Born and raised in South Georgia.
Never, ever, heard that the Confederate Flag represented anything except the Confederate Soldiers that fought and died in the Civil War. Nothing racist was ever mentioned concerning the flag.

My whole family is from Kentucky, and I visited there twice, and I saw a KKK group with confederate flags flying around them. It represents the soldiers that died, for preserving racism, slavery and hatred of other races besides their own.

Originally posted by Overdose
My whole family is from Kentucky, and I visited there twice, and I saw a KKK group with confederate flags flying around them. It represents the soldiers that died, for preserving racism, slavery and hatred of other races besides their own.
Civil War was over cotton, slavery was a product of that fight. Once again it was money. Cotton was king and if we remained seperate it would have taken a tax and trade base away from the USA. Not anything more than that.
The Stars and Bars was not created to promote slavery it was a flag of the states that wanted their own country. It is a take off of the US and British flags.

The Civil War was not over cotton. It was over the confederacy trying to break away from the union. The reasons for that included, that the confederacy wanted to keep slavery in their Government. While the Union wanted to get rid of slavery. The confederacy tried breaking away, and Lincoln fought to keep the union in tact, and in return we became a nation that did not have slavery.

That is why the civil war happened.

WRONG... Even Lincoln stated that the war was over the income from the cotton fields.
When the successionstarted it was over laws and wills being imposed and a higher tax alos. But when the Union decided to enforce a national identity it was over the income lost. Look it up, then let me know what you think.
Lincoln wrote many times that the belief in slavery was not one that was at issue but the need for the tax money from the cotton, he was not oppossed to slavery, reference personal writing of lincoln.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
It contains the word for a generis diety, not a God from a certain religion, much like the Declaration of Indepences ref. to The Creator. Generic.


but once again, not everyone beleives in god. it's not a given, faith in god is a personal opinion, and a religous decision one has to make. the governemnt has no reason to state that there is a god. once again, with the declaration of independence. it did not form our government, so it does noy effect the way our country functions. the constituion, which set the structuture for our governemnt, clearly states that church and state must be seperated. by stating that there is a god, and requiring schools children to affirm this everyday in school in connection with their devotion to this country is against the principal that governemnt should have npothing to do with religion.

quotes of the people we are saying didnt want God in our country;

Jefferson;



"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

* Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush (Sept. 23,1800)

can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.

* Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823)


Adams


“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]


“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”


"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798


“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]



Franklin

God grant that not only the love of liberty but a thorough knowledge of the rights of man may pervade all the nations of the earth, so that a philosopher may set his foot anywhere on its surface and say: This is my country.


I doubt anyone of these men would be offended or even support the removal of God from the pledge.
Everyone argues that Jefferson, Adams or Franklin would never support God in the pledge, some how I doubt that.

An interesting fact to me was that today when the President of Afgan spoke to the joint meeting of Congress that he finished with the phrase that may God bless both of our countries.

I've been on vacation since this decision came down so if I make points that have already been made then I apologize, but I have to address some of what I have read.

Beruit_Veteran, in one post you said the following:
I am tired of hearing, Oh it offends me... So you cant do it again. I am offended by the push to remove God from all aspects of this country.

So, when it is you who is offended, then its OK for you to want it to stop? This case was never about someone mentioning God, or praying in public, or putting a cross on their lawn. You can still be as religious as you want, you can have your kid pray all day and say the word "God" all he wants at school, as long as it does not interfere with the class. This case was about a PUBLIC SCHOOL leading a captive audience in a pledge that mentions "One nation under God" when their are parents who want to raise their child under a different belief system.

You also said:
If you believe in Allah or nothing then change the words to match you views but do not force your views upon me.

If removing the word "God" is forcing a view upon you, then isn't the inclusiong of the word forcing it upon those who don't believe?

You also said:
But removing God from the pledge is a violation of my rights so how do we correct the problem?

Its not a violation of your rights!!!! Inserting the phrase "One nation where God does not exist" and forcing your child to sit through it every day would violate your rights, but not mentioning God would not violate them.


I agree with the Supreme Court's decision only based on the fact that the father did not have full custody, but if he did have full custody, then the court should have ruled in his favor. One judge said something like "Mr Newdow does not have the right to protect his child from hearing the phrase 'Under God' while in public". That opinion is not related to this case whatsoever. Again, people keep making the mistake of thinking that this case was about Mr Newdow not wanting anyone to mention the word "God" around his daughter. It was about a public school led pledge...different issue, and he does have the right to protect against that.

Very well put, dna...:flowers:

I agree with this vile pagan, that was a great post, dnamertz. :thumbs:

Originally posted by Embyr
I agree with this vile pagan, that was a great post, dnamertz. :thumbs:
Dna I am sorry but if this goes back to the same court I am sure they will rule in favor of keeping it the way it is, I refer you to the opinions written by Renquist, He states that the first amendment does not apply because the pledge is not a prayer, neither does it represent a religion but only a diety of generic origins.
As for it not violating my rights you are wrong, I have the right to say under God in the pledge as much as you have a right to not say it.
I have offered compromises not because I think we need one but to appease those who are hell bent on removing God from every part of this country.

As for it not violating my rights you are wrong, I have the right to say under God in the pledge as much as you have a right to not say it.
Yes, say it! Say God whenever you want...you can say one nation under french fries and chocolate cake for all I care...but in the official version, recited by millions of school-aged children every school day...THE STATE SHOULD NOT SHOW PREFERENCE TO ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER. No one's trying to stop you from saying that, we're trying to get it out of the state-sponsored version of it.

Borg in the recent Supreme Court opinion Renquist wrote that the pledge showed no preference to one religion over another. Even though they passed on the actual decision three of the 5 present said it was not a first amendment case. SO if it goes back it may get the same treatment.
Renquist also said it was not a prayer and even compared it to the small blessing the court says everyday.

Beruit Veteran wrote:
As for it not violating my rights you are wrong, I have the right to say under God in the pledge as much as you have a right to not say it.

Actualy, you are wrong. As BorgHunter said, we are not talking about preventing you from saying "under God", we are talking about not having it in a public school led pledge that includes kids of many different beliefs. Or are you telling me that you want someone else's religious beliefs drummed into your child's head every day by the public schools?

If a word not being spoken in a public shool pledge means your right to say that word is being violated, then there are about a thousand words you should be complaining about not having the right to say because they are not included in the pledge. So, you would still have the right to say "under God" whenever you want....thats a fact.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Beruit Veteran wrote:


Actualy, you are wrong. As BorgHunter said, we are not talking about preventing you from saying "under God", we are talking about not having it in a public school led pledge that includes kids of many different beliefs. Or are you telling me that you want someone else's religious beliefs drummed into your child's head every day by the public schools?

If a word not being spoken in a public shool pledge means your right to say that word is being violated, then there are about a thousand words you should be complaining about not having the right to say because they are not included in the pledge. So, you would still have the right to say "under God" whenever you want....thats a fact.
Actually you are wrong and here are the opinions of our judges and agencies.


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.

When everyone quotes the first amendment they seem to forget these words, now I would like to explain theirrelevance to my argument.
If a law is passed that Under God must be removed from the pledge or Supreme Court ruling then you are prohibiting my free exercise and abridging my right to free speech. I will explain further, if the words are their then you have the right to not say them as it is not a law to even say the pledge, but if it removed by law or proclamtaion then it could be illegal to say them in a school environment or public setting. In school in the early 70's it was an offense to pray loudly in the lunchroom. so freedom was violated.

Now if you look up court decisions based on these rights you will find not only religious rulings but of course the right to burn the flag ruling. That ruling was the correct one because it allowed it to happen but you didnt have to, if you wanted to you could.
By allowing the words to remain it allows choice without government interference if removed then it doesnt allow freedom.

If you look at the following freedoms set forth by another supreme court decision you will find other evidence.


* Every person has the right to determine his or her own faith and creed according to conscience.
* Every person has the right to the privacy of his belief, to express his religious beliefs in worship, teaching, and practice, and to proclaim the implications of his beliefs for relationships in a social or political community.
* Every person has the right to associate with others and to organize with them for religious purposes.
* Every religious organization, formed or maintained by action in accordance with the rights of individual persons, has the right to determine its policies and practices for the accomplishment of its chosen purposes, which implies the right:
o to assemble for unhindered private or public worship
o to formulate its own creed
o to have an adequate ministry
o to determine its conditions of membership
o to give religious instruction to its youth, including preparation for ministry
o to preach its message publicly
o to receive into its membership those who desire to join it
o to carry on social services and to engage in missionary activity both at home and abroad
o to organize local congregations
o to publish and circulate religious literature
o to control the means necessary to its mission and to secure support for its work at home and abroad
o to cooperate and to unite with other believers at home and abroad
o to use the language of the people in worship and in religious instruction
o to determine freely the qualifications for professional leadership of religious communities, freely naming their religious leaders at all levels and designating their work assignments.


These alone allow for the words to remain, and again look at the post where I quoted the recent opinions by the judges present.

You have the right to not say under god, or say under buddah if you want but to take away the right to say under God is a violation according to most of the courst in the US.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
I have offered compromises not because I think we need one but to appease those who are hell bent on removing God from every part of this country.

I didn't see any compromises. You just basically said that if people want to say God, they can, and that if people don't, they shouldn't have to. Or something to that effect, correct (excuse me for being too sleepy to look through *all* of the replies :D)? But what would the official pledge read like?

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, [insert deity if need be, here], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

If a law is passed that Under God must be removed from the pledge or Supreme Court ruling then you are prohibiting my free exercise and abridging my right to free speech.
Bullshit. You do realize your rights end where another's begin? The way you are stating it is that one group gets an infintasmly large number of rights and the other groups can't get as many because their rights will be abridging on the first groups. That is wrong. So, you know what. Fuck that right. Fine, we will be abridging on your rights. Rights that you do not deserve to have.

By allowing the words to remain it allows choice without government interference if removed then it doesnt allow freedom.
No, it doesn't. Children will be taught the pledge. The one that we see now. What, do you want a teacher to say to the class "Okay class, who is not christian, okay go over there" and say the pledge a few different times? That would not only be a waste of time, but it would alienate the children, depending on which faith is most prevelant in the region. Removing god removes the problem. Sure, say the original pledge if you want to. But the one that will be taught to impressionable children will not have any sort of religion in it.

You have the right to not say under god, or say under buddah if you want but to take away the right to say under God is a violation according to most of the courst in the US.
We aren't taking way your right to say under god. We are changing the national pledge to not say it. We are removing religion out of something that is said every day in our schools. You can pray, say god if you fucking want to. But not if it bothers me, or you better expect me to argue back, loudly.

Beirut, you've consistently ignored the issue brought up by this case.

The issue isn't whether you have the right to say "under God", or whether I have the right not to say it. We both enjoy those rights, and we should both enjoy those rights.

Now pay attention here.

The issue is whether agents of the state should be teaching public shool children that God exists, and that the U.S. is subservient to God.

If that's what you believe, and you want that taught to your children, then you should send them to private school, or take them to church.

Now, do you have any arguments to make that will show that the state has the right to teach children that God exists?

Not to worry vilepagan, I believe that you and others will get your wishes. America will probably become a godless society.
Even more will greed and the respect of others wishes become less important. The rules of the game will change.
A citizen that can no longer feed the machinery of a dry government will be of no use.
Why did we even bother to fight communism, nazism, or any other godless movement. Since their ideals will eventually prevail.
I remember when a Russian Prime Minister said "we will bury you without firing a shot". Well I see the beginnings. First attack the beliefs of the citizens of a country, the beliefs that saw it through tough times. Second,make them believe that the government is in complete control of their destiny. Third, the end.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Not to worry vilepagan, I believe that you and others will get your wishes. America will probably become a godless society.
Even more will greed and the respect of others wishes become less important. The rules of the game will change.
A citizen that can no longer feed the machinery of a dry government will be of no use.
Why did we even bother to fight communism, nazism, or any other godless movement. Since their ideals will eventually prevail.
I remember when a Russian Prime Minister said "we will bury you without firing a shot". Well I see the beginnings. First attack the beliefs of the citizens of a country, the beliefs that saw it through tough times. Second,make them believe that the government is in complete control of their destiny. Third, the end.
Slippery slope...

We could always elect Pat Robertson as President. Would that be better? You'll get your god in government.

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
Not to worry vilepagan, I believe that you and others will get your wishes. America will probably become a godless society.


With all due respect Dan, I never said that I wished for a godless society, only a godless government. This is also what the people who wrote the Constitution wanted. Now maybe you can't, or wont, see the difference, but I can, and I do. You are welcome to believe in, and worship, whatever deity you wish, but the government of this country should stay out of it.

Why did we even bother to fight communism, nazism, or any other godless movement.


It certainly wasn't because they were "godless". For the record Dan, the Nazi's didn't prevent their members from attending church, so I have no idea why you refer to them as "godless". Evil perhaps, godless... no.

Since their ideals will eventually prevail.


If you believe that the Nazi's or the Communists are going to prevail, I think you are dead wrong.


Well I see the beginnings. First attack the beliefs of the citizens of a country, the beliefs that saw it through tough times. Second,make them believe that the government is in complete control of their destiny. Third, the end.

What beliefs are you talking about Dan?

The belief that God is in charge of this country?

Do you believe that God likes Americans more than he likes anyone else?

Perhaps you believe in God, and that belief has sustained you, and others, through tough times, but please don't be so arrogant as to assume that all Americans share those beliefs. Some of us are just as sustained by the belief that this country was founded by enlightened men who saw the danger of government meddling in religious matters, and we believe that eventually we will arrive at a point where the government no longer feels it neccessary to indoctrinate our children into a belief system that we do not share.

I hope I am dead wrong. But, I believe some of the young ones on the forum will live to see what I predict.

Vile, I did not mean to put words in your mouth about a godless society. And no I do not want Pat Robertson as President, that would get into man's religion. As stated before I believe that a belief in a higher power does not have anything to do with man's religion.
I am part of no organized religion. Yet, I have a belief in a higher power due to events that I personally have witnessed.

I just wanted to make a point of what I believe will happen to this great country in the future. I will not see it. So I guess maybe I should not worry about it. I think it is unchangeable with present attitudes.

Quote by Beruit:
If a law is passed that Under God must be removed from the pledge or Supreme Court ruling then you are prohibiting my free exercise and abridging my right to free speech.

BV, I hate to have us keep going back and forth saying each other is wrong, but not having "Under God" in the pledge does NOT prohibit your right to say the words, it just means they are not a part of the pledge, just like the thousands of other words that aren't included in the pledge...that isn't taking away your right to say those words. For example, the word "burrito" is not in the pledge, does that mean my rights to say "burrito" is being infringed?

You actually contradict your point when you said "You have the right to not say under god, or say under buddah if you want". Now wait a minute BV, if the word "buddah" is not part of the pledge then, according to you, a person does not have the right to say "buddah" while reciting the pledge. So, how could people say their own version?

I'm not necessarily arguing that the phrase is violating any law, but it is inapporpriate in a public school. Having a teacher lead the class every day in a pledge that says we are "one nation under God" goes against the way some people want to raise their kids. On the other side, having a teacher lead the class every day in a pledge that says we are "one nation under atheism" would go against the way other parents want to raise their kids. So, the compromise would be to just not have a mention of what type of supreme being (or not) we are part of in a publice school. Leave that teaching to the individual parents.

If it was not abridging anyone's rights to change the pledge in 1954, then its not abridging anyone's right to change it now.

Yes it does mean I cant say burrito in the pledge.
If the words are removed by creating a law then it would be a violation of that law to say Under God while reciting the pledge. But by leaving the words by you or anyone else it is not a violation because you have that right.
I hope you see the difference.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Yes it does mean I cant say burrito in the pledge.
If the words are removed by creating a law then it would be a violation of that law to say Under God while reciting the pledge. But by leaving the words by you or anyone else it is not a violation because you have that right.
I hope you see the difference.
You're assuming the language of such a law would ban saying "under God" in the Pledge. Obviously, if such a law passed, it would be in violation of the First Amendment. I'm not advocating that. Perhaps the law would simply say, "The official version of the Pledge of Allegiance is amended to read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'"

Excellent point Borg. I think Beruit_Veteran is looking at this as if anyone who spoke the words "under God" while saying the pledge would be fined or arrested. We are not talking about that, we are talking about an official version of the pledge, the same way we had an official version before 1954 and then it was changed to a different version by adding "under God". That didn't mean that any other words spoken while reciting the pledge were a violation of the law.

Yes it does mean I cant say burrito in the pledge.

If you still think the omission of the word "burrito" would mean that you could not say "burrito" in the pledge, then explain why you tell people to subsitute "Allah" (or whoever there supreme being is) when they say the pledge. The fact that Allah is not officially in the pledge would meant that no one could say Allah while reciting the pledge...right????

Because at this point it is not a law and of course a substitution would not be a problem.
Borg what did we do with the other big 1st ruling? I am speaking of the right to burn the flag as expression?
That could also happen here, and it would be a violation.

Vile to answer your question;
I see the argument that by saying the pledge is teaching children about God as mere semantics.
If that is teaching then putting up pictures of Santa and asking children what they want Santa to bring them is also teaching about a mythical being. But of course saying "One Nation Under God"
Is much quicker and less intrusive than the above. But I have not seen a Supreme Court case to stop this behavior, or the pictures of the Easter Bunny and even the teaching of the Gods of Greek and Roman mythology.
Why do we attck the use of God in the pledge? I am not sure we dont attack the above mythical beings but we attack a being that is believed in by large numbers of people across the world.
If we want to say that we are being controlled by the use of God in the pledge its not working.

Also here are some number reflecting the number of people who believe in God ion this and other countries;


1. USA 224,457,000 85%
2 Brazil 139,000,000 93%
3 Mexico 86,120,000 99%
4 Russia 80,000,000 60%
5 China 70,000,000 5.7%
6 Germany 67,000,000 83%
7 Philippines 63,470,000 93%
8 United Kingdom 51,060,000 88%
9 Italy 47,690,000 90%
10 France 44,150,000 98%
11 Nigeria 38,180,000 45%

I dont see a problem with my definition early when I said over ruling the majority in favor of a minority.

.Because at this point it is not a law and of course a substitution would not be a problem.

Then you agree with me. I am not saying make it a law...just substituted "under God" out the same way it was substituted in 50 years ago. Thats the nuetral compromise...there would be nothing pro-religious or anti-religious about it.

Why do we attck the use of God in the pledge?

Because raising your child to believe in a religion, or a God, or that a God does not exist, is a VERY personal thing and because it is being recited daily by children in public schools when some parents want to teach their kids otherwise. The same reason many would be attacking the pledge if it included the phrase "God does not exist"...becuase it goes against the way they want to raise their children.

Get it out of the public schools and I could care less whether it say "under God" or not. I'll teach my child that God is not real and you teach your child whatever you want...have him/her say the pledge every morning before school if you want, but keep it out of the public schools.

You guys are going to inherit a system that has worked for many years as it stands. It has given you the freedoms you enjoy today because it is what it is.
Change this, change that, soon you have another system that might not work as well.

Remember: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Originally posted by Dan Fussell
You guys are going to inherit a system that has worked for many years as it stands. It has given you the freedoms you enjoy today because it is what it is.
Change this, change that, soon you have another system that might not work as well.

Remember: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
It wasn't broken in 1953 when they added "under God" in the first place...it would seem that America has not fallen since.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran

Vile to answer your question;
I see the argument that by saying the pledge is teaching children about God as mere semantics.
If that is teaching then putting up pictures of Santa and asking children what they want Santa to bring them is also teaching about a mythical being. But of course saying "One Nation Under God"
Is much quicker and less intrusive than the above. But I have not seen a Supreme Court case to stop this behavior, or the pictures of the Easter Bunny and even the teaching of the Gods of Greek and Roman mythology.
Why do we attck the use of God in the pledge? I am not sure we dont attack the above mythical beings but we attack a being that is believed in by large numbers of people across the world.
If we want to say that we are being controlled by the use of God in the pledge its not working.

The difference between how we teach our children about the Greek and Roman Gods, and teaching them to recite the words "under God" in the pledge is obvious Beirut.

You said it yourself, we teach them that the Greek and Roman gods, and indeed Santa and the Easter Bunny, are mythical, yet we attach no such adjective to the deity enshrined in our own superstition.

The problem here Beirut, is that you are using your personal beliefs as a barometer of what's right for everyone. You may believe it's right to teach children that God exists, but there are plenty of people who do not agree, and it's arrogant in the extreme to assume that your beliefs should take precedence.

I know this question has been asked before, and I doubt you'll answer, but would you feel the same about a reference to a deity you didn't personally believe in, if it were inserted into the Pledge?

BV: are you saying that if 85% of the country didn't beleive in god it would be ok for it to be taken out of the pledge?

I have never maet a teacher who has told their class that Santa is not real, so we dont teach them he is mythical. Teachers spend more time talking about his role in Christmas than we do on the one half of a line in the pledge.
No dna taking it out is not a neutral pledge and no you shouldnt teach your children anything about God. I never have taken my to churcg, told them how I feel unless asked and all of them have been members of churches or currently attend now.
SO I see you telling your child that their is no God as interfering with their freedom to choose on their own.
I only answer my kids questions on al subjects, I have never forced a view upon them.
I asked friends of my youngest to recite the pledge and most didnt even know it. Much less that God was in it. I think that we are making to big a deal of one word in the pledge when this country is faced with its biggest challenge ever.
Now may not be a good time to take God from our lives.

No dna taking it out is not a neutral pledge and no you shouldnt teach your children anything about God. I never have taken my to churcg, told them how I feel unless asked and all of them have been members of churches or currently attend now.

B_V, there is so much wrong with this quote that I MUST reply to it.

First, If you are going to say "taking God out of the pledge is not neutral" please give an explaination. I've explained how it is neutral...its just a non-mention of a supreme being. Its not saying we ARE a nation under God and its not saying we AREN'T.

Second, are you serious when you said "you shouldnt teach your children anything about God"???? I'm all for letting them decide, but I WILL tell my own child what I believe to be the truth especially before the public school does. If you don't think the parents should be teaching their children about God, then you should have a HUGE problem with the school doing it...they are your kids, not the school's.