God Lives On (or as MHopkins2 says...hookairs.)

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by KristaTX
I am a faithful Christian. But what if one day the Judeo-Christian religion is no longer the religious system of the majority of Americans? Do you want your grandchildren to have to recite "one nation, under [insert god of the new majority religion or belief system here]"? Or to have writings from that religion posted in their schools and other public facilities? I am not arguing, but it is definitely something to consider.

ITA

Our constitution establises a democratic republic with the purpose of protecting the individual from mob rule.

As for this specific case, this is essentially a custody dispute. The mother wants the daughter to be a christian, the father does not. They should have, perhaps, thought of that before they had a baby together.

No doubt some atheist parents who DO have custody of their child will eventually get this issue back before the supreme court at which time they will have to address the issue instead of skirting it on a technicality.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Our constitution establises a democratic republic with the purpose of protecting the individual from mob rule.

Yep. Of course, I don't think that most reasonable people would consider hearing the word "God" to be mob rule. If kids were forced to say the pledge, or were forced to say "under God" in public schools, I'd be the first one in line opposing it. But of course, that isn't the case. Anyone that doesn't want to say it doesn't have to, and I'm hard pressed to believe that simply hearing someone else say the word "God" is the equivalent of "mob rule".

 

[jennyanydots]

Frankly, although I agree with the court that the father in this case lacked the ability to sue, I would have liked to have seen tha majority address the issue and indicate how they might rule in the future. The minority did that in their opinion.

This father was grandstanding to gain an advantage in a custody dispute. He filed the case precisely because he wanted to get under the mother's skin.

But we all know the issue will be back.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
Yep. Of course, I don't think that most reasonable people would consider hearing the word "God" to be mob rule. If kids were forced to say the pledge, or were forced to say "under God" in public schools, I'd be the first one in line opposing it. But of course, that isn't the case. Anyone that doesn't want to say it doesn't have to, and I'm hard pressed to believe that simply hearing someone else say the word "God" is the equivalent of "mob rule".

Of course, I was not implying that it was. Personally, I find the "controversy" over the pledge the definition of silly.

 

[Dan Murphy]

Good news

 

[Larry]

From what I have heard of this case is that some time after having the little one, the mother had accepted Christ as her savior and is now a Sunday School teacher for Calvary Chapel where the daughter also attends willingly and you know what, I hear she even prays on her own….Can you believe that?

A quick joke,

What's the difference between an Environmentalist and a Developer?


....The Environmentalist already owns a house in the forest.
( no flames, it was an environmentalist friend who told it to me )

 

[helenabear]

I have to admit I am upset that it was dismissed due to the "technicalities" of the custody situation. I am a Christian who truly believes in God, however I do *not* think that "under God" belongs in our Pledge. It wasn't added until the 50s so why keep it there? This nation was founded by those avoiding religious persecution... funny we can't seem to keep God out of it when others may or may not believe (or have another name for a higher being like God).

KristaTX, you have a very valid point. I wonder if many would fight if it said One Nation under Allah (or whomever)... definitely *is* something to consider.

 

[jimmytammy]

Im with Dan, that is good news!

Dont mean to preach to anyone here, just throwing in my 2 cents.

We are founded on basic principles and our laws are surrounded by laws given by one far greater than ourselves.

Those laws are the 10 commandments. Argue the point all you want but here is the simplicity of it....If I had my wallet stolen by an atheist and knew this person stole it, is it right of me to go back and steal his wallet. What if I told him I was going to steal his wallet. What would be his response? Oh no, you cant do that, thats wrong. Well that robber is right stealing is wrong.

And therin lies a real simple way to look at the laws we are truly governed by. Gods law. Whether you believe He exists or not, you still live within His law. Do we truly live within His law? No. Are we capable of living within those commandments? Again, no. Adultry, stealing, killing....etc. It goes on all the time.

We are human. We fall way short of His glory and majesty. But He loves us, Christians, atheists, all religous backgrounds. Thats why He sent His Son to pay the price for all to have a way to get to Him.

And He still loves the man who tried to get His name wiped out of our allegiance.

The bottom line is you dont really get it til you get Him in your heart. Then it all makes sense.

Once again, sorry for the preaching, not sorry for what has to be said. But no problems here, I already have my flameproof protection

 

[ErikdaRed]

The codes of law can just as easily be traced to other ancient codes of law, such as The Code of Hammurabi.

As far as "under God" in the pledge. I feel that it constitutes a prayer, which has no place in our schools.

And, the problem with the "just don't say it" argument is that it only serves to single out the child, which anyone that has survived grade school knows could possibly lead to bullying.

There is no reason to "fight" the cold war against the "godless" communists through our children at school anymore. (Not that I think there ever was).

 

[caitycaity]

but if Newdow wins legal custody of his daughter in the California courts, we will probably see this argued before the U.S. Supreme Court once again.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by ErikdaRed
The codes of law can just as easily be traced to other ancient codes of law, such as The Code of Hammurabi.

As far as "under God" in the pledge. I feel that it constitutes a prayer, which has no place in our schools.

And, the problem with the "just don't say it" argument is that it only serves to single out the child, which anyone that has survived grade school knows could possibly lead to bullying.

There is no reason to "fight" the cold war against the "godless" communists through our children at school anymore. (Not that I think there ever was).

I agree with this. The U.S. is not a theocracy, never was, never will be.

I am not sure that the words "under God" constitute a prayer per se, but it's obvious why they were added to a secular pledge in the '50's. It was a sad, knee-jerk reaction then and it remains in the pledge because millions of baby-boomers grew up with it that way and don't know the pledge existed without it.

We are not a nation "under God", under Allah, under Buddha, under anything or any one. Maybe it's time to let go of this tradition and respect the Constitutional freedom of religion guaranteed to every American -- whether or not they agree with you (the generic "you").

 

[Deb in IA]

So, do you also carry US currency in your wallet? Do you use it to buy goods?

Do you know that it says "In God We Trust"?

 

[Eeyore1954]

*SIGH* And having this phrase on the currency makes the U.S. a Christian nation? Maybe you could explain how a country can be a Christian?

Just because a phrase is on the currency doesn't mean everyone does it. A fluke of fate and it could just as easily say "In Allah We Trust" or something else.

Maybe there's a better argument out there?

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
*SIGH* And having this phrase on the currency makes the U.S. a Christian nation?

I'm not saying that this makes us a Christian nation. I am just asking what is the difference between the currency stating "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance declaring "One Nation, Under God"?

 

[caitycaity]

I am just asking what is the difference between the currency stating "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance declaring "One Nation, Under God"?

i don't think anyone is saying there is a difference. if there was a difference it would be the fact that as a child you must say the pledge every day in school though (in my school anyways).

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by jimmytammy
Im with Dan, that is good news!

Dont mean to preach to anyone here, just throwing in my 2 cents.

We are founded on basic principles and our laws are surrounded by laws given by one far greater than ourselves.

Those laws are the 10 commandments. Argue the point all you want but here is the simplicity of it....If I had my wallet stolen by an atheist and knew this person stole it, is it right of me to go back and steal his wallet. What if I told him I was going to steal his wallet. What would be his response? Oh no, you cant do that, thats wrong. Well that robber is right stealing is wrong.

And therin lies a real simple way to look at the laws we are truly governed by. Gods law. Whether you believe He exists or not, you still live within His law. Do we truly live within His law? No. Are we capable of living within those commandments? Again, no. Adultry, stealing, killing....etc. It goes on all the time.

We are human. We fall way short of His glory and majesty. But He loves us, Christians, atheists, all religous backgrounds. Thats why He sent His Son to pay the price for all to have a way to get to Him.

And He still loves the man who tried to get His name wiped out of our allegiance.

The bottom line is you dont really get it til you get Him in your heart. Then it all makes sense.

Once again, sorry for the preaching, not sorry for what has to be said. But no problems here, I already have my flameproof protection

In a town not too far from me a controversy is being waged about removing the ten commandments from National Park grounds. The town members lost, and are they removing the ten commandments.

 

[Eeyore1954]

There is no difference. It is an unfortunate reality that

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957.

 

[Deb in IA]

Originally posted by caitycaity
i don't think anyone is saying there is a difference. if there was a difference it would be the fact that as a child you must say the pledge every day in school though (in my school anyways).

I believe most children are allowed to remain silent during the "under God" part of the pledge these days, if they desire, are they not?

 

[Eeyore1954]

As someone pointed out earlier, children may choose to remain silent during some or all of the pledge. However, given the nature of children, this often opens the children who choose to remain silent to verbal or even physical abuse/harassment.

We are not truly free until every American is able to exercise their choice or lack of choice of religion in every moment of their life. This includes children in school who may choose not to recite "under God" ... and who should be free to do so without fear of retribution from their classmates or worse, their teacher(s).

 

[MHopkins2]

You know what I find particularly amusing? The title of this thread. As if the JudeoChristian God were so weak that it would make one smidge of difference to Him whether or not His name were included in a flag recitation. Anyone else envisioning God rolling his eyes and saying, "hookaires?"