Pre-1950s Pledge of Allegiance

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
AF1

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I blame all this god nonsense on the Cold War. There was definetly a revitilazation movement during the 50's, and a lot of people clung onto it. They used god and said he was on the US side, to help battle the 'evil atheist communists.' This is very obvious as most other advanced nations are very secular, and unfortunately all the hardline christians think this is a christian nation.




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
When was the last time you heard of someone being arrested for not saying "under God"? The point being, people don't care if you say it or not.

On the other hand, if you are successful in having it removed from the pledge, I'm still gonna say "under God". What are you gonna do about it?

Somebody said here that there should be no mention of religion in public. There's another thread discussing the situation in Hamtramck, MI, where the noise zoning ordinances have been changed to allow a muslim call to prayer five times a day. That would make you against that ordinance, correct?




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I don't care if people keep saying it as long as it's not required by law to say it.

And actually, if the broadcast is coming from the church property, there is really no tangible evidence of religion in public. As long as it is simply a call to prayer and not an actual prayer, there is no religious favoritism. It is a reminder to muslims that is time to pray. It's target is only muslims. Things such as the 10 commandments in a courtroom or "under God" in the pledge target everyone that comes into contact with them.

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Well the other non-Muslims will have to hear it too - just like the non-Christians have to hear 'under God'. Uh oh ... they have become hypocrites.

[Edited on 5-1-04 by xenophanes85]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I don't care if people keep saying it as long as it's not required by law to say it.

And actually, if the broadcast is coming from the church property, there is really no tangible evidence of religion in public. As long as it is simply a call to prayer and not an actual prayer, there is no religious favoritism. It is a reminder to muslims that is time to pray. It's target is only muslims. Things such as the 10 commandments in a courtroom or "under God" in the pledge target everyone that comes into contact with them.

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]


I walk down a public street. I come into contact with the call to prayer five times a day, whether I want to or not. I'm not muslim.

What makes a call to prayer different that a prayer? Mention of God? Here's the call to prayer:

God is the greatest (repeated 4 times).
I testify that there is no deity but God (repeated 2 times).
I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger (repeated 2 times). Come to prayer (repeated 2 times).
Come to salvation (repeated 2 times).
God is the greatest (repeated 2 times).
There is no deity but God.

The one who performs this is called Muazzin (the Caller).

Is that a prayer or not? How does that work?




posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:12 PM
link   

I walk down a public street. I come into contact with the call to prayer five times a day, whether I want to or not. I'm not muslim.

What makes a call to prayer different that a prayer? Mention of God? Here's the call to prayer:

God is the greatest (repeated 4 times).
I testify that there is no deity but God (repeated 2 times).
I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger (repeated 2 times). Come to prayer (repeated 2 times).
Come to salvation (repeated 2 times).
God is the greatest (repeated 2 times).
There is no deity but God.

The one who performs this is called Muazzin (the Caller).

Is that a prayer or not? How does that work?




If that truly is what is announced over the loud speaker, I don't agree with it. The difference between something like this and the pledge, however, is that you do not have to respond to the call to prayer if those are not your beliefs. In the pledge you are required by law to say "under God." It's not a matter of being exposed to religion, it's a matter of being forced to advocate any form of religious belief regardless of your personal opinions.

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
It was changed durring the red scare. When some folks saw a commie spy around every corner, they decided to add "under God" to it to make your statement that much more powerful to people who believed in any God, and by putting your hand on your heart, it caused a psychological feeling in kids that made them take it that much more seriously.


There were actually more Soviet spooks than we most realized. They were pretty smart, too. They infiltrated our secondary schools in order to get in on the ground floor of society! AS a matter of fact, the University of Alabama was heavily influenced by them. They realized that UA was a good and also cheap school that many of the North Eastern families who couldn't afford Ivy League schools would use to train their children to be lawyers and the like. It was effective and even today the school is very left, putting out brainwashed pinko-followers every year. Pitty there ball team has been so good down through the years.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf

I walk down a public street. I come into contact with the call to prayer five times a day, whether I want to or not. I'm not muslim.

What makes a call to prayer different that a prayer? Mention of God? Here's the call to prayer:

God is the greatest (repeated 4 times).
I testify that there is no deity but God (repeated 2 times).
I testify that Muhammad is his Messenger (repeated 2 times). Come to prayer (repeated 2 times).
Come to salvation (repeated 2 times).
God is the greatest (repeated 2 times).
There is no deity but God.

The one who performs this is called Muazzin (the Caller).

Is that a prayer or not? How does that work?




If that truly is what is announced over the loud speaker, I don't agree with it. The difference between something like this and the pledge, however, is that you do not have to respond to the call to prayer if those are not your beliefs. In the pledge you are required by law to say "under God." It's not a matter of being exposed to religion, it's a matter of being forced to advocate any form of religious belief regardless of your personal opinions.[Edited on 1-5-2004 by Cutwolf]


There's a huge difference here. The debate is not whether a mosque calls it's faithful to prayer or whether a church rings its bells after a service. These are religious organizations and as such they should be able to perform their ceremonies as they see fit. This would including nativity displays, 10 commandments, etc. The problem only comes into play when the government endorses a specific religious belief or sect.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys


"There's a huge difference here. The debate is not whether a mosque calls it's faithful to prayer or whether a church rings its bells after a service. These are religious organizations and as such they should be able to perform their ceremonies as they see fit. This would including nativity displays, 10 commandments, etc. The problem only comes into play when the government endorses a specific religious belief or sect.





Well said Bleys, I agree with you that religious freedom is important and should be expressed, as long as it isn't endorsed by the govt.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

There were actually more Soviet spooks than we most realized. They were pretty smart, too. They infiltrated our secondary schools in order to get in on the ground floor of society! AS a matter of fact, the University of Alabama was heavily influenced by them. They realized that UA was a good and also cheap school that many of the North Eastern families who couldn't afford Ivy League schools would use to train their children to be lawyers and the like. It was effective and even today the school is very left, putting out brainwashed pinko-followers every year. Pitty there ball team has been so good down through the years.


Are you saying that putting "under god" in the Pledge was a response to Soviet spies enrolling their kids in Alabama?

I mean c'mon! I like the dems as much as you do, but please, this seems like reaching to me.

You didn't go to Auburn by chance?



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

There were actually more Soviet spooks than we most realized. They were pretty smart, too. They infiltrated our secondary schools in order to get in on the ground floor of society! AS a matter of fact, the University of Alabama was heavily influenced by them. They realized that UA was a good and also cheap school that many of the North Eastern families who couldn't afford Ivy League schools would use to train their children to be lawyers and the like. It was effective and even today the school is very left, putting out brainwashed pinko-followers every year. Pitty there ball team has been so good down through the years.


Dang, I haven't heard or read that. I agree with your conclusion in so far as schools being very left wing...but could you provide some kind os source backing up the "There were actually more Soviet spooks than we most realized. " statement? Not that I think you're a liar, but I want to deny ignorance like everyone else here and would like to cross-check those words



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 07:16 AM
link   
I understand, it blew me away when I learned of the Univ. of Alabama infiltration, too. Feel free to cross check my words.

Yes, "Under God" was added during the Cold War for that purpose, of placing emphasis on the fact that we are (were) a Christian nation in a struggle against an antiChrist government.

As far as whether it is a violation of the 1st amendment, assure you, it is not. The first amendment was not protecting the notion of a convoluted society or culture with more cracks and fissures in the social foundation that any nation could stand. It was insuring that no particular sect (The word for denomination back then) would be chosen by the government as the official religion. Could you imagine that? The second amendment would have been excercised right then and there! If the recognition of the Divine Creator was wrong and not what the Founding Fathers wanted, then they were in violation From the onset at teh Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson, the one people attempt to herald as the "Separation of Church and State" father, was wrong when he proposed the government spread the gospel to the savages, and was also in violation when he expected the students the U. of Virginia assemble at the church of their denomination each and every Sunday.

No, the 1st amendment's meaning has been warped and perverted, and by no accident. In order to destroy this nation, you have to distance it from that which made it a great nation.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

There's a huge difference here. The debate is not whether a mosque calls it's faithful to prayer or whether a church rings its bells after a service. These are religious organizations and as such they should be able to perform their ceremonies as they see fit. This would including nativity displays, 10 commandments, etc. The problem only comes into play when the government endorses a specific religious belief or sect.



That is exactly what requiring "under God" is doing. That is what displaying the 10 commandments in a courthouse is doing.

Requiring "under God" may not be promoting 1 specific religion, but it clearly promotes "God fearing" religions over religions such at paganism, buddhism, etc. It also promotes religion in general which atheists, when forced to say those 2 words, find offensive. Why should they have to advocate and spread a belief they do not believe in?



As far as whether it is a violation of the 1st amendment, assure you, it is not. The first amendment was not protecting the notion of a convoluted society or culture with more cracks and fissures in the social foundation that any nation could stand. It was insuring that no particular sect (The word for denomination back then) would be chosen by the government as the official religion. Could you imagine that? The second amendment would have been excercised right then and there! If the recognition of the Divine Creator was wrong and not what the Founding Fathers wanted, then they were in violation From the onset at teh Declaration of Independance. Thomas Jefferson, the one people attempt to herald as the "Separation of Church and State" father, was wrong when he proposed the government spread the gospel to the savages, and was also in violation when he expected the students the U. of Virginia assemble at the church of their denomination each and every



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.


Now, the definition of establishment:


1 : something established : as a : a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws b : ESTABLISHED CHURCH c : a permanent civil or military organization d : a place of business or residence with its furnishings and staff e : a public or private institution
2 : an established order of society: as a often capitalized : a group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation) b often capitalized : a controlling group
3 a : the act of establishing b : the state of being established


You can either take establishment as a verb in the "respecting an establishment of religion" part or taking it as a noun.

As verb, the statement would basically mean congress shall make no law respecting the fact that any church has been established (instituted, created). Basically the Government cannot pass laws that recognize religion period.

As a noun, it says congress shall make no law respecting (acknowledging) any established (created) church. Basically the Government cannot pass laws that advocate any currently established religion in general.


Now for the law:



TITLE 4 > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 4.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ''I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.



That is all good and well. However, in some states, teachers, if not students, are required to say the pledge. So it no longer is a voluntary matter of "if you recite the pledge, you have to say "under God" but a mandatory matter of "you have to say the pledge, and you have to advocate God."





[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
What, are people unable to learn a thing on their own?

This nation is, in fact, a Christian nation. It was not expected to be catering to the other relgions you mentioned. If you would like to live in a nation that promotes those beliefs, feel free. Oh, wait, let me guess, it is everyone's desire to take advantage of the liberties of this nation but at the same time altering the society that allowed for such freedoms.

One of the main things that allows us a few liberties is the fact that our nation recognizes the fact that God exists, and that the documentation only protects the rights God gave us, it does not afford us the rights itself.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   

This nation is, in fact, a Christian nation.


Another false statement, my friend.

Article XI, Tripoli (1796-1797)


"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 Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."



Couple this with article VI of the Constitution


"all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."




By law, we are not a Christian nation.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Another false assertion created by those who know better and perpetuated by those who are ignorant but want to believe it because it supports their desires, even though it defies over 160 years of history, up until there revising of American history began, coupled with clear and undeniable judicial activism.

The Treaty of Tripoli has been clarified here on this site, by me, and was rendered void anyway. But to recap, there is a great difference between the nation and the government. Notice how the District of Columbia is not a state, and is separate from the several states.

This is the most favorite excuse people use, otehr than the twisted and misused words of Thomas Jefferson, when arguing that America doesn't acknowledge God, and argue that the government gave us our rights and therefore can alter or take away those very rights. Personally, whether you are an athiest or simply misled by todays perverted education system, I find the argument to be self-defeating. Its bad enough that people are unaware that the "Civil" rights are created by Congress and laid on top of their God given rights, its even worse that they will not understand that when those "Civil" rights are taken away, they can still claim their God given ones. However, if you are unaware of your rights, you are not entitled to them.

Everything is done for a reason. Its about time that people started looking around and seeing the subtleties that are used against them.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Another false assertion created by those who know better and perpetuated by those who are ignorant but want to believe it because it supports their desires, even though it defies over 160 years of history, up until there revising of American history began, coupled with clear and undeniable judicial activism.



So because a treaty is old it should be void? Where does it put a time limit on treaties? Is there some unwritten law saying a treaty is only valid x numbers of years? And the fact of the matter is, in all official records, article XI is there. And since it's there, it is law according to Article VI of the constitution.

And so any law created by "judicial activism" (which I feel is a term used by anyone who doesn't like a certain decision) should be void? If I recall correctly from history class, Brown vs Board of Ed and Miranda vs Arizona were both met with cries of "judicial activism!" Should they be voided?


The Treaty of Tripoli has been clarified here on this site, by me, and was rendered void anyway. But to recap, there is a great difference between the nation and the government. Notice how the District of Columbia is not a state, and is separate from the several states.


I agree. In this case, however, it is the government making laws supporting religion.

[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Ok, the majority rules in a democracy, but in a democracy everyone is to be represented. This means while white male christians may be the majority, the blacks, hispanics, asians, so forth also have a voice. If the majority say they want it like this, then it usually is. But nowadays you have to realise that guess what? Not everyone is a white male christian.

Anyways, the under god part is bs. Hell, Pepsi did a promotion with the pladge on cans and used the original version. What happened? Christians whined and complained about it so Pepsi stopped doing it. Also, with things like courthouses and stuff, either have no religous symbols or have all religous symbols. Not just a cross, but a cross, a star of david, a pentacle, so forth. You can't promote just one religon on government property, it is against the law.(Yes, it doesn't say seperation, but the 1st amendment explains it out. Just some people are to much of blind sheep minded church goers to realise this)

Well, either go back to the original version or add under God, Allah, Jehova, Goddess, Hurn, Budda, Shiva......... you get the point.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Any other thoughts? This is a good topic and am interested in some more opinions.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 12:22 AM
link   
[Edited on 3-5-2004 by jezebel]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join