Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
What observations of him led you to this opinion?
Bahb said:
That's why dictatorships cut right to the chase...
Kollyfornia Strikes Again....
- Thread starter Gerald Pierce
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
What observations of him led you to this opinion?
That's why dictatorships cut right to the chase...
Gypsy me
Well-Known Member
"One nation Under God with Liberty and Justice for ALL"
still think, the Lack of Respect, Nothing to believe in and no decipline plays so much into where society is today.
When I was in grade school. We said the Pledge of Alligence "to the Flag" (every single morning) this taught me respect for my country. We also had one minute of prayer, each student what ever their religion, could pray as they were taught and raised according to their own family beliefs. This taught me belief and that not everyone prays the same or believes exactly the same, but it taught me to "respect" their beliefs. the Disipline came in when if we acted up and did not follow the rules there was a price to pay in school the punishments were the same for all.
I look at how the generations of thinking has so changed over the years.
"under god" could just simply mean We as a people Under God *yours, mine, ours"
the point is Kids today 'believe in nothing' That is what We as a Nation have done.
All for the Sake of being Politically Correct.
It sure was not as bad back then as it is today, and hardcore crime was not as wide spread.
That is the facts.
still think, the Lack of Respect, Nothing to believe in and no decipline plays so much into where society is today.
When I was in grade school. We said the Pledge of Alligence "to the Flag" (every single morning) this taught me respect for my country. We also had one minute of prayer, each student what ever their religion, could pray as they were taught and raised according to their own family beliefs. This taught me belief and that not everyone prays the same or believes exactly the same, but it taught me to "respect" their beliefs. the Disipline came in when if we acted up and did not follow the rules there was a price to pay in school the punishments were the same for all.
I look at how the generations of thinking has so changed over the years.
"under god" could just simply mean We as a people Under God *yours, mine, ours"
the point is Kids today 'believe in nothing' That is what We as a Nation have done.
All for the Sake of being Politically Correct.
It sure was not as bad back then as it is today, and hardcore crime was not as wide spread.
That is the facts.
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
This whole thing sucks,, Atheist and liberals do believe in God...MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL IS THEIR GOD....:angry:
Cory Richards
Active Member
TomT nailed it
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
Eddie, I can understand how you see it based on what has happened in this case for the last couple of years. But if you read the history of the Pledge, you will see that the "MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL" part actually happened in 1954. Our government ventured someplace it never should have gone. And now it's a mess, half a century later.
GM, do you think my arguments are political correct? Really? Do tell!
Right now, some of our fellow members, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, are off fighting extremists who want people to live according to their definition of discipline, belief and obedience, as described in their religious texts. Are these people much different than the Spanish Inquisitors or the Crusaders? Or the Church of England at it's height of oppression?
It is this type of history that brought the founders of the United States to the New World. They brought with them a new concept: Let's have a government completely separate from and uninvolved with religion, because the two topics haven't mixed well at all any time in recorded history.
An inspired idea. It allows each of us to believe as our spirit, faith, and minds dictate, and we don't have to kill each other over it. As soon as government gets seriously involved, the killing starts. So lets not go there.
Jim Reeves
Active Member
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
In the end, we will ALL find out who was right and who was wrong. Just be patient.
God Bless
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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.
In the end, we will ALL find out who was right and who was wrong. Just be patient.
God Bless
Dale Carlson
Active Member
I like the solution you guys came up with.
Hmmmm, what do you think the odds are that you could get one of your elected officials to propose repealing that particular law?
As in many other situations, they can say what they want, and do what they want, which may have everything or nothing to do with how they really feel, because in the end, they leave it to the courts to clean up their mess.
Hmmmm, what do you think the odds are that you could get one of your elected officials to propose repealing that particular law?
As in many other situations, they can say what they want, and do what they want, which may have everything or nothing to do with how they really feel, because in the end, they leave it to the courts to clean up their mess.
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
An interesting read, from an Atheist's point of view.
TomT said overzealous Atheists and religious nuts are the same. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the way I read it.
Gypsy said lack of respect.
I think the two of these together are the real problem (not debating the initial error of 1954, just the general problem today versus, say, 1960. A true Atheist, I think of myself as one and it appears TJR was one, could not care less because we don't believe we will either ascend or be smitten. So what difference does it make? And religious nuts are just that and I can either choose to debate them or ignore. I usually choose the debate part, and I have even done this with Muslims on my travels (although the Gov't normally tells us it's not a good idea)and have had real good and insightful conversations. That brings me to Gypsy's point. You have to start out by respecting that other view, whether in a pledge or general conversation. If you don't, then it will always piss you off, probably the other guy too,
Thanks for reading. I accept all prayers for me. I may not believe, but I know you do and I respect that and am grateful that you take the time to think of me. What does that hurt? Nothing, makes you feel good, I feel good knowing you're thinking of me. Win - win.
Back to the pledge. Someone a ways back said just omit the word from what you say. Fair enough. That is what I do when I recite the Oath of Enlistment. It allows for it - "I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or Affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution..." Works well for me.
Sorry 'bout the rambling - just my thoughts. I must have the other 5% in my yard.
Have a great day.
grump
TomT said overzealous Atheists and religious nuts are the same. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the way I read it.
Gypsy said lack of respect.
I think the two of these together are the real problem (not debating the initial error of 1954, just the general problem today versus, say, 1960. A true Atheist, I think of myself as one and it appears TJR was one, could not care less because we don't believe we will either ascend or be smitten. So what difference does it make? And religious nuts are just that and I can either choose to debate them or ignore. I usually choose the debate part, and I have even done this with Muslims on my travels (although the Gov't normally tells us it's not a good idea)and have had real good and insightful conversations. That brings me to Gypsy's point. You have to start out by respecting that other view, whether in a pledge or general conversation. If you don't, then it will always piss you off, probably the other guy too,
Thanks for reading. I accept all prayers for me. I may not believe, but I know you do and I respect that and am grateful that you take the time to think of me. What does that hurt? Nothing, makes you feel good, I feel good knowing you're thinking of me. Win - win.
Back to the pledge. Someone a ways back said just omit the word from what you say. Fair enough. That is what I do when I recite the Oath of Enlistment. It allows for it - "I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or Affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution..." Works well for me.
Sorry 'bout the rambling - just my thoughts. I must have the other 5% in my yard.
Have a great day.
grump
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Why do I think Newdow is a wormy turd...because in interviews he comes off as arrogant and snide. But maybe that is because I find him first and foremost a hypocrit and that clouds my judgement.
He wants to NOT be told what to do and not have children coerced, but he was the first person to attempt to use his own child as a pawn to further his political cause, even though his child had no issues and the child's Mom actually supported her saying the Pledge. So he tried to force his beliefs on his daughter.
The "rest of the story" is usually more important than what you see on the surface. I see Newdow as a bitter guy who has lost a lot of control and influence over his daughter due to divorce, and this little crusade is a misguided way for him to attempt regain some of that control.
If he entered into his crusade as a single guy or some dad of a family of athiests I would give him more respect. But, since he attempted to use his child as a pawn in the first round of his crusade, for what was no doubt at the detriment of his relationship with said child and her mother, he gets viewed by me as a little, selfish, jerk of a man.
TJR
He wants to NOT be told what to do and not have children coerced, but he was the first person to attempt to use his own child as a pawn to further his political cause, even though his child had no issues and the child's Mom actually supported her saying the Pledge. So he tried to force his beliefs on his daughter.
The "rest of the story" is usually more important than what you see on the surface. I see Newdow as a bitter guy who has lost a lot of control and influence over his daughter due to divorce, and this little crusade is a misguided way for him to attempt regain some of that control.
If he entered into his crusade as a single guy or some dad of a family of athiests I would give him more respect. But, since he attempted to use his child as a pawn in the first round of his crusade, for what was no doubt at the detriment of his relationship with said child and her mother, he gets viewed by me as a little, selfish, jerk of a man.
TJR
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
grumpy said:
That was kind of my point earlier about people being too easily offended.
grumpy said:
Okay, but they might saw your head off if you get into a discussion with the wrong ones. Good luck.
grumpy said:
Bingo. There is no "right not to be offended" in the Constitution. Some people (of all walks of life) seem to think there is.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Here's a different take on all of this:
This whole case seems to revolve around the recitation of the pledge in the public schools. This case has been heard in Federal courts. When are we going to see a Federal judge have the courage to say "I'm sorry, but I can find nothing in the Constitution where the people of the United States have empowered the Federal government to have anything to do with public education to begin with. Therefore, as per Amendment X to the Constitution, this is a matter left up to the state, or to the people, and I will not hear this case; because I am not Constitutionally empowered to do so. And oh, by the way, again as per Amendment X, the No Child Left Behind Act and the U.S. Department of Education are also unconstitutional, so I'm ruling that they be done away with."
Imagine the precedent that would be set if just one Federal judge refused to hear a case that should've never made it to Federal court to begin with... Maybe then we would finally see a shift toward less government intervention in our lives.
This whole case seems to revolve around the recitation of the pledge in the public schools. This case has been heard in Federal courts. When are we going to see a Federal judge have the courage to say "I'm sorry, but I can find nothing in the Constitution where the people of the United States have empowered the Federal government to have anything to do with public education to begin with. Therefore, as per Amendment X to the Constitution, this is a matter left up to the state, or to the people, and I will not hear this case; because I am not Constitutionally empowered to do so. And oh, by the way, again as per Amendment X, the No Child Left Behind Act and the U.S. Department of Education are also unconstitutional, so I'm ruling that they be done away with."
Imagine the precedent that would be set if just one Federal judge refused to hear a case that should've never made it to Federal court to begin with... Maybe then we would finally see a shift toward less government intervention in our lives.
Last edited by a moderator:
TomT
Well-Known Member
Ahhh. Religion and politics. It just doesn't get any better than this. Does not believing in a "Divine Creator" automatically make me an atheists? If so then I guess I fall into that category. But I'm not going to ever criticize someone that is truly religious (not talking about the hypocrites that go to church every Sunday then break every Commandment possible during the week). I just hate the ones that go overboard like the muslim extremist and guys that hang out at abortion clinics protesting. Likewise I hate the atheists nuts that seem to want to remove religion from everything. I could care less if a state courthouse has a religious statue or if I have to swear on a bible that I don't believe in when I testify in court. As long as someone's not trying to cram religion or anti-religion down my throat then I'm content with leaving things the way they are. When I recited the pledge as a school kid I never really gave it much thought. Doubt if many kids do. If you ask me this whole issue is only going to make a lot of lawyers richer and not solve a damn thing.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
TomT-
Lawyers and politicians seem to be the profiteers in all of this. Us poor folk are the ones that suffer. You are so correct.
I am a religious person and am offended by this guy trying to do what he is doing. He has the right to protect as do I but neither one of us has the right to NOT be offended. Every decision has a winner and loser. This guy needs to take his complaint to the people via refuendum or to the congress, not to some dimwit judge who wants to rule by fiat (no, not by swing a small car around).
Lawyers and politicians seem to be the profiteers in all of this. Us poor folk are the ones that suffer. You are so correct.
I am a religious person and am offended by this guy trying to do what he is doing. He has the right to protect as do I but neither one of us has the right to NOT be offended. Every decision has a winner and loser. This guy needs to take his complaint to the people via refuendum or to the congress, not to some dimwit judge who wants to rule by fiat (no, not by swing a small car around).
Bill V
Well-Known Member
R Shek--Loved the 'fiat' one-liner.
But to address your point--actually, the courts are probably a far better place to address this than in Congress, and definitely far better than in referendums. The reason? Referendums are 'majority rule', with the rights of the minority completely ignored. And Congress, with their need for political clout to remain in office, is an extension of that majority rule. Which, contrary to popular belief, runs completely counter to what this country was founded on. We weren't set up to empower the majority--we had seen enough of that in England. Instead, we were set up to empower the minority, to make sure that their rights are valued and respected. And a popularity contest (referendums) isn't the way to do that.
TJR--a side note: Although you and I have completely different opinions on the subject being discussed, I agree completely with you regarding Newdow. The way he's using his child in this is deplorable. I feel that the movement to remove "under god" from the pledge is correct and worthwhile, but that the cause couldn't have a poorer poster child.
--Bill
But to address your point--actually, the courts are probably a far better place to address this than in Congress, and definitely far better than in referendums. The reason? Referendums are 'majority rule', with the rights of the minority completely ignored. And Congress, with their need for political clout to remain in office, is an extension of that majority rule. Which, contrary to popular belief, runs completely counter to what this country was founded on. We weren't set up to empower the majority--we had seen enough of that in England. Instead, we were set up to empower the minority, to make sure that their rights are valued and respected. And a popularity contest (referendums) isn't the way to do that.
TJR--a side note: Although you and I have completely different opinions on the subject being discussed, I agree completely with you regarding Newdow. The way he's using his child in this is deplorable. I feel that the movement to remove "under god" from the pledge is correct and worthwhile, but that the cause couldn't have a poorer poster child.
--Bill
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Actually, Bill V, I myself said that I think effectively removing "Under God" from the pledge by undoing the 1954 congressional act is a great idea. So, how do you and I hold completely different opinions on this matter?
TJR
TJR
Bill V
Well-Known Member
TJR--Point taken. I shouldn't have said "completely". We do, however, have different viewpoints, on things like the "slippery slope" argument.
Also (and based on your posts thus far, I suspect you'll disagree with me on this, but I'm not certain, so I welcome your response)--if/when the 1954 law is repealed as you and Rich had decided, what then happens in the classroom? Does the teacher say "under God" if that's what they personally prefer? I don't think this is acceptable. The teacher is still teaching theism as being part of the pledge. Now, instead of a state-sanctioned religion, it has become an indivdual imposing his/her religious beliefs on those who have no practical choice not to participate.
Or does the teacher not say those words, but pause in the middle of the recital to allow those who want to say those words to do so? This doesn't work either. The act of omission in this way implies that the omitted words should be present. It still leads to the disrespect of those who choose not to recite those words by those who do. Also, in such a pause, what would and wouldn't students be allowed to say? Could they say "under allah"? "under jehovah"? "above all others"? "oinky boinky"? At what point would the teachers be allowed to call the words some may recite to be a disruption, rather than an expression of personal beliefs?
To me, the only workable, worthwhile solution is to simply require all teachers to lead the pledge in it's original pre-1954 verbage--without including other words, and without altering the cadence to allow other words.
Also (and based on your posts thus far, I suspect you'll disagree with me on this, but I'm not certain, so I welcome your response)--if/when the 1954 law is repealed as you and Rich had decided, what then happens in the classroom? Does the teacher say "under God" if that's what they personally prefer? I don't think this is acceptable. The teacher is still teaching theism as being part of the pledge. Now, instead of a state-sanctioned religion, it has become an indivdual imposing his/her religious beliefs on those who have no practical choice not to participate.
Or does the teacher not say those words, but pause in the middle of the recital to allow those who want to say those words to do so? This doesn't work either. The act of omission in this way implies that the omitted words should be present. It still leads to the disrespect of those who choose not to recite those words by those who do. Also, in such a pause, what would and wouldn't students be allowed to say? Could they say "under allah"? "under jehovah"? "above all others"? "oinky boinky"? At what point would the teachers be allowed to call the words some may recite to be a disruption, rather than an expression of personal beliefs?
To me, the only workable, worthwhile solution is to simply require all teachers to lead the pledge in it's original pre-1954 verbage--without including other words, and without altering the cadence to allow other words.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Q--
Whether it establishes "a" religion is debatable. It was clearly founded from Judeo-Christian followers trying to instill their beliefs into our government, as Rich described earlier in this discussion. But it clearly establishes religion in general--in just two words, it states that their is a deity of some sort, and that this country is subjugate to that deity. Contrary to what many religious people claim, these are not universally-accepted concepts. Mandating that everyone accept them (be it an actual acceptance or a rote recital of a pledge of acceptance) has no place in any country that truly values religious freedom.
Whether it establishes "a" religion is debatable. It was clearly founded from Judeo-Christian followers trying to instill their beliefs into our government, as Rich described earlier in this discussion. But it clearly establishes religion in general--in just two words, it states that their is a deity of some sort, and that this country is subjugate to that deity. Contrary to what many religious people claim, these are not universally-accepted concepts. Mandating that everyone accept them (be it an actual acceptance or a rote recital of a pledge of acceptance) has no place in any country that truly values religious freedom.
John Mastrocco
Active Member
In God We Trust was adopted as the 'motto' of the USA two years after "Under God" was added to the Pledge (1956). Prior to that the official motto of the USA was "E Pluribus Unum" "From Many, One" which was suggested by Thomas Jefferson and more accurately reflects the foundation of the USA.
In God We Trust has it's origins as a motto due to efforts from activist Christians petitioning the Secy of the Treasury to add it to coins. It was added to one (two?) coin(s) in 1861 and to the others over the next roughly 50 years. Those same Christian activists also pushed to have the preamble to the Constitution changed to say
That effort thankfully failed.
It wasn't added to paper currency until 1955 and after that it was adopted as the official motto of the USA in 1956 - a change made for the same reasons "Under God" was added to the Pledge.
Oh yeah - for those that think this was founded as a Christian nation, carefully read the text of Art 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli included in this website. It was drafted when the majority of the framers and founders were still alive and active in the Government.
Have fun!
In God We Trust has it's origins as a motto due to efforts from activist Christians petitioning the Secy of the Treasury to add it to coins. It was added to one (two?) coin(s) in 1861 and to the others over the next roughly 50 years. Those same Christian activists also pushed to have the preamble to the Constitution changed to say
That effort thankfully failed.
It wasn't added to paper currency until 1955 and after that it was adopted as the official motto of the USA in 1956 - a change made for the same reasons "Under God" was added to the Pledge.
Oh yeah - for those that think this was founded as a Christian nation, carefully read the text of Art 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli included in this website. It was drafted when the majority of the framers and founders were still alive and active in the Government.
Have fun!
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Wow, propaganda on both sides.
NAA
NAA
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Yep - there is definitely some opinion in that website. But the historical facts DO speak for themselves and can be easily verified.
:lol:
Want to try the other side of the coin, so to speak?
:lol:
Want to try the other side of the coin, so to speak?
Last edited by a moderator:
