Agree or Disagree

[ted]

Well said, and good enough for me!

t.

[UndecidedFrog]

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

First, some facts:

1) The words "one nation, under god" was not in the original pledge of allegiance. They were added in the 1950s when some were scared of the godless communists.

2) Even though some 90% of the US population believes in god (I round up from 86%), there are roughly 10% who do not.

3) Of the 90% who believe in god, they do not necessarily believe in the same god.

4) The country was built on the concept of freedom of religion (I also interpret this as freedom from religion as well).

Now, some opinion:

5) Since the original impetus for adding the words is no longer a threat to the security of the country, I am in favour of removing those words.

6) For the 10% of the population who do not believe in any god, I think it is unfair to disallow their patriotism.

7) For the remaining 90% of those who do believe in god, albeit different ones, I think it is unfair to insist on one particular god instead of others, thereby disallowing their patriotism.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[shammah]

What ever god one believes in should satisfy 98% of the people!

The humanists have their manifesto and are they are their own god and religion, their objections should not hold up in court, but they do!

It is clear that there is but one Holy God, and throughout time few have found Him! We can not add too or take away the holy words to create a religion to replace communion with God and His instructions !

The words (IN God We Trust) can mean nothing unless we know what was in the hearts of those inscribing the words!

To get the people involved in patriotism by invoking a god, as if God is for our undertakings is assuming alot!

Bob Dylan fell from Christianity by seeing the hypocrisy of the Pastors embracing his discission, (though he still may believe) but not in obedience.

Bob Dylan and many other have come to realize that we believe God is on our side because we call ourselves a Christian nation! But God is on His own side, and it is us that must conform to His will, and be on His side, not visa-versa !

I think they should remove the words (in God we trust) from the money, and swearing oaths in court, and opening congress with a prayer! I believe it is a sham, and a counterfeit; a show, and misleading, we don't know what is in their hearts!

When Clinton or Bush are videoed going to some church, it's a show, it's done for political reasons! Bush thinks we all serve the same God ,but just under different names!

Where is the backbone of the true believers, they are silenced!

The Love community, compassion, and forgiveness of the Lord are obvious to all with life changing experiences; but the road that they must travel is narrow and a battle to keep from compromise from the world!

Both need to be spoken off or it all leads to compromise and delusion!

I don't want to go to web-sites that constantly bring in fear of each new threat and conspiracy; I want to warn and comfort those in the middle of it all.

I delete all the web-sites warning of the next government control to be implemented, I don't care what they do, because God is in control and allows what He allows!

We lack discernment, that we trust in the Lord only! Taking the ten commandments out of buildings and references to God out, is but a distraction!

The Lord looks at individual hearts and chooses His own! Some people say we need to get involved in government to make a difference, all of the nations will follow the anti-christ, it is written and will not be changed!

Our individual commitment to Him saves and protects us in the end, and keeps our names in the Lambs book of life, so don't be concerned with the ways of this world but the things of the Spirit!

Some people want to set up Gods kingdom before He arrives, the great commission, but though the word will be preached to the ends of the earth, all nations will gather to do war against the king of Kings in the end (it is written)!

Another will they follow, and with signs and wonders and lying delusions will deceive even the elect (if that were possible)(because they really aren't the elect)!

God has reserved a remnant even until this day;

Agape; Ephraim.

[nebula]

Well, you may be happy with handing the world to Satan in a handbasket, but I'm not.

Really, Ephraim, you are making a lot of assumptions about when the events of Revelation will take place and of whom will be the governing body of the so-called anti-christ.

Did you know that the man who invented movies offered them first to the church, but the church refused, claiming the thing to be evil for whatever reason. So, the man sold the technology to who would take it. Now look at how evil the movie/tv industry is.

What would have happened had the church taken this to begin with?

An analogy to think about.

[shammah]

We are in the world but not of the world; If you are of this world, you are at enmity with the Lord ! We seek the Lord and another country, an Heavenly one!

So yes until the Lord returns and takes back what is His, by Himself, with the word (the sword of His mouth) we are but pilgrims in a foreign land !

You may say we will come with Him, which is true, but the battle is His then, and even now nothing can be done of Him unless it's by the Spirit !

The Spirit in the book of Revelations and Zech., and Daniel, reveal, tough times ahead for the true believers, and a short time where Lucifer will set up his kingdom, not the Kanas City Prophets, or the 700 club, or the Pope, or all of us coming together!

Though Satans kingdom will never be complete, there will be much chaos, destruction, and persecution, "if those days be not shortened no flesh would survive".

A very convincing False Messiah will come to the rescue, before we see Christ returning with His saints, many will trust in him because of the fear, false interpretation of the word, and lying signs and wonders!

It's all in the word, that should be our focus .

Agape; Ephraim.

[nebula]

And I pray -

Lord, may Your glory be revealed here in America!

Turn our hearts of stone to hearts of flesh!

Be glorified in this land!

Turn this nation back to You!

[RGR]

We are one nation under God founded upon Christian principles. If that doesn't suit your fancy because you're in the minority, may I strongly suggest listening to the words of Merle Haggard as he says-"if you don't love it, leave it..."

[UndecidedFrog]

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

Fortunately, I live in a democratic republic, where if I dislike something, I can work to change it. I needn't leave it.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[apothanein kerdos]

This is just my opinion.  You don't have to accept it if you dislike it.  DISCLAIMER:  I am not a christian.

First, some facts: 

1) The words "one nation, under god" was not in the original pledge of allegiance.  They were added in the 1950s when some were scared of the godless communists. 

2) Even though some 90% of the US population believes in god (I round up from 86%), there are roughly 10% who do not. 

3) Of the 90% who believe in god, they do not necessarily believe in the same god. 

4) The country was built on the concept of freedom of religion (I also interpret this as freedom from religion as well).

Now, some opinion:

5) Since the original impetus for adding the words is no longer a threat to the security of the country, I am in favour of removing those words.

6) For the 10% of the population who do not believe in any god, I think it is unfair to disallow their patriotism.

7)  For the remaining 90% of those who do believe in god, albeit different ones, I think it is unfair to insist on one particular god instead of others, thereby disallowing their patriotism.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem with this is that it ignores valuable precidence set forth by our Founding Fathers. One of the common arguments brought forth by people is freedom of religion is a key note in our society. I agree with this. The problem is people have taken this beyond a conceptual and practical viewpoint and applied it to even the discourse of what occurs in public. For one, the constant refrence to the Christian God in both government documents and explanitory documents seemingly contradict the idea that the first amendment applies to discourse of the government. Thus if the government uses the discourse of religion within its documents or pledges, it is not supporting or asserting one religion above another but simply utilizing what it believes to be a powerful source. It is simply using the power of discourse to strengthen its cause. Proof of this is found in the Founder's intents and actions. Furthermore, the unjust "wall of seperation of church and state" has been imposed upon the first amendment interpretation process. This was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 over a concern that the Danbury baptist had. He was refering to a State's rights to tax a non-state sponsered religion/denomination. Thus this "wall of seperation" that Thomas Jefferson is speaking of is speaking solely of gross interjections of government into religion or vice versa. Yet, if we want to really dig into this and rely upon Jefferson, then I am fine with this. It can be argued that Jefferson was an indirect reason for the first amendment. This is done so by turning to a law that he and James Madison developed and has passed in the Virginia legislator in 1777 (one year prior to the drafting of the Constitution). What is vitally important is that the first amendment is basically founded upon this law. It goes in-depth on the founder's intent behind the first amendment. James Madison co-wrote this piece of legislation with Thomas Jefferson in 1777 and transcripted it into the Bill of Rights. In fact, the entire reason for the Bill of Rights is that Virginia would not join the Union unless a Bill of Rights was in place. Subsequently, the piece of legislation passed in 1777 that gave religious freedom (and halted the Anglican church from being the state sponsered church) became our first amendment. The importance in this is that if we read this piece of legislation we learn that this "freedom of religion" spoken of in the first amendment is specifically talking of government sponsered religions. Thus the government cannot require a tax for a certain church and not for another. It also cannot force a person to worship another god or any god. However, this law did not prevent the Virginia state legislator from using religion symbols. When the Constitution uses the language, "respecting an establishment of religion" the founder's intent behind this is to refer solely to forcing a person to worship a certain way or pay taxes or time to a certain religion. By putting the words "Under God" in the pledge one is not forced to pay homage to God or to worship Him but merely to recognize that the United States government believes it is a government under God. Thus you are pledging your alligence to a government with theocratic principles but you are not required to take on those theocratic principles.

I hope that makes sense.

[UndecidedFrog]

This is just my opinion. You don't have to accept it if you dislike it. DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian.

By putting the words "Under God" in the pledge one is not forced to pay homage to God or to worship Him but merely to recognize that the United States government believes it is a government under God. Thus you are pledging your alligence to a government with theocratic principles but you are not required to take on those theocratic principles.

I hope that makes sense.

It would only make sense if Tom Jefferson and James Madison wrote the pledge of allegiance with the words "under god." The fact is that the words "under god" were inserted into the original pledge in the 1950s, way after the founding fathers have died.

I do not buy into the argument that the founding fathers agreed that the USA should be a "government with theocractic principles." It begs the question: Of what theocratic priniciples are they thinking? It is difficult to answer this without contradicting the spirit of the first amendment. As far as I understand, most all religions have deities that are jealous deities (i.e. thou shalt have no other gods, etc.) Accepting one set of theocratic principles over another would violate the spirit of the first amendment, unless you think the founding fathers, whose direct ancestors fled Europe to escape religious persecution would agree to institutionalize in their government their own form of religious power over others in their new country. I guess this could be a possibility, but it would certainly be ironic.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog