So, the Circuit court made their ruling and the Congress went wild. And the president….well George continued to at least maintain the same character he has all along.
Before I make my comments I will make the following statement, “I am a monotheist” I believe in a singular, divine, conscious, transcended, entity, from where all things originate from. I choose to call this “God”
I make this because any response that comes in at any point telling me I don’t believe in God will be responded too appropriately.
I have to reprint some of these quotations because they really blow my mind.
“Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok. What’s next? Will the courts now strip ‘so help me God’ from the pledge taken by new presidents?”
— Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Missouri
Personally, I’ve always been uncomfortable that Governmental oaths are taken in the name of ‘God”. The Jews (and anyone else who follows the 10 commandments) believe that God’s name should not be used in vain. And yet, we have allowed our gov’t to put us to the most personal connection with our own divine that we can find, by swearing oaths. Further, to break that oath to the US means condemnation for Sin. Neither of these are appropriate on any level in a country that professess ‘separation of church and state.’
Our founding fathers were the ones who realized that church and state must not get in each other’s way. Our founding fathers were the ones that wrote the Bill of Rights. Also, a small reminder, out founding fathers were the ones who decided that the Senate does NOT make the value call on what laws are and are not legal.
To you Christopher Bond, our FF are spinning, because you’ve lost sight of your own job.
Well, King George the Second, as always, couldn’t be smart enough to keep his mouth shut and think before speaking:
“Ridiculous.” … (this ruling is) ” out of step with the history and traditions of America,” and said it highlighted the need for “common sense judges that understand that our rights are derived from God.”
Allow me to pause for a moment to point to a portion of the current words of the pledge:
I pledge allegiance … to the Republic … one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
We are not one nation under God. No matter how many people who are out there who have their view of what god is. I dare them to prove to me that everyone else in this country shares their view, indivisibly, of what God is. I challenge the Catholics to tell me why they and the Protestants are NOT different. From each other, the Jews, and the Moslems, the hindus, the buddhists, the athiests.
Until such time that someone can prove to me that all these people truly believe the same thing about “God”, we shouldn’t be having our children propagate a myth that is down right descriminitory.
Note: Assuming the Monotheistic-God believer’s are right and they are simply, ‘helping’ those less ‘enlightened.’ Does this mean that the gov’t can now legislate teaching people how to think.
If (pardon the pun) by god, we monotheists are wrong; then we are all demanding people follow us and pledge thir following based on a misassumption. But we are the God Lovin’ U.S.A. and thus have a right to demand that the world think like us.
But it doesn’t end. Even the Theoretically liberal democrats have lost sight:
“That judge who shouldn’t be a judge in my opinion … let me say this, that I hope his name doesn’t come before this body for any promotion. He will be remembered. He will be remembered … I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid. That’s what he is, stupid.”
— Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia
To the dishonourable Senator Byrd. You are now overstepping your bounds. The man did his job. Despite the obvious political
opposition he most assuredly knew he would face. He made a decision. A decision based on logic that made him step away from religious edicts. And… if you choose to base your decisions on this man’s behavior; because you don’t like the way he called a battle you feel strongly about; then perhaps you are the one who should be re-evaluated.
The Justice decided what is legal and what is not, the legislative propose and design the law. If you are such the expert on law, why are you acting as Judge on behalf of someone who is?
At least we find one truly honest politician in the lot:
“This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election … It is no surprise that belief in God is something that a vast majority of Americans hold not only in a spiritual way but in a political way as well … ”
— Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa
Grassley has admitted, that we are not interested in a united, indivisible country. Just pleasing the majority. Which is in truth, really all that’s important in ‘true democracy”. Remember, at it’s core: Democracy is 4 wolves and one lamb deciding on lunch.
Personally, I feel that if you want a nation that is indivisible, then you can not put in exclusionary terminology. The Blacks wouldn’t stand for it, women wouldn’t stand for it, and eventually, people who don’t believe in “God” won’t stand for it. The gays will rise up, the athiests, the pagans, the polyamourists….People who are tired of having their lifestyles, beliefs, and core personallity challenged because they are “out of the mainstream”
We are not a democracy…we are a representational republic.
We are all human beings. Whether we seek to name the creator of us “God” or “Mom, Dad, and the back seat of the Chevy.”
Let us choose what we believe. It’s what our forefathers wanted.
*applauds*
well said. (or written rather)
i agree. as i was thinking about it, i realized that if they were truely separate church and state, that they should take all references to god, church, whatever out of everything. which i suppose is the whole point of this. however, from the beginning, i think that it was not necessarily that it was a separation of church and state, but rather the freedom to practice whatever religion it was that you wanted to. but of course, it always goes to the majority, as you said. i really like that analogy of the wolves and lamb. to be honest, it does not infringe on my personal right to have ‘under god’ in the pledge. you could just not say it if it bothers you so much. Or more of my thinking, it doesnt really mean anything to me when i say it. for people who are religious it may mean something to them, but to me, it is just words. take them or leave them. this country seems to grip onto its religion, despite the fact that it is really not there that much in the first place. just my 2 cents.
What a great post!
Hi man,
I enjoyed your post very much. Thank you for sharing such a well informed opinion.
I think a lot of this debate comes down to simple small-mindedness. My biggest gripe with devout Chirstians over the years is the stance of “we are free to beleive what we want, but if you don’t love my god you’ll go to hell so I’m going to help you change your mind”. While working in retail jobs, I eventually took it upon myself to make up Pagan and Craft oriented pamphlets so i can reciprocate to all those “well meanning” Christians who give me “somthing to read” while Im trying to ring up thier order.
I was once told by an interviewer that it was stupid to wear a pentacle to a job interveiw, and that I wouldn’t be able to wear one to work, should I be hired. No sooner did I leave his office when I noticed his receptionist wore a rather large necklace featuring a man being totured and killed as he hung on a cross. How on Earth is a star in a circle more offensive than torture?
Having realized i would not be hired, I posed my question to the interviewer. he informed me that my jewelry obviously meant I was a Satanist. i informed him that only inverted 5-pointed stars are symbolic of Satanism. he said it was the same thing, until I reminded him that inverted crosses also symbolized Satanism, but that upright ones meant something else entirely.
I think people take comfort in laws like this because it keeps them from having to decide things on thier own, which means they have to know things, and then think about them. That’s an awful lot of work for most people.
I try to keep in mind that people think in language, so controlling words is an indirect way to control thoughts.