I completely agree.

I was a senior in high school when the Gulf War broke out.  I remember, we had not, up to that point, ever recited the pledge.  But when the war started, we were suddenly required to do it every day.  I objected to this vehemently:  Why, I asked should we only show our loyalty during a time of war? That seemed inherently fucked up.

But I have an additional problem with the Pledge and how it’s applied in a lot of public classrooms.  I take such things as oaths/pledges of allegiance very, very seriously. You make them only if you really, really mean it.  I have problems with teaching young children to recite the pledge-- not many young grade schoolers understand the words, what they mean, and their implications. To them, it’s a largely rote thing that’s part of the morning routine.  I don’t think *anyone* should be asked, let alone more or less *required* to recite the pledge until they demonstrate that they understand exactly what it means.  Just rote recitation, to me, waters down the meaning. Makes the pledge less important. And it shouldn’t be.

Arrr, if the lubbers doesn’t wants to say the pledge I say we lash ‘em to the missen mast then keel haul ‘em, then throw ‘em in the focsal...Arrr!  After that we make ‘em walk the plank and send the scurvey rats to Davey Jones’ Locker...Arrr!

Or we can respect their rights and not enforce the meaningless recitation of a bogus pledge...I don’t know...I’m undecided between the two

I think the pledge is great and should be taught to school children.  And what’s wrong with god in school?  The Christian faith and the ten commandments are the foundation of most of our laws and civilization.  I don’t believe teachers should teach scripture or a particular christian faith, but there is nothing wrong with saying ‘Under God’ or acknowledging God.

There is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent this.  The only place you will find the words ‘seperation of church and state’ is in the Marxist Communist Manifesto.

What does the Bill of Rights actually say?  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What does this mean?  Our government will not create a Church of the United States and force the people to belong.  It doesn’t say we can’t acknowledge, include, have monuments or recite prayers in school or government buildings.

Should a child be forced to recite a prayer?  No.  Should they be exposed to it?  Yes.

I think the pledge is great and should be taught to school children. And what’s wrong with god in school? The Christian faith and the ten commandments are the foundation of most of our laws and civilization. I don’t believe teachers should teach scripture or a particular christian faith, but there is nothing wrong with saying ‘Under God’ or acknowledging God.

I think the Pledge is great too. In it’s original form that didn’t include the words “under God” at least. Restore the pledge to its original form and I wouldn’t have a problem with it being recited in schools every day as long as it wasn’t mandatory. What’s wrong with God in school? Nothing as long as it’s not part of school policy. Children carrying religious books and praying silently to themselves prior to lunch or tests is perfectly legal and acceptable. Having teachers or administrators leading children in organized prayer is not.

The Christian faith and the Ten Commandments are not the foundation of most of our laws and civilization. Only two of the Ten Commandments have been somewhat codified into laws: the commandments against stealing and murder, and we allow exceptions to the murder rule such as in self-defense. The first four of the Ten Commandments (no other Gods, graven images, God’s name in vain, keep the Sabbath) cannot be made into law without violating the Constitution, the commandment against lying is only codified in terms of libel and slander laws which means that most lies are legal and the remaining three have no legal equivalents in current law. The folks at FindLaw have an excellent article on this very issue called The Ten Commandments and American Law:
Why Some Christians’ Claims to Legal Hegemony Are Not Consistent with the Historical Record that goes into greater detail and also debunks the claim that our Founding Fathers were all Christian.

As for if there is anything wrong with saying “under God” or acknowledging God, I find that most folks who claim there isn’t a problem with it should clarify their statement by adding “as long as it’s my particular God” to the end of their sentences as that’s what you folks really tend to mean. The minute a school makes mention of any Gods other than your Christian God you guys tend to get all up in arms.

There is nothing in the US Constitution to prevent this. The only place you will find the words ‘seperation of church and state’ is in the Marxist Communist Manifesto.

Not having read the Communist Manifesto I can’t comment on whether the phrase is present there and you’re quite correct that the phrase itself doesn’t appear in the U.S. Constitution, but I do know that it appears several times in the writings of Thomas Jefferson while he was trying to clarify just exactly what the First Amendment was supposed to accomplish. It is very clever of you to try and equate the idea of the separation of church and state as being a Communistic idea, but then that would imply that several of our Founding Fathers were Communists.

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. (Thomas Jefferson, as President, in a letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

What does the Bill of Rights actually say? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

What does this mean? Our government will not create a Church of the United States and force the people to belong. It doesn’t say we can’t acknowledge, include, have monuments or recite prayers in school or government buildings.

Former Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist would have agreed with you, but this isn’t borne out by the writings of former President James Madison, who was the principal author of the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

This assertion [that Madison was committed to total and complete separation of church and state] would be challenged by the nonpreferentialists, who agree with Justice Rehnquist’s dissent in the Jaffree case. Contrasted with the analysis set forth above, Rehnquist insisted that Madison’s “original language ‘nor shall any national religion be established’ obviously does not conform to the ‘wall of separation’ between church and state which latter day commentators have ascribed to him.” Rehnquist believes Madison was seeking merely to restrict Congress from establishing a particular national church. There are three problems with this contention. First, nothing in Madison’s acts or words support such a proposition. Indeed, his opposition to the General Assessment Bill in Virginia, detailed in the “Memorial and Remonstrance,” contradicts Rehnquist directly. Secondly, all of Madison’s writings after 1789 support the Court’s twentieth-century understanding of the term “wall of separation.” Third, the reference to Madison’s use of “national” simply misses his definition of the word. Madison had an expansive intention when he used the term national. He believed that “religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgiving and fasts ... imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.” He commented in a similar way about chaplains for the House and Senate. Historical evidence lends no support to the Rehnquist thesis. And clearly Jefferson, even though absent from the First Congress, seems a far more secure source of “original intent” than Justice Rehnquist. (Robert S. Alley, ed., The Supreme Court on Church and State, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, p. 13.)—Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

As it stands, there is nothing stopping you from acknowledging or including God, having monuments or reciting prayers in school or government buildings unless you are an agent of the government and doing these things while acting in an official capacity of the government. Erecting Ten Commandment monuments in the rotunda of a judicial building implies a Government endorsement of Christianity above all other philosophical viewpoints as does teachers or administrators leading school children in organized prayers as part of the school day.

Should a child be forced to recite a prayer? No. Should they be exposed to it? Yes.

If you feel so strongly that your children should be exposed to prayers there are enough avenues available to do so without the need to have government institutions and schools getting involved. And what do you say to the parents who not only don’t feel that their children should be exposed to prayer, but feel such exposure is damaging? What do you say to the parents who agree with you, but feel those prayers should be Islamic, Jewish or Wiccan? Would you have a problem with a teacher leading her class in a reciting of the Wiccan Reed? If so, why? Surely if such activities doesn’t constitute government endorsement of a particular faith then there is no harm in exposing your children to a daily recitation of the Wiccan Reed?

PREACH ON BROTHER LES!!!

(Fellow atheist by the way...)

No offense to any Christian, Muslims, etc… but i like Wicca more then i like your beliefs mainly for one reason… the whole basis of Wiccan beliefs…

An it harm none, do what thou wilt

Good Article.

If the pledge of allegiance had been written in the 1770s it might have read something like

… one nation, under The Creator, ...

or

… one nation, under Nature’s Perfect God, ...

However, I suspect the language would be closer to the version I learned in the 40s, and that the pledge would have been to the constitution and not to the flag.

It’s nice to say the founding fathers meant that or clarified later,,,,but what IS in the constitution?  What is the law and Bill of Rights?

And I’m sorry Les but you are wrong, the Christian faith and the Ten Commandments were the foundation for most of our laws.  You focused on the Ten Commandments in your comments.  I did not.  Most of our laws stem from the morality and ethics taught by the christian faith.  Not islamic or jewish or hindu.  Sorry.  They were not even a tiny representative community in this nation until the middle 1800’s.  Murder, stealing, lying or harming your fellow man.  The golden rule?  You can break most of our laws down to these fundamental teachings.  Laws against rape, incest, child-porn, property rights violations, etc.  Most can be traced back to the Christian Faith.

In God We Trust, Under God and statements in the Declaration of Independence weren’t refering to the Wiccan whatever or Mohammed or Allah.  It was referring to the Christian God.  If a child asks a teacher: “Under which God?” The correct answer would be “The God worshipped by the Christian and Jewish faiths.”

And if a parent wants their child to be brought up godless and lost that is their preogative. Should my country, founded by Christians, be able to acknowledge that fact and use the name of the God it was founded under?  YES!!!

Do I want the governmet telling me how to worship? NO. Do I want the government telling me what faith to worship with?  NO.  Do I want the government, through our schools, to preach or teach scripture?  NO WAY!

But should they acknowledge our foundations?  Yes.

It’s nice to say the founding fathers meant that or clarified later,,,,but what IS in the constitution? What is the law and Bill of Rights?

What is in there is exactly what the Founding Fathers described to be in there. Even if the literal phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the document, that’s still the implication the clause was written to bring about and the Founding Fathers backed that up with various written arguments afterwards. For that matter the phrase “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t appear in either document yet it is regarded as an important Constitutional principle.

“And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”—James Madison, father of the Constitution, in his letter to Edward Livingston, July 10th, 1822

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists was a reply to a direct request to clarify just what the first amendment was supposed to mean. The Danbury Baptists, incidentally, were the victims of religious persecution in their state and were all for the idea that Government and Church should be forever separate from each other. Jefferson’s response was exactly what they had been hoping for. Jefferson and Madison are two of the people most directly responsible for authoring the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ignoring their explanations of their own work is stupid and self-serving. Who better to explain what the law means then the men who wrote it?

As an aside, the phrases “separation of powers,” “interstate commerce,” “right to privacy,” and others describing well-established constitutional principles also do not appear in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights yet I don’t hear you claiming that any of those concepts are invalid as a result. Could it be because you consider these other principles to be in your favor thus you see no reason to challenge them?

And I’m sorry Les but you are wrong, the Christian faith and the Ten Commandments were the foundation for most of our laws.

Please provide something to back this claim up. You make this claim repeatedly yet you show nothing to back it up. Seeing as you seem to want to ignore the writings of the Founding Fathers beyond what is in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and concentrate solely on documents that qualify as law then allow me to provide you with a law that clearly states the United States is not a Christian nation nor was founded as such. That law being the Treaty of Tripoli.

“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”—Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, Article 11. Ratified by the Senate with John Adams’ signature on June 10th, 1797.

Being a Treaty the above article represents U.S. Law as all treaties do according to the Constitution in Article VI, Sect. 2. Seeing as you seem to be concerned with what is and is not the law given your comment at the start of your reply I assume that the fact that the Treaty of Tripoli establishes, as law, that the U.S. is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion will cause you to recant your claim to the contrary.

Somehow, I suspect that you will suddenly start arguing about the “intent” behind the laws which you so easily dismissed earlier as being unimportant.

You focused on the Ten Commandments in your comments. I did not. Most of our laws stem from the morality and ethics taught by the christian faith. Not islamic or jewish or hindu. Sorry. They were not even a tiny representative community in this nation until the middle 1800’s. Murder, stealing, lying or harming your fellow man. The golden rule? You can break most of our laws down to these fundamental teachings. Laws against rape, incest, child-porn, property rights violations, etc. Most can be traced back to the Christian Faith.

Again you make a lot of claims, but provide nothing to back them up. If they can be traced back to the Christian Faith then prove it by doing so. Offer up some form of substantiation to your claim in the form of quotes, citations or references that support your position. It’s easy to sit there and throw around claims you wish were true, but you’ll win more arguments by providing evidence that they are true.

As for other faiths not being in much of a presence until the mid-1800s, by some historian’s estimates the Christian religions weren’t even a “tiny representative community” in this nation at its beginning:

“No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.”—American Church historian, Robert T. Handy.

Laws regarding murder, stealing and harming your fellow man pre-date Christian morality (such as it is) in the form of Common Law in use in Europe for centuries before Christianity reared it’s ugly head therein and Common Law was the basis used by the Founding Fathers in establishing this country. Allow me to cite the Constitution’s 7th Amendment: “In suits at common law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.” A lot of Christians who want to claim their religion as the basis for American law try to claim that Common Law in Europe was based on the Christian religion. The quote I currently have on the left side of this page from Thomas Jefferson about Common Law and Christianity is an excerpt of a longer piece Jefferson wrote in a letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814 which directly rebukes the claim that Christianity has anything to do with Common Law:

“For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

“. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

Seems history, and the Founding Fathers, disagree with you.

In God We Trust, Under God and statements in the Declaration of Independence weren’t refering to the Wiccan whatever or Mohammed or Allah. It was referring to the Christian God. If a child asks a teacher: “Under which God?” The correct answer would be “The God worshipped by the Christian and Jewish faiths.”

You are quite correct with regards to “In God We Trust” and “under God”, both were intended to represent Christian concepts, though the Courts would rule that they weren’t specific to any particular religion and, thusly, allowable. Anyone who studies the history surrounding the laws passed in relation to these two phrases would find it easy enough to see the actual intent with regards to which God they are referencing. That said, the phrase ‘under God’ wasn’t added to the Pledge until 1954 and that was against the wishes of Francis Bellamy who wrote the original Pledge in 1892 in which he specifically left out a reference to God despite his status as a Baptist minister. The Pledge had been around for about 64 years before those words were added. “In God We Trust” didn’t become the national motto until 1956, not even close to being proof that this nation was founded on the Christian faith. The fact that these laws were not challenged immediately and removed from the books doesn’t mean that they didn’t violate the Establishment clause or shouldn’t be removed from the books today.

As for the Declaration of Independence, well, I thought you said you were only concerned with things that were considered laws? The Declaration isn’t a law and carries no weight of law in this country; it was merely a document that told the U.K. that we weren’t going to take their shit anymore and to piss off. By your own standards of argument, then, it is irrelevant which particular God it may be referencing. That said, there are good grounds for arguing that the God it invokes is not a reference to the Christian deity, but to the Deist’s concept of “nature’s God.” A good majority of the Founding Fathers weren’t Christian, they were Deist.

And if a parent wants their child to be brought up godless and lost that is their preogative. Should my country, founded by Christians, be able to acknowledge that fact and use the name of the God it was founded under? YES!!!

Your country wasn’t founded by Christians nor was your country founded on the Christian religion, unless you’re not an American. I’ve already provided you with a U.S. Law that clearly states this country is not founded on Christianity. As for the Founding Fathers let’s do a little run-down on them, shall we?

George Washington: Never explicitly stated his religious beliefs in any of his writings and made little reference to his religious views in thousands of letters. His Freemasonry experience implied that he was a Deist and upon his death his close friend Dr. Abercrombie had the following reply when asked of Washington’s religious faith: “Sir, Washington was a Deist.”

“One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

James Madison: The primary author of the Constitution was much like Washington in that he didn’t talk much about his own personal views, but the evidence supports his stance as being Deist. Regardless, his comments show that he was certainly no fan of the Christian religion. “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” As the author of the First Amendment he was also its biggest proponent: “The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.” Madison wrote at length about the need for religious liberty and for keeping government and religion separate.

John Adams: A Unitarian, Adams was not fond of Christianity as a religious viewpoint. “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” Along with statements such as “I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved—the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Benjamin Franklin: Another Deist, though he had been raised by Christian parents. “. . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist.” Jefferson did find value in some aspects of the Christian religion, but rejected the concept of Christ as the Son of God as well as all of the miracles in the Bible and was quite critical of Christianity in general. Jefferson even sat down and made his own version of the Bible excising all of the content he considered to be total garbage. Here is a quote from Jefferson wherein he explains his reasons for making his own version of the Bible: “My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian.... That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.”

Thomas Paine: A Freethinker who held some Deist beliefs, Paine was openly hostile toward Christianity and found little in it worthy of respect. “Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.” Thomas Paine played a major role in bringing about the Bill of Rights to address what he considered to be holes in the Constitution.

I could go on, but you get the picture I’m sure.

Do I want the governmet telling me how to worship? NO. Do I want the government telling me what faith to worship with? NO. Do I want the government, through our schools, to preach or teach scripture? NO WAY!

But should they acknowledge our foundations? Yes.

Sure thing, but perhaps you should be certain about just what our foundations are. You seem to be awfully certain they have their roots in Christianity yet you provide nothing to back that belief up. If you have anything to refute the points I’ve raised I’d love to hear them.

The Christian propagandists have been working overtime to rewrite history. “In God We Trust” and “Under God” were not the words of the founders (though I did hear a pundit state otherwise). They ddn’t appear until over 150 years later, in the 1950’s. The Declaration of Independence does contain the references “creator” and “nature’s god”, but you will notice they didn’t mention Jesus, and they intentionally left the “god” as an ambiguous entity. Then you have to realize that the Declaration isn’t the law of our country, the Constitution is the law, and where in the law do they acknowledge god? They don’t, and I wonder why they didn’t acknowledge god as the foundation of our law in the Constitution. Then we have to death with the myth of the “christian” founders. Were some of the founders christian? Yes, but were they all? No, they weren’t all christians.

But should they acknowledge our foundations? Yes.

I also answer yes, but we need to acknowledge the truth, not the folklore created by propagandists with the desire to “christianize” the foundation of our nation.

And which version of Christianity even?  It is fraught with difficulties at best.

And which version of Christianity even?

There is the rub. They are all in agreement right now with their anti-secular notions, but what happens if they should succeed? That is when the real battle begins. Who’s version of christianity gets to be put forward. We have seen comments at SEB from some christians that other sects aren’t “real” christians, and that is mild compared to things I have heard elsewhere. You need to look at Northern Ireland to see what is possible when christians can’t agree.

Exactly right Val…a blind man can see it.  I’d love to see what the Baptists would do if the Catholics were running the show!  Most Baptists I’ve met don’t believe Catholics are Christians.  And the Pentecostals will go nuts if the Baptists are in charge because the Baptists don’t speak in tongues!  Of course there are the foot-washing Baptists and the snake handlers who don’t much think anyone other than themselves are anointed.  And if the Hari Krishna are running stuff…well I’m sorry, but I’m not cutting my hair like that and those outfits they wear don’t really compliment my figure!

You need to look at Northern Ireland to see what is possible when christians can’t agree.

That’s right…doesn’t River Dance come from there??? AAAHHHHH!

Why aren’t there more intelligent liberals like yourselves voting?  I am taking a class on the U.S. Supreme Court and every case I am surprised to the extent that our liberties are being or have been taken from us.  Forget about seperation of church and state, rights of minors or most (not all) rights that we THINK we have.  How can the Right justify making and implementing laws based Christianity when our country was firming built on the principal of that very seperation.
-I am one very frustrated liberal. 

regardless of your position on patriotism, if you want to go by what God says in regards to pledging your allegiance and mind you I’m not a religious guy, I’m a U.S. Marine but also a sensible person but to use the religious peoples own source to pledge your allegence to a flag is idoltry, you pledge your allegiance to God, not a country or an item that represents your country, unfortunately politicians today and yesterday want to forcefeed their beliefs even knowing they are wrong...yet say a prayer before eating and then declaring war...hypocritical in my opinion as I am a hypocrite for knowing that no war except one declared by God is acceptable as killing another person is obviously against the 10 commandments, but again I"m not really religious although i do beleive in God, but I don’t cast stones or judge others unless I’m willing to be judged myself BUT you can’t have it both ways, to use God in apledge doesn’t take away from the fact that your contridicting the Bible which initself has been re-written and edits by rulers to control the peopel and God does say to add or take away from his word is to be cursed ten thousand fold, so ingeneral were screwed if that is true, society is based on the re-write of a book that was not suppose to be written and all we know and all we enforce is not what it seems...but hey we still want to think that our nation above all other people on this planet is blessed by GOD?  I’d say our nation along with every other one would be a huge dissapointment to God is anything, but then again most know that, they just won’t admit it and if they don’t they could be in for a rude awakening if and when judgement day comes...if your religious and beleive in it...treat others liek you want to be treated and there would be no problems, but were too vain and human to do that, much betetr to kill each other in the name of God and under God and pesecute all who don’t share the same view, but yet still maintain were christian...I’d be real proud of myself.. I say the girl who did this has got balls, she is standing up for what she beleives and no one should take offense as she is not hurting anyone, when your beliefs hurt others purposefully then THAT is a problem, it’s very simple, no need to elaborate, do unto others...if you can’t understand that...THAT’s UNAMERICAN AND even more important UNGODLY for those christains and God Loving and Fearing people, pick a side andf stick with it, just be ready to accept the concequences.

Jag, you make a very interesting point there.  I found a lovely satirical quote from Rum and Monkey in which Ben Werdmuller writes (about how he plans to become a Republican):

Find Jesus in the most massive way, but worship the flag like a false idol. There’s nothing like religious contradiction to cement one’s Republican status. I’ve got to worship God absolutely, but understand that God is America. Once I’m there, I can infer that as the stars and stripes are America’s patriotic child, the flag is Jesus. Suddenly I’ve run out of theological problems - of course God is against abortion; of course He’s in favour of the tax cut - although I do have to wonder why I hoist Jesus up a pole every morning.

I laughed myself silly for about a week on that one.

“...although I do have to wonder why I hoist Jesus
up a pole every morning.”

Easy,GeekMom: that one symbolises Jesus’ crucifixion...though with rope rather than nails… :wink:

Well I have to admit lotta people bring up good points, in the end it’s a matter of opinion of course just like people have the right to state their opinion so to does a child have the right under his or her parents custody the right to not pledge allegiance.  But on the other hand in my own personal opinion if any one of the people who proclaim to be a “christian” or devoutly religious in any aspect and want to argue the point about forcing anyone be it child, adult or the like should go back and re-read their Bible...the Bible specifically speaks out against governments and or any other type of rulership other than God’s...to further back that up that according to the Bible we are to only acknowledge God’s kingdom and rule over us The United States even says “UNDER GOD” acknowledging God’s RULERSHIP FIRST!… of course if your religious and/or a christian or any other faith for that matter that’s fine with me, I have respect for all beliefs but I’d also say before anyone stands up and states what they believe is fact, they should do some research before hand...you cannot be a true christian or follower of God’s word in the christian sense and stand up and say you must or should respect or recite the pledge of allegiance....as is common among the religious zealots of these times, hypocritical has become a brand name and association...lead by example...I do believe is also preached in the various versions of the Bible...and speak of the Bible...how can anyone stand up for a combination of stories and live their live according to it or even attempt to when the book itself has been corrupted by mankind.  I say corrupted becuase any scholar or expert in theology will tell you and back up the claims that the bible as we know it is not the original text nor verses, they have been edited throughout time to suit the religious leaders of the times...seriously for example let’s get off topic of patriotism and look at homosexuals… touchy subject I know and altohugh I don’t profess to know much bout someone that lives that life style, it suits my purposes for the demonstrations I make now.
NOWHERE in the Bibles original text does it speak of or state the word or term “homosexual” it was not a word that was used in the “time” of Christ.  It is a man made word that derives from a combination of latin and greek AND since the gay movements have become increasingly stronger in their quests for rights, it has become a rather hot topic and of course the religious evangelists want to condem them and say God hates them and man lay with man is a sin or men who act as women is a sin.... let’s get some context here… first while Jesus was roaming the country side preaching he was sent for by a servant to come to his masters (a Roman) house.  We know Romans were the enemy of the Jews and also disliked by Christ.  Jesus went with this servant because the servant said (according to recent King James version of the Bible) that a servant child was sick and dying.  Sound familar?  Well truth is in those times grown men tended to take young boys under their wings and teach them, train them and love them as was common in those times and within many cultures dominated by males that the older males tended to the younger males in rites of manhood etc, well this Roman’s “sick servant” was actually his young lover, again common in those times.  Jesus went witht he servant to enter to Roman’s house (also at this time it was forbidden for a Jew to enter a Roman’s house under penalty of death) the Roman soldier/politician greeted Jesus outside before he could enter and apologizes profusly for his ill manners in the way he sent for Jesus and through elequent words explains that he cannot allow Jesus in his home due to the law and humbles himself for forgivness to which Jesus acknowledges and praises thisRoman soldier tot he gathered crowd and says not even in Jeruselum has Jesus seen this earnest and humbleness from his own people and here is a Roman man who can do such, and Jesus cures this Romans young lover....hmmmm now why would Jesus do this is God condems gays?  Of course reading the King James version you no doubt get a different spin on the story, but of course if you did a little research you’d find out it’s a revised story to suit the needs of the church, who is against homosexuality (yet has more than it’s own share of it within the church) and let’s look at the fact that many tribes and societies and natives did indeed practice some type of what we would deem “homosexual” acts with the younger men.  Greeks were not the only ones and yet if anyone studied Greek history they would find that Greeks abhored anal sex and to do such would or could mean death.  But male to male relations were acceptable… Men who act as women the Bible states is a sin against God, most would beleive this to mean men who are gay, yet if you look and read the Bible thru “the eyes of a child” you will see it’s not confusing or contain “mysteries of the Bible” men who act like women would be men who engage in penatrating each other (men acting as women) and let’s not forget that women came after men, women were created from man, in particular Adam according to the Bible, within man there has always been wo-man, thru God’ intervention of course.  Scientifically the male is the one who determines the sex of a child.  Why?  Because MAN has it within him both sex chromosones, and women do not.  I could go on and on with other examples of how this world is so distorted in it’s belief structure and how naive people are in these times and how hateful they are to each other yet will show up for church on sunday appearing sqeaky clean...living their double lives...I say anyone who can point a finger at another or anyone who tries to speak on behalf of God or state as a fact God is against this or that group or this or that faith or this or that belief or condemn somoene for standing up for what they believe, those persons are sadly wrong and not worth the effort it would take to make them see, they are no better or worse and certainly in no position to pass judgement on another.  And as I’ve shown in this statement, I don’t attack anyone or any type of person...I do focus on religion and the religious leaders who claim to speak on behalf of God or the like… and maintain hurtful attitudes towards others, I just state what they have plainly done as fact as it is indeed fact and again if more people took the time to research and earnestly want to learn and/or look for answers, all they have to do is open their eyes, it’s as simple as being a child...and isn’t that what we all are...children of God?  also, quick note...I’ve said it before but will say it again I’m not religious, so it can’t be said I have a agenda

This suit goes too far. I live in Abilene, TX and I know the people here. Granted, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to say the pledge but to ask for anything more is just too much at this point. Again, granted, our motto should be changed back to “E Pluribus Unum” as opposed to “In God We Trust”, and the pledge should also be recited in its original form WITHOUT “Under God”, but seriously, these people need to take things one step at a time.

You need to check out http://www.givetexasback.com