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! It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Shut Up and BE QUIET!!!
because, in many cases, some of that 14% went through as much as you did for this country? No disrespect intended...
You can tell them that all you want. They don't have to if they don't want to either. Otherwise you might as well take the Constitution & set it on fire. There are reasons we aren't a pure democracy. Pure democracy amounts to nothing more than mob rule. To clarify things, I am one of the 86%.
I think the problem is that the small minority isn't respecting the majority and wants to impose their views or lack of on the majority. Which is as undemocratic as one can get.
If 51% of U.S. citizens worshipped Satan, then would you be OK with having "Satan is our Master" on our coins? Democracy in action! I've personally always had a fondness for Thor. Now that's a hammer that guy has!
That's a good point, but, from their perspective, they are imposing the views of the constitution on the majority. Like it or lump it, seperation of church and state is there, even if it is sometimes ignored for a very long time. I'm not saying it's right. Just going back to the original question - why doesn't the 14% shut up and be quiet - because they are technically correct. Do I personally think it's silly? yep. I think there are way more important things in life than taking offense at 'god' being in the pledge or on our coins. I would hope that I never, in all my life, find that subject at the top of my list of important stuff. But, moving back in time, it could have also been said '85% of people in America pay taxation to the Brits without the right of representation, maybe the other 15% should just shut up and be quiet'. Things would be a little different today... or about 5 years ago, when the majority of citizen voted for a democrat president - did we tell the minority to shut up and accept that? The system counts electorial votes, which in some cases, has not reflected the majority vote of the people... We respect the process put forth by our nation then - and the majority is spoken for by the minority. Then you have the civil rights movement, which was motivated by the citizen minority. In recent days, you have the minority telling us what is and is not decent television - and those views are imposed on the majority. And then, I have to say that the minority standing up and imposing their views is exactly what democracy is all about. Whether or not those views are adopted, that's the defining point of democracy. Unfortunately, and in some cases fortunately, it happens all the time.
I don't think so. Our country is set up specifically to protect the rights of the minority to shout out their opinions. It's real easy for the majority to get heard, but why do you think we hear from minority groups so often? Because they're very much protected under the Constitution. As for the "under God" thing, I personally don't care, because I am not that religious to begin with. I don't have a problem with saying it, but if they took it out, I wouldn't be all that saddened. If memory serves correctly, though, "under God" was only added in the 1950's (or '60's, I forget which), so it's not like it was around forever. That's just another on of those issues that people only start shouting about when they don't have much else to do, because we've been over it so many times! ~AJ
The framers of this country were smart enough to realize that although 9999, out of every 10000, people may all believe one thing the government should not and can not prevent that remaining 1 from thinking and believing what he wants. They knew that if the government forced this 1 to accept their beliefs that 1 would turn into many and that many would overthrow the government. Every person is entitled to their opinion and by removing the god phrase you are allowing them their opinion. If you leave it in and force tham to use it you will only create deap seated resentment. No one can or will make me believe something other than what I want to believe. If they tried they would be hard pressed to quell my resistance. I pretty sure they would have to kill me. I will always say one nation under god, but I am not arrogant enough, or ignorant enough, to get mad at the person next to me who said one nation under Ala, or one nation under Thor. It is their right to say it. Considering how many died to give them the right I would be ****ed if no one excercised that right. BTW one of my friends didn't believe in GOD but he still believed in the country enough to join up. He never said the under god part and I respect him for standing up for his beliefs.
Some of you don't get it. If a minority viewpoint supercedes the majority then you no longer have a democracy. This is not the same as a law being unconsitutional which all the Jim Crow laws that the civil rights movement changed were. Now because some people do not like the term god being used should we re-write the Declaration of Independence. After all in the first two paragarphs god was referenced to. "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." - Now for those who are rusty on their Consitution The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The whole intent was not to have a nation without god the intent was to have a nation without a national religion. It seems to me that there is a segment of the population who rely on the quotes of others without going to the source. Please debate me on the source and not some misinformation that is someones agenda.
why would you rewrite the Declaration of Independence? Are we planning on declaring independance again... I think everyone got the point the first time. You might as well rewrite old judgement decisions for laws which no longer exist, involving people who have been dead for over a hundred years while you're at it. It's irrelevant. When you say the intention was never to have a nation without god, I read 'here's a door wide open for interpretation'. "The whole intent was not to have a nation without god the intent was to have a nation without a national religion" - with all respect, I don't understand this... once you open the door, how do you keep it from becoming a flood gate? And still, again I mean this with all due respect, you started your last paragraph talking about intentions behind documents, then finish the same paragraph by asking people to debate you on the source not misinformtion that is someone's agenda. If you have the original source on the intentions behind the bill of rights, I'm sure the supreme court would like to have a look see.
I believe the documents to which you are referring fall largely into the category of letters written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and I believe the Supreme Court justices rely heavily on such documents in writing opinions.
I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America; and see what happens...Jesse Jackson, the black caucus and all those bleeding hearts out there will be knocking down your door.
We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedoms, so that decades later they could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document; and open to their interpretations. Since you are so concerned about your "rights", then here is one for you: I have the right "NOT" to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.
well the only thing that makes a victim out of anyone is the person who allows themselves to be a victim. The things you mentioned however, is more like social attonement for poor decisions made from the past. Over time, it will all intigrate appropriately, but in the mean time, I think there is a difference between exclusionist activity, and activities designed to maintain a cultural identity while joining a mainstream society that is already geared toward certain standards. But all that is neither here nor there - my point was that I sure hope the social minority never shuts the hell up just because people don't want to hear them... I think it's their public duty to voice their opinions. It just so happens, in this particular case ('god' in the pledge and on coins), I don't really care about their struggle. I would hate to set a precident for future topics that I may care about in the future, though.
I think that's exactly why we went to the aid of certain foreign countries... isn't it? Spreading freedom? What am I missing? I'm not concerned about my rights. You can not be tolerant of anything you want, but if you're including people that tick you off... that's everybody.
ok, sorry... if these letters were being referenced in the portion of that post that presumed the intention behind the bill of rights, then I stand corrected.
Andy- I hope your post wasn't in response to what I wrote. I agree with what your saying. I must pont out that the reference to natures god and the creator of life is not a direct reference to the God, the recoginized leader of Christianity. This reference only states that the creator believed in a higher power and felt that that power infused the poeples with inalienable rights. The one nation under GOD line does reference the leader of Christianity. So does "In GOD We Trust" These were added to their respective items by individuals who felt that the nation should be united under christianity. By keeping these things in place the government is making a law or legal decision to respect the established christian church above all others. This is different than a 10 comandment monument at a capitol. The monument is instead allowing free speach.
I actually wrote this short article a few years ago, but since it is the subject at hand ............... "IN GOD WE TRUST" Few things have ever created so much and such long-lived controversy in the history of our nation as those four little words. Those four words are one of the Official Mottoes of the United States of America. The other is E Pluribus Unum. And as such they appear on every coin and every Federal Reserve note produced in our nation today. The nation is divided into two basic camps regarding this subject; those who think the Motto should be changed and removed from our coins and currency; and those who think it should remain. Both camps have their reasons for their ideals and both are resolutely certain that their ideal is the correct one. Those who wish the Motto to be changed and removed base their thinking on the idea of the separation of church & state and claim that such a Motto is not a part of our nation's heritage. That it is but a recent addition and as such had no place in the founding of our nation. And that based on the idea of the separation of church & state such a Motto is unconstitutional. Those who wish the Motto to remain unchanged refute these claims in every way. It is a difficult subject for many people to consider in which camp they belong. For others, they have no problem. They know on which side of the fence they stand and defend their position with vigor. A simple search of the Internet for the words "In God We Trust" will bring up enough links on both sides of the issue to keep a person reading for weeks. But for myself there are really only two questions that need asking. Is the Motto actually rooted in the very beginnings of our nation's heritage? And does the Motto contradict the idea of the separation of church & state? The first question is easily answered for me. There were 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 - the very beginning of our nation. This is the pledge that those 56 men made - "For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." It seems rather hard to argue that "In God We Trust" and "firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence" do not convey the same meaning. And how much further back can you go into our nation's heritage than the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Then of course you can examine our National Anthem - written in 1814. The words of the third from the last line of the fourth stanza are - "And this is our motto - 'In God is our Trust!" Now somebody will say those words are not in our National Anthem. But "The Star Spangled Banner" is actually a poem that was put to music. And only the first stanza of the poem was used in the song. So it seems to me that when Congress decided to place the Motto "In God We Trust" on some of our coins back in the 1860's they were only too aware of just how much those words are a part of our nation's heritage. Perhaps we have forgotten it. As for the second question; this nation was founded on the idea of freedom of religion. Because at the time, in most nations of the world there was only one religion acceptable in any given nation -that being the State Religion of the given nation. And the founders of our nation wanted to make sure that was not the case here - which they did. The First Amendment of the Constitution states - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......" Seems rather obvious to me what that means. That the Congress shall not make any law that establishes a State Religion. That is what is meant by and what was intended by our founding fathers to maintain a separation of church & state. Perhaps - we have forgotten too much.
Thank you Doug, it needed to be said, and you did a great job of expressing exactly what was intended and why most of us cherish these words. Again, thank you very much!
