buckster75
Member
My point which I can not seem to get accross is that it will not get better by taking it out. Let us, the remnant, stand up for something.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge rules that the U.S. Pledge of Alligiance is Unconsitutional
- Status
buckster75
Member
still here?
Magnetic Poles
New Member
I am not for any pledges, however I think if we are to voluntarily pledge to anything representing the US, it should be to the Constitution, not the flag.
buckster75
Member
ok John , religion or patriotic:
what was said when under God was added:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
what was said when under God was added:
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
buckster75
Member
Magnetic Poles
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
note "and to the republic". it is not just about the flag. I view the placing of "under God" between "one nation" and "indivisible" as God will be the One holding the states united. and also that this is at least one thing we should all agree on.
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
note "and to the republic". it is not just about the flag. I view the placing of "under God" between "one nation" and "indivisible" as God will be the One holding the states united. and also that this is at least one thing we should all agree on.
buckster75
Member
suprised no one commented on this:
I guess this goes next:
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
I guess this goes next:
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
buckster75
Member
The main feature of the reverse side of the Great Seal is a pyramid representing strength and duration. At the tope of the pyramid is an eye and the words "ANNUIT COEPTIS" meaning "He has favored our undertakings". The "HE" refers to GOD, and is in reference to the Founding Father's belief that God had favored our Nation and provided providentially for our success during the struggle for freedom. (During the Revolution, prayer was held daily in the halls of the Continental Congress.)
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
The point is that it really makes no difference. We no longer act in any way like we are "under God."
I would rather we not acknowledge God at all than some ethereal "God" without meaning or substance. Jesus spoke against "vain repetitions" such as you would continue to have a secular government impose.
I am a firm believer is individual soul liberty. No one should be forced to worship or even acknowledge God. It must be a matter of the heart. An unbeliever cannot be forced to acknowledge God by saying a socialist pledge at school every morning.
No is doubting that God played a greater role in our national psyche 50 years ago than He does today. No one is doubting that God, (even a secular deist god) played a greater role amongst the founding fathers. The point is that in 2005 America is no longer a nation who thinks of herself as under God. We kill millions of innocent children. We pollute the world with our pornography and so many other vile sins.
In some ways it is a slap in the face of God to proclaim in a pledge to a flag, or even a nation (no longer a true republic), to throw His holy name into the mix to give a semblance of recognition. In a day when the VAST majority of teachers in our tax sponsored schools are non-christians I would not want the question, "What is God" being answered by one of them, for most of them have no concept of the true God.
As to the Star Spangled Banner question, the answer is yes. If we ever get to the day when school children are compelled daily to recite the latter stanzas of it, then it probably will be called into question.
This country existed, thrived, and even endured a civil war without any pledge of allegiance. She survived and was victorious in two world wars without "under God" being included in a pledge. Look how the country has done since it was added. It hasn't helped much, has it? We lost a war, we have legalised infanticide, the Playboy (born about the same time the words were added) generation has sprung up, and marriage has collapsed as an institution all since "under God" became a part of the pledge. Maybe we were better off without these two words in our pledge.
[ September 17, 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
I would rather we not acknowledge God at all than some ethereal "God" without meaning or substance. Jesus spoke against "vain repetitions" such as you would continue to have a secular government impose.
I am a firm believer is individual soul liberty. No one should be forced to worship or even acknowledge God. It must be a matter of the heart. An unbeliever cannot be forced to acknowledge God by saying a socialist pledge at school every morning.
No is doubting that God played a greater role in our national psyche 50 years ago than He does today. No one is doubting that God, (even a secular deist god) played a greater role amongst the founding fathers. The point is that in 2005 America is no longer a nation who thinks of herself as under God. We kill millions of innocent children. We pollute the world with our pornography and so many other vile sins.
In some ways it is a slap in the face of God to proclaim in a pledge to a flag, or even a nation (no longer a true republic), to throw His holy name into the mix to give a semblance of recognition. In a day when the VAST majority of teachers in our tax sponsored schools are non-christians I would not want the question, "What is God" being answered by one of them, for most of them have no concept of the true God.
As to the Star Spangled Banner question, the answer is yes. If we ever get to the day when school children are compelled daily to recite the latter stanzas of it, then it probably will be called into question.
This country existed, thrived, and even endured a civil war without any pledge of allegiance. She survived and was victorious in two world wars without "under God" being included in a pledge. Look how the country has done since it was added. It hasn't helped much, has it? We lost a war, we have legalised infanticide, the Playboy (born about the same time the words were added) generation has sprung up, and marriage has collapsed as an institution all since "under God" became a part of the pledge. Maybe we were better off without these two words in our pledge.
[ September 17, 2005, 01:53 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]
hillclimber
New Member
Karlton obviously never went to a physics class test unprepared. I called those oops prayers.
buckster75
Member
Sorry, I don't follow. Did I miss something?
buckster75
Member
If God judges anyone for not taking His side on this issue. Which side will it be? I don't think it is a slap in the face to Him. Because to the remnant it does mean something.
buckster75
Member
And surprised you don't want to do away with SSB for gulit be assoc.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
How did we as a nation survive 179 years without "under God" in a pledge of allegience?
Anyone can sing a song or say a pledge. What really matters is what is the heart of the individual.
I love my country and my Lord. Our country slaughters millions of childen, and still we fight to say "under God" in a socialist written pledge to flag and country.
How can we reconcile infanticide with "under God?"
Anyone can sing a song or say a pledge. What really matters is what is the heart of the individual.
I love my country and my Lord. Our country slaughters millions of childen, and still we fight to say "under God" in a socialist written pledge to flag and country.
How can we reconcile infanticide with "under God?"
buckster75
Member
I already agreed with all that. I still say to remove these will be only a situation of the remnant letting another victory go to the enemy. I want to be found fighting on the right side.
buckster75
Member
"While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society."
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I just can't see how forcing school children to say words in a pledge which were not uttered for 179 years is some magical solution. How did we survive as a Christian nation before 1954 if this is so important?
After all , read my post above, things have gone rapidily downhill since they were introduced.
Maybe we placatedourselves by saying "under God" while we have neglected the weightier matters.
You posted a lovely quote, btw, and packed with meaning. What does it have to do with "under God?"
After all , read my post above, things have gone rapidily downhill since they were introduced.
Maybe we placatedourselves by saying "under God" while we have neglected the weightier matters.
You posted a lovely quote, btw, and packed with meaning. What does it have to do with "under God?"
buckster75
Member
it is from a letter written by George Washington. I show this to support the belief I have that things are missing from the constitution because the founding fathers never dreamed of our nation not being willing to voice that we are "under GOd"
buckster75
Member
even thought the pledge was well after their time.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Once again I ask the question; Why do we need the words when we floursihed so well without them for 179 years?
- Status