Pledge of Allegiance

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
It would seem that the fact that students are encouraged to pledge allegiance to God, and that the Supreme Court would support this doctrine is a conspiracy by religious extremists. I had thought that our great nation was making progress against those who would morph it into a theocracy.

Supreme Court Decision

[edit on 29-8-2004 by JonestownRed]




posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Get a little chuckle when you realize how people pledge to the flag, when it penned by a Socialist.

Later irony was that the phrase "under God," was introduced "under Eisenhower," in the midst of the cold war when an essential contrast of freedom of religion was so heightened.

It was about freedom of religion vs. socialism where freedom of religion was only outwardly sanctioned but punished in practice.

After many crybaby decisions the majority of Democracy suffered under the Republic of appeasement where a false halo of protection of individuals made the group consensus suffer without Godliness. While little Johnny might be offended by prayer in school, some fat old lady went to court and enforced her right to Atheism. But it did make sense in a very Christian way, since Jesus himself was adverse to hypocritical public prayer, the kind that draws attention to oneself, as if that were the point of religion. Group prayer was always a very different thing entirely.

We have faced the same formula over and over again, where a false halo of individual rights takes heed over larger rights of a community to pray together even in silence. Yet that same formula becomes political correctness, something of which Gobbels and Stalin would be proud to withdraw individual rights en masse, and substituting phony secularism, and even worse introducing psychiatric drugs to fill the vacuum of a godlessness of the community whose individuals are emptied through continued errors of omission.

Hence a convoluted logic spirals the entire society downward, while offering highly lucrative remedies such as expensive counseling and mass drugging. Ritalin has taken over, and now Bush wants to stuff anti psychotic experimental drugs down the throats of the not only kids, but the entire society like our worst nightmare of Brave New World.

Go ahead and take away Godliness in our society even in its secular forms, and watch the dirt fly. It's so fun and profitable too! (Please don't be so stupid as to miss the sarcasm. I have to warn those who are so intent upon Fox and other Tavistock Institute news and its total unreality.)

[edit on 29-8-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
SkipShipman, I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Is this what you mean:

Removing the 'under God' text from the pledge of allegience takes away the right of the community to prat together. It also withdraws to the individual rights (you don't specify what individual rights) and substitutes those rights with phony secularism. This secularism of the government causes people to become godless and causes psychiatric illnesses.

You end with saying with sarcasm that the godliness should be taken away. Without sarcasm, do you mean to say that godliness should not be taken away? But you just said that secularizing the government takes away people's rights somehow and causes psychiatric illnesses somehow.

I don't really understand your reasoning. Maybe the entire text is sarcastic, maybe only the last paragraph of it is. Could you clear this up?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:11 AM
link   
SkipShipman- I am also having a little trouble interpreting your post, and which parts of it were supposed to be sarcastic. If you do mean to suggest that removing religion from public institutions causes mental illness, could you please offer up an explanation as to why this is so?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
I think its ironic how a perfectly patriotic exression can be so bastardized as to make an otherwise "indivisible" patriotic nation very divisive by adding the words "under God" to it.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I don't know what the problem is, I completely understood everything he said. And I think he made some excellent observations. Points that most people tend to ignore.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by amantine
SkipShipman, I'm trying to understand your reasoning. Is this what you mean:

Removing the 'under God' text from the pledge of allegience takes away the right of the community to pray together. It also withdraws to the individual rights (you don't specify what individual rights) and substitutes those rights with phony secularism. This secularism of the government causes people to become godless and causes psychiatric illnesses.

You end with saying with sarcasm that the godliness should be taken away. Without sarcasm, do you mean to say that godliness should not be taken away? But you just said that secularizing the government takes away people's rights somehow and causes psychiatric illnesses somehow.

I don't really understand your reasoning. Maybe the entire text is sarcastic, maybe only the last paragraph of it is. Could you clear this up?


Comment: You should understand my commentary as applying to the subject matter "The Pledge of Allegiance," as a trend. Hence my reasoning is that we face the same arguments against say "under God," as in other matters as "In God We Trust," and other issues happening for the past four decades regarding the so called "separation of church and state."

Pardon me for not directly citing some recent articles and research that indicates the government planned psychiatric drugs as a remedy for the removal of prayer from the classroom, but as a trend of the "decreasing importance of religion," in our society. Excuse me for my terms "phony secularism," but it is probably as convoluted a term as the arguments in court decisions regarding the moral anchor for free religious belief. It was a matter of "majority rule," as I remember it in the fourth grade public school I attended in 1958. We had asked why we are praying, our school was not rigidly political correct, where you can discuss practically nothing without fearing a lawsuit these days. We prayed the protestant "Our Father." As a catholic I didn't go for the added "thine is the kingdom."

[edit on 29-8-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Pardon me for not directly citing some recent articles and research that indicates the government planned psychiatric drugs as a remedy for the removal of prayer from the classroom, but as a trend of the "decreasing importance of religion," in our society.


Actually, SkipShipman, I'd like to read these articles. Do you think you could provide a link? I fail to see how these drugs would be administered, let alone have the effects you described. Do they sprinkle it on the salisbury steak in the cafeteria? This "atheism drug" you speak of intrigues me to no end. Since you mentioned that you are a catholic, try looking at this issue from a non-christian's viewpoint. Why should "under God" be included in the pledge of allegiance? Do you assert that in order to be patriotic, one must profess a belief in God? No one is trying to say that children shouldn't be able to pray in school, only that it shouldn't be an official part of the curriculum.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonestownRed

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Pardon me for not directly citing some recent articles and research that indicates the government planned psychiatric drugs as a remedy for the removal of prayer from the classroom, but as a trend of the "decreasing importance of religion," in our society.


Actually, SkipShipman, I'd like to read these articles. Do you think you could provide a link? I fail to see how these drugs would be administered, let alone have the effects you described. Do they sprinkle it on the salisbury steak in the cafeteria? This "atheism drug" you speak of intrigues me to no end. Since you mentioned that you are a catholic, try looking at this issue from a non-christian's viewpoint. Why should "under God" be included in the pledge of allegiance? Do you assert that in order to be patriotic, one must profess a belief in God? No one is trying to say that children shouldn't be able to pray in school, only that it shouldn't be an official part of the curriculum.


Comment: Try Google on "New Freedom Initiative," and when it comes to "under God," such a thing is less relevant if there can be a group consensus and majority rule on whether or not people can pray the "Our Father," contemplate silence, or quote whatever you want to begin the day. It is the community who decides, not the government. Schools were never intended to be the government, only something sponsored by government taxes on land. Sadly government invaded the sanctuary of learning, and look at the statistics.

Prayer is a matter of group acknowledgment, helpful reminders of a larger reality than ourselves. When that reality focuses on government alone, it eventually substitutes a God concept in preference to the invisible God. Look at the North Korean dictator for example, people dancing around him like he was the end all of everything. Look at history, see where we were and where we are now. I think reality has spiraled away from its anchor points, some of which is affirmative of basic religious beliefs. Would you prefer Kim Jong Il?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I too am interested in some further explanation if only theory.

I don't follow SkipShip. Jonsetown I follow


I don't believe it is a religious conspiracy but rather a political one.


Declaration-
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


That seems clear to me from the document that created this thing we call America.

The Declaration goes on to say:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights


To athiests and other that have a problem and keep beating the church-state drum song I wonder if THAT isn't a conspiracy to throw away the Declaration? If we do then what? Do we become a British colony again?

Those guys over two hundred years back didn't seem to have any problem understanding what they agreed to:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Try Google on "New Freedom Initiative," and when it comes to "under God," such a thing is less relevant if there can be a group consensus and majority rule on whether or not people can pray the "Our Father," contemplate silence, or quote whatever you want to begin the day. It is the community who decides, not the government. Schools were never intended to be the government, only something sponsored by government taxes on land. Sadly government invaded the sanctuary of learning, and look at the statistics.


Flanked by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in the East Room of the White House, President Bush on February 1, 2001, announced a new $1.025 billion, five year initiative for people with disabilities. The proposal, called the New Freedom Initiative, will provide low-interest loans for assistive technology that makes work more accessible, including wheelchairs, telecommuting equipment, and text telephones for the hearing-impaired. The proposal will also help cover the cost of housing loans.

What does this have to do with the doping of students with Ritalin? And despite what you believe that schools were intended to be, the fact remains that public schools are public schools, and you are free to send your child to a religious-affiliated school if you are not comfortable with the fact that Christian doctrine is not being taught in them.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JonestownRed

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Try Google on "New Freedom Initiative," and when it comes to "under God," such a thing is less relevant if there can be a group consensus and majority rule on whether or not people can pray the "Our Father," contemplate silence, or quote whatever you want to begin the day. It is the community who decides, not the government. Schools were never intended to be the government, only something sponsored by government taxes on land. Sadly government invaded the sanctuary of learning, and look at the statistics.


Flanked by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) in the East Room of the White House, President Bush on February 1, 2001, announced a new $1.025 billion, five year initiative for people with disabilities. The proposal, called the New Freedom Initiative, will provide low-interest loans for assistive technology that makes work more accessible, including wheelchairs, telecommuting equipment, and text telephones for the hearing-impaired. The proposal will also help cover the cost of housing loans.

What does this have to do with the doping of students with Ritalin? And despite what you believe that schools were intended to be, the fact remains that public schools are public schools, and you are free to send your child to a religious-affiliated school if you are not comfortable with the fact that Christian doctrine is not being taught in them.



Comment: Look at the fine print.

www.interventionmag.com...

I am not talking about Christian doctrine, but community agreement, in vast preference to centralized governmental intrusion. Safeguards should not eliminate the free exercise of religion anywhere, but that depends upon the Supreme Court interpreting the word "or," in the first amendment exclusively rather than properly inclusively. In other words the "free exercise of religion," in that light of interpretation has no problem with an "establishment of religion." The latter is the Church of England for example, sanctioning other forms of Christianity with grave punishments, and rewards for sycophants. That Church is now basically Atheism, or divide and conquer rationalization. Yes the Official state religion, "thou shalt not pray, or even say the word God in the classroom," is their established religion or binding law if you will.

Public Schools are not the government but the community itself. Only the taxes collected on land are part of that sponsorship, eg. like a "godfather." We were fine with one simple prayer for the entire day for more than one hundred years in public schools.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
PublicGadfly, did you know that the "under god" was not arund until 1940's-1950's? And it isn't that atheists or non christians have a problem with the belief of god, it is that the public schools are suppose be seperate from other religons. What if they changed it to "under god, Goddess, Lucifer, Budda, Shiva, Allah, Moses, Satan, Pebble People, and/or any other diety that you may believe in" Would you have a problem with that?

Also, Pepsi awhile ago got in trouble when they made a Pepsi can with the ORIGINAL Pledge that did not have the "under god". And again, if you want god in your school, go to a christian school, not a public one. If you want your kid to learn about christianity and their beliefs, then send them to a christian school, not a public one. If you want your kids to learn about a flat earth only 6,000 years old and created in six days, send them to a christian school, not a public school.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Prayer is a matter of group acknowledgment, helpful reminders of a larger reality than ourselves. When that reality focuses on government alone, it eventually substitutes a God concept in preference to the invisible God. Look at the North Korean dictator for example, people dancing around him like he was the end all of everything. Look at history, see where we were and where we are now. I think reality has spiraled away from its anchor points, some of which is affirmative of basic religious beliefs. Would you prefer Kim Jong Il?


First of all, the link you provided in the preceding post, if that is in fact what you intended it to be, is dead. I should state that I do believe in God, but I will defend to my last breath the right of a fellow American not to. I fail to see how the separation of church and state will automatically lead to a crazed cult of personality ala Kim Jong Il. Instead, I present to you the fruits of a government controlled by religion. I'm sure most of us would much prefer a return to the mass slaughter and persecution of non-catholics that was so in vogue in the not so distant past by the Roman Catholic church (see the Crusades, the Inquisition). Or perhaps you would enjoy living under the oppressive regime of one of the myriad Islamic states in the mid-east? You have the audacity to deny the authority of the Pope? The prophet Mohammed? Time to die! History has shown us that the results of trying to make religious laws the laws of a nation is a endeavor that can only sow hate, predjudice, and fear. Would you enjoy a pledge of "One nation, under David Koresh, indivisible with liberty and justice for all?" If your answer is no, be glad that they were in the minority.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, and Ethan Allen are among the most well known Deists. Deism was a motivating factor in the American revolution, fueling many of the ideas of personal freedom and seperation of powers inherent in our system of government. Deists believe that God is the creator of the universe, the architect of natural order, and the grantor of human rights, but that he does not interfere with humanity, or favor one person or nation over another. Deist belief eschews all elements of 'revealed' religion- that is, and religious laws or revelations offered by prophets or priests.

Above taken from: altreligion.about.com...

What would many of our nation's forefathers say if they were here to cast in their two cents about the blurring of the lines between government and Christianity?



posted on Sep, 10 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I always thought that replacing the words "under God" with the words "under Law" would have been a good idea because it reinforces the fact that we are a nation of laws and are 'governated' by law.



posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Chuck, that is pretty good idea. But make it "under the Law", not "under Law". It makes more sense I think.

Anyways, Gadfly, did you know what I posted? Or Skip? How come only non-christians know that the "under god" wasn't in the original pledge?

Baa! Baa! Baa!(sheep noises)





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join