The United States of the Offended

the founding fathers of this country were raised under the higher power of god. it may not be the specific religion but it is still god. i say all the people that are getting offended and don't like the way the U.S.A. does things then get the F$#@K OUT. my great grand father fought in WW I, my grand father fought in WW II, my father in vietnam all for the freedom of this country. our problem in this country is that all the rights activists are getting offended. well i say tooooo bad. if its better some where else then go there or other wise shut the F$#@K UP.

 

Ahhh, a citizen exercising his right to free speech. Makes me proud to live in this county. I think I'll say the pre-1954 Pledge of Allegiance.

 

Dear Snuzzy,

If you were not a complete ass and able to read beyond what initially made you hate me, you'd see soon after that post that the entire paragraph was devoted to getting a rise out of Zeb. He and I had a good laugh at it, and have set a time and a place to have a beer and a laugh.

You are not invited to the party

BTW-calling you an ass was not a shot at you not being Christian, it was a shot at you being an ass. no place in any of my comments did I condem anyone for their beliefs, hell, I even gave props to my Buddist buddy. I'm doubtful you'll find a more tolerant man than me.

 

Brian, the USA is, theoretically, a democracy. What that means in short is that the democracy's constituents get to make up the nature of the democracy. You with me so far? That means that you, me, the tree-huggers, and the right to lifers all get to make up the nature of the democracy called the USA.

Therefore, when you want something changed in a democracy, you don't move to another country. You vote, protest, march, picket, and otherwise make your voice heard. Another way of categorizing the above activities is called The Rights and Responsibilities of a Citizen.

I respectfully suggest that the people that you were poo-pooing are actually the best example of citizens in a democracy. It takes effort to get off one's butt and go out and take a stand. Of course folks that are happy with the status quo are within their rights to take a break. I don't want to suggest that only a protesting citizen is a good citizen. However, I will state that protestors are good for this nation.

Finally, if you don't already, I recommend that you take the time to listen to some of those wacky protestors. Chances are they have information and perspective that you don't. Even if you end up not agreeing with them, your life will be enriched by having listen and considered.

thane

 

But technically, a Republic.

 

Yep, as was so impressively demonstrated in this most recent presidential election.

thane

 

I'm not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express

OK, IIRC the legal argument against including "under God" was that it violates our Constitutional First Amendment Rights.

The First Amendment:
"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 purpose of the first amendment is to keep the government out of religion, not religion out of the government. In this case, no law has been made establishing a Federal Religion. I submit that the mere recognition of God in the Pledge of Allegiance is a far cry from the establishment of a Federally mandated religion.

Furthermore, no law has been made requiring all students to recite the Pledge verbatim. Each student has the right to either participate or not in reciting the Pledge. If the student is required to recite the Pledge, that is school policy NOT law.

As an aside, minors are NOT citizens and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as citizens.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not present in the Constitution. A little history...

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut.

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. "

taken from http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

This phrase was used by Jefferson to help define the parameters of the First Amendment. It is NOT the First Ammendment itself.

So, the Pledge of Allegiance is not a law establishing a religion of any sort and is not in vioaltion of the Constitution. Furthermore, it is our right as protected by the First Amendment to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with or without the phrase "under God". And lastly, there is no law forcing any of us to recite the Pledge at all. Considering all of this, how the hell did it get this far anyway?

 

Wow, that was great. Thanks, Greg.

There are rules by which we live, of which we are not necessarily conscious. Your analysis of why God is not necessarily excluded from govt. is an excellent one. However, it gives the lie to a state that prides itself on inclusiveness. The rule that we of the Judeo-Christian root live by without conscious consideration, for the most part, is that a monotheistic sense of a higher power covers all religion. However, monotheism does not cover all religion, or the beliefs of all of our citizens.

I know I'm splitting hairs, and that for the legal issue what I'm stating isn't relevant. However, I think that if we're to truly be inclusive as a nation, we are better to leave God, god, or gods out of government. True, God covers most of us, but not all of us. The government needs to cover all of us; that's in the constitution too somewhere.

My humble two pennys.

thane

 

The government needs to cover all of us; that's in the constitution too somewhere.


Wait, is "of the people, by the people, for the people" in the constitution or in the declaration of independence? Now I can't remember. Oh well, you get the idea.

thane

 

Article XIV addresses jurisdiction or "coverage" if you will.

Was it not stated earlier in this thread that we live in a Republic? In that case, the government is within its rights to establish policies as drafted and voted on by our representatives. Our representatives will reflect the makeup of society. The fact that we are a mostly Christian or at least Western society is reflected in whom we choose to represent us.

If you want "God" removed from our politics, then be the one to run a campaign and get elected to office. Find like minded individuals that support you and recruit new ones based on the soundness of your platform. Lawsuits are one form to bring attention to your cause, but don't expect them to substitute for lawmaking by our represented officials.

Until the tide turns, "God" will be in our pledges and mottos. Go forth and be part of the tide.

 

That government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.—Abraham Lincoln: Speech at Gettysburg, Nov. 19, 1863

 

Fortunately, our form of government does *NOT* allow the "majority" to vote to do something that infringes on the rights of the "minority". So, it's not necessary to run a campaign based on removing God from politics.

 

Greg, as the NRA will no doubt tell you. Isn't the constitution the 'supreme' law in the US?? If so, then according to the 9th district court, the government is violating the law. Its not a matter of removing God from politics, he was never there in the first place!

If you want something changed, change the Constitution.

 

It could be said that the Constitution is " the supreme law". But consider what the Constitution is. The majority of the Constitution guides how the government will operate and is designed to limit its authority. The Amendments clearly state the limits to which the Federal government can make law.

The NRA has no bearing on this particular argument.

Yes, according to the 9th district court, the government is violating the law. Does that make it right? Somebody selected this judge for a reason. I cannot say for certain that the reason was to promote a less literal interpretation of the Constitution, but I imagine it was.

I have my opinion. The judge has his. Mine is based on a literal translation of the First Amendment based on teh premise that the writers of that Amendment were not opposed to God in government (as supported by the writings of Thomas Jefferson). The judge's opinion is based on his experience. The difference is that the judge has authority and I don't.

 

Well, um, almost.

We vote for our elected representatives. Our elected representatives make laws. During enforcement of these laws, someone may believe it to be unconstitutional and bring forth a lawsuit (our right to redress a grievance) where our judicial system determines if it is unconstitutional or not.

The Constitution does not protect the rights of the minority. It protects the rights of the citizens. Federal legislation protects the rights of the minority.

 

Please note my use of quotes ("majority"). I was refering to a post that implied Christians were a "majority" in America. That sort of implies that others are a "minority". Fortunately, it doesn't work like that, my rights cannot be abrogated by any "majority".

 

my original post was never directed to anyone only general statements on how i feel. if i offended anyone that was not the intention nor do i really give a F$#K that i did. you are correct in stating that EVERYONE has an opinion. my opinion is that we live in the greatest country in the world and that there have been many lives shed to make it that way. this country has made it as far as it has based on how it was created. the people that do not like the way we do things over here are more than welcome to voice thier opinion. how we do things over here is the way we do things. don't ask me to change because your feelings get hurt. god i can go on and on of how i feel but theres no use because the things taught to children today are not the way it was taught years ago. today a 14 year old child can cuss his mother out and good old dad can't beat his ass without going to jail. its called respect and it starts at home. i hope we can keep racing, because it offends a lot of people and it causes our helth insurance to be higher just ask the activists. by the way the owner of putnam paid for that property and he should be aloud to do whatever he wants, short of destoying the land. people can't camp and you can't ride bikes after 6pm because the neighbors got offended. boo hoo hoo. isn't that just great we live in a free country but other people get to tell me what i can say what i can do and where i can do it. free huh.

 

Right on Racedad, America is not a democracy even though most people think it is. I get a kick out listening to people from other countries talk about how free we think we are vs how free other countries really are. You think you're free but your really aren't.

 

here's the deal! {and i'll be eloquent} just because you can, doesn't mean you should. do you REALLY thinks this asshole's daughter was traumatized? no, but he saw a way to cause turbulence and did. millions were wasted for nothing. i say fuck him he's an asshole. so was shannon faulkner. if she were my daughter i would tell her not to come out of the citidel unless she were graduating, or dead. fuck any of you assholes who would support this kind of shit. you probably all live at ERIC's house.

 

According to what I heard on the news this morning, that's EXACTLY what this clown is going to file suit against next. They also mentioned his getting a bodyguard or something like that. Seems that he's getting a lot of threats lately.

Johnny B. (the other one)
"God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!"