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

[Aaron]

Originally posted by rsr:
Now, let me ask you a question: Do you think coerced religiosity a good thing? If not, why do you care what is in the pledge?

I don't know what you mean by religiosity, but I certainly think coerced morality is not only a good thing, but necessary. In fact, that's the whole purpose of civil government, to praise those who do good, and to execute judgment, (God's judgment) on those who do evil.

The only authority a state has comes from God, not men. It is required in the oaths of office, and it is neither unconstitutional, nor immoral to require one to acknowledge that fact as a condition of citizenship.

Apologies, I hit the wrong button. No editing took place.

[ September 18, 2005, 07:04 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So would accept a Muslim country forcing everyone there to adopt Muslim practices?

Here is the officailk oath of office for the President, it does not mention God, no place in the Constitution does. Presdient Washington added set the precedence which others have followed.

Each president recites the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by fromtheright:
BiR,

Not to be cryptic, but you can probably guess my position.

Greetings FTR:

I trust that your weekend is as great as mine. I was biking on the Colonial Parkway yesterday, and it was BEAUTIFUL!!

I have never understood why the words "under God" were inserted into the pledge in the '50's. My Dad told me he remembered when those words were not in the pledge. I know when and how it happened, I simply do not understand why it happened. How did that change anything? Does anyone think that things got better in this country after the words were inserted into the pledge?

That being said, why do you feel the need for these words to be added into the pledge? Why do you feel the way you feel? I am not saying you are right or wrong, just curious as to why.

Hope all is well, and looking forward to your trip to the Hampton Roads area. I have to go to Manhattan in October, and to Idaho, but I will try to plan around your trip.

Regards,
BiR

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by C4K:
This thread has reached page 10 and will be closed no earlier than 1000 EDT.

A similar thread can be found here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/3609.html?

Closed at 1007 EDT

 

[faithgirl46]

Nah, TexasSky -- that's San Francisco. It's not really part of our country! They make up their own rules as they go!

LOL LOL How true Helen How True.
Faithgirl

 

[Daisy]

Necromania!

Apparently, threads closed on the old system are no longer closed on the new.

So, if there are any old threads out there where you wished you'd had the last word - now's your chance!

 

[fromtheright]

BiR,

I have never understood why the words "under God" were inserted into the pledge in the '50's. My Dad told me he remembered when those words were not in the pledge. I know when and how it happened, I simply do not understand why it happened. How did that change anything? Does anyone think that things got better in this country after the words were inserted into the pledge?

That being said, why do you feel the need for these words to be added into the pledge? Why do you feel the way you feel? I am not saying you are right or wrong, just curious as to why.

I'm sorry, I obviously never responded.

In answer to your question, no, it doesn't change anything, of course not, just as enacting it or instituting it didn't change anything but I do believe it important symbolically and to state it as a truth, that it is important for students and our citizens to understand this truth. Did things get better? That's obviously hard to say but I do believe that it is a more realistic description of our Republic, and it certainly seemed to square with an overwhelming majority of Americans' view of our history.

I don't know if that answers your questions, or just inspires some others. Either is fine, looking forward to exchanging with you on this.

 

[Revmitchell]

No of course not. It didnt change a thing. And that is why so many folks are fighting against it. Cuz you know... it didnt change anything.:thumbs:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Whoops - I didn't realise this had been "unclosed."