MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Sunday, September 21, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 56.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

Under God

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

How are the robed ones going to rule on this one?

Get your god away from me!
18
58%
Save me Jesus
9
29%
deadlock - establishment clause only meaningful in the 9th district
4
13%
 
Total votes : 31

Postby naked pagan » Thu Oct 16, 2003 6:34 pm

Steve Vokers wrote:I heard one guy arguing that most of the framers of the constitution were Christians, therefore "under God" was following their intent (or something like that...).


First off, just because it aint Christian doesnt mean it aint God. Most (I said most) religions have some sort of personification of the almighty....I contend it is the same God, just from a different angle, but others would disagree with me...(and muslims do worship the god of Abraham,just to set the record straight)

That being said, I take exception to the "framers" being Christain. I did a little bit of research in it my self. True, there were mennonites and quakers, but also a lot of humanist, diests, and even Unitarians (that last one is the church I go to)

"Most of the founding fathers, sympathetic with and influenced by the European Enlightenment, saw religion - natural religion, that is - as a potential good, but with equal clarity they saw the religions of existing institutions and religions based on a fixed scriptural revelation as meddlesome, wrong-headed and hopelessly obsolete"-some obscure web site i cant find anymore...

I wanted to ask him to support me in my campaign to bring back slavery and deny women the right to vote. I knew he wouldn't refuse, what with the intent of the framers and all...


Thats true....Bible doesnt really speak out against slavery..oh, its implied that it is bad, but it certainly wont keep you out of heaven. Better to own a few slaves than covent thy neighbors wife

This type of nonsense is really getting hot in the little town i live in. Now they are even saying our law is based on ancient jewish law, not british common law(which comes from the Romans). Anyone know where I can find some stats on early religion in America? I feel a letter to the editor in the making.
naked pagan
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 9:44 pm

Postby snoqueen » Thu Oct 16, 2003 6:35 pm

I pledge allegiance to the constitution
of the United States of America
and to the Amendments, 1 through 27
and to liberty and justice for all?

(doesn't quite have the right ring to it, but
I like the idea)
:)
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Postby burstingsun » Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:40 pm

Perhaps it should be changed to "under cod". There must be a big fish up there somewhere.
burstingsun
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 11:05 pm

Postby crêpes suzettes » Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:04 pm

TAsunder wrote:And more specifically, I find it suffocating to think that children are taught to pledge allegience to their country each day. It discourages rational dissent and freedom of political views. I pledge allegiance each day, no matter what I think about the current political atmosphere... great. And if I refuse, well them I'm teased and beaten up. What a great thing to teach a kid - get into line. you don't have to, but we'll make you pay if you don't.


The pledge is a wonderful waste of time in schools with larger class sizes, fewer qualified teachers, less money to use towards educating the kids. Add up all the minutes spent every schoolday reciting the pledge over years K through 6. Imagine the learning that could take place during that time. Compare that to the comprehension most schoolkids have of the pledge, even after all those years. What possible practical benefit does reciting the pledge have?

As for bullying and teasing those who don't willingly participate, I've seen teachers yell at students ("stand up straight, put your hand over your heart, speak up damnit, don't mumble, face the goddamn flag you halfwit...").

Eliminate the pledge, with or without "under God". Kids and teachers have work to do. Let them get to it.
crêpes suzettes
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 1:31 pm

Postby meowzamusic » Fri Oct 17, 2003 2:17 am

i plead alignment to the flakes
of the untitled snakes of a merry cow
and to the Republicans for which they scam
one nacho underpants
with licorice and jugs of wine for owls

It's a free country......
meowzamusic
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2659
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2001 1:33 am
Location: Taking requests

Postby Marge » Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:03 am

meowzamusic wrote:i plead alignment to the flakes
of the untitled snakes of a merry cow
and to the Republicans for which they scam
one nacho underpants
with licorice and jugs of wine for owls

It's a free country......

Or my favorite from Matt Groenig:

I pledge impertinence to the flag-waving
of the unindicted co-conspirators of America.
And to the Republicans for which I can't stand,
Abomination, underhanded fraud, indefensible,
with liberty and justice forget it.
Marge
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 12:57 pm
Location: Corporate Hellscape

Postby Chuck_Schick » Fri Oct 17, 2003 9:21 am

I would also support the substitution of "up God's ass" for the contentious phrase in question. After all, how are we to know we're not just some base, bacterial lower-GI infection nestled in the all-encompassing rectum of the Almighty One?
Chuck_Schick
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10385
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 4:41 pm
Location: back atcha

Postby FredFlash » Sun May 28, 2006 1:28 pm

Why ââ?¬Å?Under Godââ?¬? in the Pledge is Wrong: The Legal Argument

by Fred T. Slicer


The U. S. Constitution of 1787 is one of enumerated and limited powers. It excludes religion from the trust granted to the general government by the people.

The First Amendment is rather ambiguous in the sense that there is more than one reasonable interpretation. This arises from the failure to define the word ââ?¬Å?religionââ?¬? which in 1789 was commonly used to convey more than one idea or intellectual concept. .

In resolving this ambiguity we must be mindful of the ââ?¬Å?non delegation of authority over religionââ?¬? in the un-amended Constitution. Most of the First Amendmentââ?¬â?¢s ambiguity was resolved, during the first 50 years of the republic, in favor of the Perfect Separation of Church and State as generally articulated by the Jeffersonian Republicans and as particularly articulated by James Madison.

James Madison held that that religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator and is exempt from the cognizance of the government. This was the same principle adopted by the U. S. Supreme Court the first time it had to apply the religious clauses.

Every major political dispute over the meaning of the religion clauses during the Early Years of the Republic was decided in favor of James Madison's view of religious liberty.

These early church-state disputes included:

�· Whether Congress expressed the correct principle of the establishment clause by appointing Chaplains and paying them from the national taxes. (The House of Representatives in 1811 rejected the Federalist argument that the Constitution was intended to prevent the establishment of a National Church, such as the Church of England and that the correct principle was not violated by the appointment of Chaplains to Congress and paying from the national taxes. The House rejected the same argument in 1832 when it refused to pass a joint resolution to request the President to issue a religious recommendation to the people.)

Ã?· Whether the Constitution granted the President authority to issue religious recommendations. (Madisonââ?¬â?¢s view prevailed when Congress, after the proclamations issued during the War of 1812 did nothing but ââ?¬Å?rekindle political hatredââ?¬?, refused to pass resolutions asking for executive religious proclamations and Presidents refused to issue them.

�· Whether the 1810 Post Office law violated the First Amendment by requiring the Sabbath to be violated. (The House found that it did not)

During the early years of the Republic, Congress never once made God the object of human legislation. It abstained from making laws regarding the peopleââ?¬â?¢s trust in their God or their beliefs regarding whether or not this is ââ?¬Å?one nation under God.ââ?¬? The Federal Government never recommended or advised the people to read, reflect upon or to obey particular religious commandments such as those God imposed on the Children of Israel.

Whether or not the nation is "under God" pertains to the duty which we owe to our Creator, over which the U. S. Government has no authority whatsoever. As James Madison declared during the Virginia Ratification Convention of 1788 on the Federal Constitution, "There is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with religion."

Therefore:

We must conclude that there is not a shadow of a right in the general government to intermeddle with the people�s beliefs regarding religion which includes whether or not God is over the nation. We should remove "Under God" out of respect for the founding fathers.
FredFlash
Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:27 am

Postby Jeff Mackesey » Tue May 30, 2006 4:56 pm

Well said, Fred.
Jeff Mackesey
Senior Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: shores of glacial Lake Mendota

Postby The Reverend » Tue May 30, 2006 5:43 pm

As a Minister it is my opinion that the addition of the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was and is inappropriate. I therefore support removing the phrase.

As for the Pledge itself, I don�t think it is in and of itself a bad thing, but I question the appropriateness of making children who cannot fully grasp its meaning recite it.
The Reverend
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:23 pm

Postby peripat » Tue May 30, 2006 6:23 pm

And if you were serious about helping the children understand the pledge you could read 5 minutes of the consitution to them every school day for 13 years-in that time they'd probably pick up something, however boring it was most days...but wait- that smacks of education & god forbid we should put jingoism aside for that
peripat
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 1:59 am

Postby nickled&dimed » Wed May 31, 2006 7:21 pm

I say the pledge every day. I am pledging allegiance to the symbol and concept of liberty & justice for all. I want liberty and justice for all. Frankly just saying the pledge, and meaning it, seems like outright insurrection against the current administration.

However i am deathly quiet during the "under god" part. I don't see why I have to deal with these 2 issues at the exact same moment. I'll take care of the god stuff on my own time, thanks.

Plus it gives me street cred with the kids.
nickled&dimed
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 11:19 am
Location: midwest. not madison

Postby FredFlash » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:39 pm

I confess myself incapable of conceiving any method of establish a religion by law unless it be by the establishment of its tenets. The first tenet of many religious sects is a belief in God. For example: The first words of the ââ?¬Å?Apostles Creedââ?¬? is ââ?¬Å? I believe in God.ââ?¬? The first words of the ââ?¬Å?Nicene Creedââ?¬? are ââ?¬Å?We believe in one God.ââ?¬?

I am unable to discover any principle which authorizes Congress to make a belief in God part and parcel of the law of the land that does not justify the transposition of the entire Apostles or Nicene Creeds into the U. S. Code. What principle allows Congress to establish the duty to believe in one God but would prevent Congress from establishing other duties to God. What would prohibit Congress from changing the Pledge to read ââ?¬Å?one Nation under God who gave his only-begotten Son for our salvation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all?ââ?¬?
FredFlash
Member
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 9:27 am

Postby white_rabbit » Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:41 pm

It's too bad those who are so concerned about the 'under god' part of the Pledge don't have the same passion for the 'liberty and justice for all' part, as demonstrated in the U.S. Senate today.
white_rabbit
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7487
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:44 pm

Postby snoqueen » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:57 am

Some of these traditional American word-collections are plain embarrassing today. It's not just the Pledge (godly or godless). Try reading the positively quaint Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights, or even the whole Constitution.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11501
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar