Holy Bibles as "the great political textbook of the patriots." 1776 - The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men ... " There you have some profound statements: * There is such a thing as Truth, and Truth can be known by man.* Men are "created" and their rights come from God, their Creator. * Governments exist to protect these God-given rights.
This is the very essence of our Americanism! 1787 - The Constitution was written to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." 1787 - George Washington said regarding the Constitution: "Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God." Thomas Jefferson, on his memorial: "God who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that the liberties are the gift of God?" 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty."
1787 - At an impasse of several weeks at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin rose and sai:, "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can arise without His aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this." He then moved they resort to prayer. 1787- Washington's Inaugural Address: "The propitious smiles of heaven cannot be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained." All inaugural addresses and state constitutions refer to Almighty God, the author and sustainer of our liberty. 1789 - Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation: "Whereas, it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits and humbly to implore His protection and favor..." 1797 - Washington's Farewell Address: "And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." John Quincy Adams: "The first and almost the only Book deserving of universal attention if the Bible." The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: "It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." 1789-1795 - John Jay, first chief justice of the United States: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." 1843 - Emma Willard, educator and historian: "The government of the United States is acknowledged by the wise and good of other nations, to be the most free, impartial and righteous government of the world; but all agree that for such a government to be sustained many years, the principles of truth and righteousness, taught in the Holy Scriptures, must be practiced. The rulers must govern in the fear of God, and the people obey the laws ... A nation cannot exist without religion. France tried that and failed. We were born a Protestant Christian nation, and, as such, baptized in blood. Our position ought to be defined as that." 1861 - Abraham Lincoln: "It is the duty of all nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord." 1863 - Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address: "That we here highly resolve ... that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." 1892 - The Supreme Court of the United States after citing 87 precedents decided: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of Mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise: and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian ... This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ... we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
George:Neither do I, but I'm a Unitarian Buddho-Taoist. That's just me. I trust congress little enough as it is. I do not think that "god" should be legislated in any form. I'm agin' it. I think freedom of religion includes the freedom from religion, if the nonworshipper so chooses.I agree that the court is grappling in an inconsistent manner with the issue, however, the easy call is to rule the legislation unconstitutional, while acknowledging the right of all to say it either way.jlmac:Depends how you view "precedent". If the precedent is that the religion du jour gets to recognize the natural god(dess) given law that leads us to hate nuclear power, then we can legislatively recognize the "green roots" of the enviro movement that really underlie Christianity and mandate that this nation of God(dess) fearing people may celebrate the forces which shape the universe.Then they torch an SUV and dance around it.You see how it goes, don't you? There's nothing in the Constitution that mandates that this be a "Christian" nation. I don't trust congressional hands on my soul. I therefore pray that they lack this power, along with the ability to grant knighthoods.[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: thejohnchapman ]
quote: It is impossible for the statement above to be consistent with the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Individuals are free to look to the Bible for advice on how to govern their affairs, just as they are free to look to the Koran or the Torah or any other book. The Book of Instructions for our nation is the Constitution.
I think you misinterpret, I said nothing about an established religion. The quote simply said that the Bible was an "owners manual". Our founders were "inspired" by it. Many of our laws are in fact "established" by teachings of the Bible.
quote: As for your lengthy post -- anything said or done before the First Amendment is irrelevant. Individual statements by politicians over the years are irrelevant.
This is ridiculous. Anything said or done that contradicts your interpretation of the First Amendment may seem unconstitutional to you but does not make it so.
No matter what your religion is you worship some kind of god, be it trees, statues,the sun, the earth,your car, money, people...So whenever one pledges the alliegence to something they are free to insert their god of the day.
My problem with the Congress in 1954 inserting "under god" in the traditional pledge is that it ruins the scan of what is after all poetry. There should be pauses only at the end of each line. A person who tries to recite it properly is out of sync in most public recitations.[i]I pledge allegience to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the Republic for which it stands
One nation indivisible
With liberty and justice for all.[/i]Moreover love for our free and democratic republic does not require belief in any God. A Buddist can die for our country as well an atheist.
quote:Originally posted by TonyO:
[b]Spin, I think that perhaps Lieberman would be an exception.[/b]
LOL!!!!....Mr. I really really mean it this time but....but...but....He goes after Hollywood and backs off. He supports school choice and votes against it. He is so upset about Clinton but...but...Clinton's offenses don't rise to the level of...blah...blah...blah.Who are you trying to kid? Lieberman is the biggest phony in the Senate. And that takes some doing.
quote:Originally posted by thejohnchapman:
[b]George:Neither do I, but I'm a Unitarian Buddho-Taoist. That's just me. I trust congress little enough as it is. I do not think that "god" should be legislated in any form. I'm agin' it. I think freedom of religion includes the freedom from religion, if the nonworshipper so chooses.
[ 03-12-2003: Message edited by: thejohnchapman ][/b]
I am and was raised a classical Unitarian in the tradition of Jefferson, Adams and Channing. They all believed religion had a role in affairs of state.The Unitarian church was funded by state taxes in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Jefferson never spoke against that. One year before Daniel Webster fought, successful, against changing the Mass constitution to ban state support of religion, Thomas Jefferson express his desire for everyone in America to convert to his faith.The House of Representatives had full blown church services on the floor every Sunday until after the Civil War. Jefferson attended those services.The men who wrote the first amendment never even considered what you alleged is a fact: that you have freedom from hearing others express their faith anywhere they darn well please.It depresses me to hear those claiming connection to Unitarianism to advocate the censorship of faith. The church was founded by those who sought religious debate, who sought to reform orthodoxy, who sought to build a better and a more free society.And you espouse the exact opposite.
I think the root of the problem is that the founding fathers never realized our nation would become so secularized. If they had any idea that Christianity would become so taboo in society and government, they would have elected to follow the lead of some of the colonies that only allowed religions based on Christ. In other words, the Constitution would have only recognized the freedom of religion within Christianity.
quote:Originally posted by George:
[b]Keteltas: Not wanting your government to espouse a religious belief does not mean you favor censorship. That's all John was saying.As for church services in Congress before the Civil War, they also had slaves before the Civil War
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: George ][/b]
The 14th amendment abolished slavery. What amendment abolished the free exercise of religion?It darn well is censorship when a student at a HS graduation cannot mention her faith, when religious carols are banned at schools at Christmas, when a private citizen cannot pay to put up a nativity scene on a town green, when groups seek to stop "Choose Life" license plates, and when a court declares the word "God" cannot be used in the pledge.When the founders wrote "establishment" that is exactly what they meant. Not "advance" not "sanction", not "support". Congress could not establish a national church. That was all they were prohibiting.Separation of church and state was written into consitutional law by former Klu Klux Klan member and SCOTUS justice Hugo Black in 1947. It was expanded in following rulings by other liberal judges. It is fiat law, created in the courts and has nothing to do with what those who wrote the first amendment wanted.I don't care if you or anyone else "wants" religion banned from the public square. Do it honestly. Pass a law. Repeal the first amendment. But don't pretend the first amendment means what it does not. Be aware that judicial tyranny can work both ways. You may find yourself on the wrong end of it someday.
Keteltas, I totally agree.Al
Maine First:Start a move, then, to officially make the US a Christian nation. If it is all just an oversight (though I doubt it was), it should sail right through. All it takes is a constitutional amendment.PS: I say the pledge with "under God".[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: thejohnchapman ]
I'll get started right on it. Should be good to go by this afternoon :cool:
84% have no problem with "Under God"...When does 16% decide anything?(unless its PS)
PS is like PC except without the Bull
I posted that link because I do care about the preservation of under God..Like it or not those 16% can deal with it! Im so tired of the minority speaking for the majority, This Nation was founded under God, you cant go back and change what it was founded under..thats done..so I say leave it alone..oh and just a quick question For people here with kids in school, do your children say the pledge of allegiance at school?
My daughter's preschool is saying it but I found that my son's school and hes in 1st grade wasnt! So I had to call and ask the principle and the teacher and now they are saying it.[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: Erica ]
Terry:The entire point of a constitution is to protect a minority from the wishes of the majority. Otherwise, you don't need any amendment but one, that says:"Whatever the majority wants, they get, regardless of how ridiculous, and regardless of what was done yesterday. Everything will be done with simple majority of popular vote nationwide."
Thanks for that reminder, TJC. That's largely the reason why I think the constitution makes a better object of allegiance.[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: threeifbywire ]
So "we the people" refers to the minority?
quote:Originally posted by George:
The nativity scene is more complicated. The courts allow such displays where they are displayed alongside secular holiday symbols or where they are displayed in traditional open forums where other religous groups may also display their religion's symbols.
[ 03-13-2003: Message edited by: George ][/b]
Doesn't this illustrate the absurdity of what courts are doing? Telling us what type of nativity scene is allowed? It gets worse too. Courts have ruled that tax money may be used for books for religious schools but not for audio visual equipment or maps. The ADL and ACLU have threated lawsuits if a school has too many Christmas carols with a religious theme.Before 1947, only a handful of cases were decided by the courts which entailed claims of separation of church and state. Since then, there have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.America was better off before the Klu Klux Klan, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (founded by Klan members) and the American Jewish Congress decided to purge religion from the public square.They are the ones who have filed the bulk of the court cases. Leo Pfeffer, of the American Jewish Congress, boasted that his absolutist stance had become the law of the land and resulted in a "triumph of secular humanism."The "Choose Life" license plate case was in Louisiana last year. The National Council of Jewish Women claimed the plates "advanced Christian fundamentalism". The ACLU was a co-plaintiff in the suit.My family goes back to 1812 or before. Until recently, all of them were able to express their faith freely. They could put a nativity scene up on the town green, say a prayer in the public building or do whatever.I'm sick of liberals pushing people around. I don't even go to church myself but I might start just because the left is hell bent on censoring religion. Don't have a gun either but the left hates guns so much maybe I better buy a gun too.
Terry, when you live in a republic as opposed to a mobocracy.Keteltas, I think neutrality is important and that the Lemon test is an appropiate way of determining establishment issues. Intent, effect and entanglment. The intent of this law was to root out godless commies, that's not neutral towards religion.
quote:Originally posted by thejohnchapman:
[b]Maine First:Start a move, then, to officially make the US a Christian nation. If it is all just an oversight (though I doubt it was), it should sail right through. All it takes is a constitutional amendment. ][/b]
What does Christianity have to do with anything? I don't care if Wiccans, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims or anyone else freely expresses their faith in the public square.Neither does the Constitution. If you care to slog through the records of our federal [url=http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html]legislative bodies from the Continental Congress in 1774 to 1873[/url] you will see many tried to pass an amendment declaring America a Christian country.All attempts failed. But those who voted down the attempts saw nothing wrong with government supporting religion. Congress gave 10,000 acres of land to missionaries, the courts didn't ban The New England Primer (a mostly religious text) from schools, Congress, as I mentioned, held church services in its chambers. Religion and politics were so mixed together, one could not separate them if one tried.
quote:Originally posted by Maine First:
[b]I think the root of the problem is that the founding fathers never realized our nation would become so secularized. [/b]
No Maine First. The root of the problem is that the founding fathers never realized our nation would become so De-America-ized.
That is part of it Hawk. I think the 'de-American-ization' of our Country is due to our diversity. How many languages are we going to have? How many religions? We're supposed to be E Pluribus Unum, out of many - one. Instead, we are the opposite. And religious tolerance, is the most dangerous, because it whittles away at the foundation of society. We are ruled by a Constitution, and Christian ethic fills in the blanks and empty spots in law. Its the glue. Thats how the system was designed. Was it Franklin who said our system of government was for a wholly moral people? Moral decline is, and has been, the greatest enemy our Country has faced. It freezes people from preserving our ideals, and at worst, entices them to tear them down. Look at all the perversion and filth in today's society - is this what our Founders risked their lives and fortunes for? Of course not, they'd be disgusted. They'd have us all hanged. And who could blame them? We've turned the Greatest Experiment in History into the Greatest Freak Show on Earth.Morality sees further than intellect.
Maybe I'm just feeling pessimistic tonight...
That snippet from my post sounds bad alone, out of context. However, within the overall argument it is certainly justified. Tell me I'm wrong. And I know you will ;)