Worthy News: 'Under God' pledge protection measure fails - MSN

[George]

House Republicans failed Wednesday to advance a bill protecting the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Only a day earlier, the GOP had placed the measure on its "American Values Agenda" in hopes of bolster the party's prospects in the fall election.

http://www.worthynews.com/news/msnbc-msn-com-id-13599062-/

[Marnie]

Butero, I see you have trouble expressing yourself on this issue....

[O'Dannyboy]

Doesn't the Bible say something like "Democrats are liars and the Father of a lie and the truth is not in them?

Now thats funny!

[anti-hillbilly]

Good, I'm glad to see someone is still willing to uphold the First Amendment in this increasingly theocratic climate we seem to have entered into in the past 20 years.

I think the pledge should be restored to it's orginal form; it was written by a minister and it served it's purpose well for 62 years which was to unite people after the civil war. "Under god" wasn't even in the pledge until 1954 and it's done nothing but divide ever since; totally undermining it's original purpose!

As far as a national motto goes I think we should return to our original motto which was this:

E Pluribus Unum which means "out of many, one".

That is a much more appropriate motto for a democracy.

Edited July 2, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[Giaour]

Florida adopts "In God We Trust" as state motto.

Way to go Jeb!

[anti-hillbilly]

Good, I'm glad to see someone is still willing to uphold the First Amendment in this increasingly theocratic climate we seem to have entered into in the past 20 years.

I think the pledge should be restored to it's orginal form; it was written by a minister and it served it's purpose well for 62 years which was to unite people after the civil war. "Under god" wasn't even in the pledge until 1954 and it's done nothing but divide ever since; totally undermining it's original purpose!

As far as a national motto goes I think we should return to our original motto which was this:

E Pluribus Unum which means "out of many, one".

That is a much more appropriate motto for a democracy.

The only reason "under God" causes division is because of anti-American, anti-God types like the ACLU and People For The unAmerican Way that keep stirring strife. Let them be the peace makers and stop insisting the words "under God" be removed.

Also to Katy Ann, if this is such an unimportant issue, why don't the liberal Democrats agree to let the words remain and then let the Congress get on with other matters? They complain how unimportant something is, yet they fight tooth and tonail for their side to prevail. Something doesn't make sense about this.

You're wrong; you're just repeating the "political speak" of the right. I'm not anti-American or Anti-God and nor was the baptist minister who intentionally wrote it as a non-religious, secular, pledge. The Catholic organization, Knights of Columbus, spearheaded the drive to have "under God" added to the pledge in 1954 during the cold war.

Francis Bellamy

Bellamy commented on his thoughts as he created the pledge, and his reasons for choosing the careful wording:

"It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution... with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

"The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands'. ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

"Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity'. No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all..."

Bellamy is buried in Rome, New York.

another [link]

This issue has more to do with politics and power than it does God. The far-right needs to stop trying to force it and get back to the Lord's business of feeding and clothing the poor with the millions of 501c3 dollars they take in annually; I would think God would be more concerned with that. -- Time to give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and give to God what is God's....but then...hmmmm, that might include paying taxes.

Edited July 9, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

As for the far-right getting back to the Lord's business, I agree but not in the way you do. It is the responsibility of the church, not the government to feed and cloth the poor. Have you never heard of giving alms? This is to be done voluntarily, not by compulsion. Have you never heard of being a cheerful giver? I am opposed to higher taxes, but support the church putting more emphasis on the collection of money to help the needy. Perhaps if the government would stop playing Robin Hood with our money, we the people would have the opportunity to give more money to charities we actually agree with.

Today's church is double dipping I think; they don't pay taxes and they are getting govt money for faith based iniatives yet in how many towns do you see homes for unwed mothers or programs where the churches offer to pay medical expenses or day care for unwed mothers? They use those millions for political lobbying and campaigning for the republican party....and building bigger churches even though Jesus did most of his teaching and preaching outdoors.

Theoritically I'm opposed to all taxation but it isn't gonna happen so we're left with reality. The reality is that democrats tax and spend and republicans tax and spend then borrow and spend and they spend it or funnel it to corporate pockets. They have to get the people to go along with this somehow so they "court" religious leaders and use effective marketing; they control the language [link]. Most churches and religious organizations have basically become an arm of the republican party or vice versa; they're not gonna take care of people they way Jesus told them to. SO I want my tax dollars to go for pell grants, extra cash for the elderly on social security, after school programs, universal health care, orphanages and the VA hospital system.

Besides all that, this has nothing to do with the words "under God" being in the pledge anyway. If you liberals actually believe this big government rubbish, why don't you let the "far-right" have it's way on "under God" and work for more government confiscation and redistribution of money?

Why should we liberals "go along to get along" on this issue when we're not the ones who are wrong here. You can see from the "history" of the plege that it wasn't the liberals who have changed the pledge to begin with. We are in favor of restoring it to the original words with the original intent. Also this would be a slippery slope that leads one step closer to a theocracy; bad, bad, bad. The religious right isn't content with freedom of religion and freedom of the people to worship as they please; they want to decide how everyone is to worship in this country and how everyone who doesn't "go along to get along" is to be punished when they don't comply (this would include christians of course since the majority of the people in this country are christian). Like it or not, even a atheist has a right to bring their children up as they decide and Micheal Newdow made a point when he went before the supreme court; he said that every morning when his daughter said the words "under God" when reciting the pledge; she was basically having the govt make her say that her father was wrong. Now we might know he's wrong but if you flip that around I wouldnt want the govt make my child say, "one nation NOT under God". --- The pledge is a secular pledge and should be restored as such so that all of us Americans can say it in one unified voice. (Interestingly the first lawsuits ever brought against the pledge were by the JWs for obvious reasons....the bible verse that says not to pledge oaths).

Yes the govt is conficsating money; they're sucking the middle class dry and like 100 years ago when Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) came to office the rich are getting richer. Back then 1/8 of the population owned 7/8s of all the wealth in the country. Teddy Roosevelt busted up the corporations and earned the nick-name "trust-buster"; he was also an environmentalist. BUT now you can see that while everyone is consumed with phoney issues like "the pledge" and bills that attempt to put the 10 commandments into courtrooms, they're not paying any attention to the anti-trust laws that are being violated with all the corporate mergers that are going on. Even all this pandering by the republicans about the immagation issue is an attempt at trickery if this thread is true [link].

The religious right is hurting Christianity imo as well as our form of goverment; they're backing a bad horse either thru ignorance or thru their leadership's own personal lust for power and money; maybe a combination of both. Don't allow yourself to be fooled by the "Godly talk" because when you cut to the chase; it's just clever propaganda; marketing at it's worst (or best) depending on how you look at it. I sure hope the left doesn't start doing the same thing but it looks like it's heading that way. It's a shame in this day and age people want to hear what they want to hear and that "talk" is more important than policy.

Boy we did get off on some tangents here didn't we. LOL. Oh well, I guess that's what forums are for. In a way it reminds me of the political conversations we used to have around my grandpa's kitchen table only now-a-days religion is mixed in with it.

Edited July 9, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

Butero you are wrong on almost everything you had to say there and even contradicted yourself several times.

I'll only bother to address the very end because it's so glaringly obvious that you don't have a clue.:

Here is the difference between the religious-right and the religious-left. The religious right believes in the innerancy of scripture and to them, everything is black and white, right or wrong. The religious-left sees the Bible as a book with good ideas and believes portions of it. In some cases they consider things out dated. They see things as grey and believe in situational ethics. Since that is the case, I am happy to be considered a member of the religious right.

The religious right doesn't believe in the innerrency of scripture; LOL, that too is just talk. The religious right believes in the innerancy of a few nasty people in positions of leadership who are calling the "shots" and saying it's all biblical. This is evident when you examine the scriptures. For example, In some scriptures God says life begins when one breathes not at the moment of conception. In some verses God instructs "killing of the unborn" and the "born"; scriptures are full of such mandates by God to rip the unborn from their mother's wombs. Barbaric I know, yet, it's condoned in the bible and yes I do think that type of thing is "outdated" and shouldn't be done......as do you since you oppose abortion. The bible also condones putting homosexuals to death; do you think that one is outdated? I certainly do think it is even if homosexuality is a sin. As far as "gay marriage" being a threat to me... I don't feel threatened. I'm not a homosexual nor is my husband; I'd be more threatened by some floosy who had her eye on my man than some gay guy. Jesus didn't even bother to mention homosexuals but he sure has a lot to say about divorce yet the church pews from sea to shining sea are full of unbiblically divorced people who've remarried...and the "leadership" not only allows it but makes elaborate excuses for it to boot. So much for a "black and white" thing there......looks gray to me. So no, the religious right isn't right or more into biblical inerrancy than those of us on the religious left.

Obviously the republicans have you bamboozled so there's nothing else I can say to explain "how" they've suckered the taxpayers and their religious base without writing a book and there's plenty of those already.

As for the pledge, it is important for reasons I've already tried to explain. The left is right, the pledge should be secular; it's the right thing. The 10 commandments absolutely should NOT be in courtrooms either. We as Christians don't even recognize the one about the sabbath and only 2 of the others are against the law (murder and stealing) and under certain circumstances a third one (bearing false witness, perjury). Just more politics to keep our eyes off the real issues and off of whose stealing the treasury blind.

To wish for a theocracy in this great country is pure foolishness; don't you know anything about church history?

[anti-hillbilly]

Examples: You say you're opposed to activist judges (another marketing jingle btw) yet you support the republicans. They're picking activist judges and making no attempts to hide the fact. In reality you must favor activist judges as long as they judge the way YOU want them too; nevermind the constitution when you get right down to the nitty-gritty.

You oppose the democrats because of their positions on abortion and gay rights yet you don't mention their positions on the poor and powerless. Nor do you seem to notice or consider that perhaps these two issues are simply republican tools only to be used during an election year. Which issue did Jesus focus on during his tenure here on earth? It certainly was not abortion (which he never mentioned) nor was it homosexuals (which he didn't bother to address, that was Paul). It'd already been covered as "sin' in the OT but Jesus didn't put it at the top of the list as far as what He preached did He? If neither of those was at the top of Jesus' list then why is it at the top of yours? Seems to me that James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson have more influence among evangelical Christians than Christ; pathethic!

Overall you imply that you support the Consitition yet you turn around and say you support a theocracy; big contradiction. You can't have it both ways Butero. I've got news for you, the ACLU and People for the American Way are not out to destroy the country; more demonization from the right on that score. The ACLU represents churches and religious organizations too when their rights are being infringed upon. That doesn't happen nearly as often as you think; it happens much more frequently the other way and that's why those authoritarians in leadership positions in Christianity hate them so much.

God said about the prophet Jeremiah that he knew him before he was ever created, telling me that God has a purpose for every person conceived and that in his mind, they are human from the beginning.

That ONE verse was specific to Jeremiah. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam

Edited July 12, 2006 by anti-hillbilly

[anti-hillbilly]

First you say this:

I want judges that will interpret the law according to original intent, period.

Then you say this:

My first allegence is to the God of the Bible and second to the Consititution, so yes, I would be willing to add amendments to it which would have the effect of making America a theocracy.

And that my friend is why our Founders gave us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights so people like you can't take it upon themselves to force everyone under a theocracy of YOUR making; not God's making. So much for patriotism and acting Christ like. So much for that "free gift" of salvation. May I suggest that you leave our Consitution alone and spend more time on getting your theology straightened out.

Also, I know very well what the ACLU and People For The American Way does, and they are both wicked and should be abolished. I signed a petition calling for the destruction of the ACLU. I doubt it succeeds but I am anything but on the fence in my hatred for that anti-christ organization.

I don't think you know nearly as much as you seem to think you know. Maybe you should visit their websites.

No, it's ok for God to order the extinction of a race of people during a military operation. That is quite differen't than me as an individual taking it upon myself to kill someone I don't like.

Now that one could really be used in a number of ways in this day and age but I don't have time to go into detail there right now so I'll put it in a nutshell for you; Iraq, Iraq and Iraq; excuses, excuses, excuses; God, God, God; evangelical base of support. Praise God and pass the ammo.

I had a friend who was a Democrat and I would talk politics with him. He told me I sounded just like this guy names Rush Limbaugh. I started listening to him and found that I agreed with most of his positions. I also had a Democrat claim I sounded word for word like James Dobson when speaking of judges, yet I never listen to James Dobson. I guess you liberals can't get it through your head people can believe like this without being influenced by talk radio. Talk radio just re-inforces what we already believe.

You thought that stuff up all on your own? That's even worse than copying it from somebody else; I sure wouldn't be bragging about it if I were you. I do think you hit upon one thing though, talk radio just reinforces what you already believe.....and it's scary. Hatred draws some people like a moth to a flame; it's always been that way.

I think you'd have fit into the Roman Catholic inquisitor's robes quite well Butero; if you had lived then and not now.