God in Our Heritage (Why the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, December 18, 2003 | GREG ABBOTT

[presidio9]

Half a century after Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court is poised to consider whether those words make it impermissible for children to recite the Pledge in our nation's public schools. Michael Newdow, the man at the center of the case now before the court, contends that requiring students to say the words "under God" unconstitutionally establishes religion. An overwhelming majority of others, including the attorneys-general of all 50 states, strongly disagree.

[exmarine]

I needn't have a deity to honor my oaths.

True, you don't. However, without a deity, there can be no right and wrong outside of yourself. That makes you a moral relativist.

[exmarine]

In other words, if an atheist be honest, morals can be nothing more than mere personal preferences and being honorable can be no more noble than being a serial killer.

[exmarine]

Did you know that California has the most lawyers in the country? And that New Jersey has the most toxic waste dumps? You know why? New Jersey had first pick!

I see from your profile that you are an evil lawyer. No doubt you were educated at one of those paper mills they call law school these days -- where your secular humanist religious belief that laws have no basis in morality, and that the Constitution is a living breathing document and should be rewritten with the changing tide of cultural and moral norms (legal positivism) -- was reinforced and encouraged.

Unfortunately, those "evil lawyers" you listed in your profile would call you a traitor and a miscreant for such views.

[MineralMan]

"I needn't have a deity to honor my oaths.
True, you don't. However, without a deity, there can be no right and wrong outside of yourself. That makes you a moral relativist."

Untrue. Morality is equally a philosophical construct. One can justify immorality, even with a deity as the moral source. Certainly we have seen that often enough. One may also have a very strong moral code without any deity involved.

My own moral code is based on a lifetime study of social and religious moral laws. Where all societies and religions share common moral laws, I find the center of my own moral code.

The basis of that code is the Golden Rule, a concept that has been expressed in every religion (many predating even Judaism) and social rule set. It is the only code needed.

I hold this code as strongly as you say you hold your allegiance to the rule set of your deity. I will fight to uphold it, to the death.

Your religious beliefs have no stronger bond for you than that held by me for that moral code.

You're free to think whatever you wish about my morality. However, if I give you my word on something, I promise you that I will keep it.

[exmarine]

I am reminded of that "Knowing When To Stop Is A Good Thing" commercial.

No big deal. Putting your hand on a bible doesn't make one a Christian any more than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger. Clinton is no Christian - that can plainly be seen by his actions and his politics. He can build a house from bibles and he would still be a reprobate.

[MineralMan]

"In any case (as I obliquely noted in my previous message), an oath made by someone like Clinton would be worthless if he took it in the name of every god, demigod, spirit, or other supernatural entity ever conceived by the mind of man."

Indeed. Any oath, whether taken on the name of a deity, or simply on one's personal honor, is only as strong as the person taking the oath.

I trust my own oaths or affirmations, for I know I will never break them. I trust those of others I know, but somewhat less, and wait for verification. The oath of a stranger to me is worthless without evidence of its sincerity.

That a President or member of Congress takes an oath of office, whether sworn in the name of a deity or not, is little comfort to me, since I have seen such oaths abandoned so many times.

[ContemptofCourt]

Pity that you could not see the point I was trying to make, you mental midget. You epitomize the Freepers that I love to toy with...cant see the forest for the trees.

I am free today not because the founders were Christian, but because the founders tired of religous persecution. Hoooooorahhhhh.

[exmarine]

Untrue. Morality is equally a philosophical construct. One can justify immorality, even with a deity as the moral source. Certainly we have seen that often enough. One may also have a very strong moral code without any deity involved.

If God exists, then morality is much more than a philosophical construct, it is a system of universal rights and wrongs that come from the Creator Himself. If God is the moral author, then murder is wrong even if every human on earth says it isn't. Absolute moral principles from God exist independent and irregardless of human belief. On the other hand, moral relativism comes from man, and under such as system, no manmade moral code can logically be superior to any other - they are all equal.

So, you see there are two possible moral systems - absolutism wherein morals are objective and universal and flow directly from the character and person of God; and relativism wherein morals are manmade and are wholly subjective. Under relativism, the words "right" and "wrong" are meaningless as these words suggest an objective moral standard which cannot exist under that system.

[ContemptofCourt]

Oh, and just what is a "true patriot," sarge?

[exmarine]

I am free today not because the founders were Christian, but because the founders tired of religous persecution. Hoooooorahhhhh.

According to the writings of the founders, morality comes from religion, and so does freedom. We are "endowed by our Creator" (who is that?) with certain "inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty..." - it appears you are wrong again. Freedom comes from God, and the God of our founders was the Christian God. Please keep posting so I can refute your every sentence...I enjoy making bigots look foolish.

[ContemptofCourt]

Sarge, then why did they say "Creator" and not "Jesus, the son of God"? Who is the bigot?

[MineralMan]

"No big deal. Putting your hand on a bible doesn't make one a Christian any more than going to McDonald's makes one a hamburger. Clinton is no Christian - that can plainly be seen by his actions and his politics. He can build a house from bibles and he would still be a reprobate.
"

Indeed, which means that all oaths are worthless, then. Only when they are based upon the honor of the individual are they of any value. My affirmation of an oath is more valid than Clinton's oath, sworn on a Bible. Why? Because my personal honor is more important to me than Clinton's oath on the Bible, sworn a deity's name.

You make my point for me.

[exmarine]

Oh, and just what is a "true patriot," sarge?

I see you read my profile. Good. If you really want to know the answer to that question, why don't you try stepping outside the box of your revisionist edu-ma-cation, and reading some of the writings of the founders. Since you are a lawyer, perhaps you would enjoy reading the writings of William Blackstone - the foremost legal reference in America up till the time of the miscreant Oliver Wendell Holmes (whom I'm sure is one of your heroes). I would wager that you read very little of Blackstone in the paper mill you attended - right? I'm sure of it - Blackstone said all laws originate from God, and today's law schools can't have that!

[MineralMan]

"I would wager that you read very little of Blackstone in the paper mill you attended - right? I'm sure of it - Blackstone said all laws originate from God, and today's law schools can't have that!"

You reveal much about yourself in your messages, sir. You have no idea whether your correspondent has read Blackstone or not. You do not know what law school he/she attended. You do not know the religious beliefs of that person. Yet you pile contumny on him/her, based on no information at all.

That, sir, is called a personal attack. It is unwarranted, improper, un-Christian, and against the rules of discussion here on Free Republic. For shame!

[exmarine]

Indeed, which means that all oaths are worthless, then. Only when they are based upon the honor of the individual are they of any value. My affirmation of an oath is more valid than Clinton's oath, sworn on a Bible. Why? Because my personal honor is more important to me than Clinton's oath on the Bible, sworn a deity's name.

Actually, not quite. Oaths to God carry a huge amount of force IF AND ONLY IF the oath-taker has a fear of God. The fear of God carrier exponentially more moral force than the fear of man. Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom, however, the complete absence of the fear of God is the reason for America's moral freefall into utter moral depravity...at light speed. You know, not even the depraved Romans allowed homosexual marriage...America should be proud...it has now sunk to moral depths heretofore not witnessed by recorded history.

[MineralMan]

"You know, not even the depraved Romans allowed homosexual marriage...America should be proud...it has now sunk to moral depths heretofore not witnessed by recorded history."

You exaggerate wildly.

[ContemptofCourt]

Maybe I need one of those scary BA degrees in history "with lots of personal experience" to really understand your point of view.

I find it interesting that you seek to rely on the POV of a foreigner. I'm sure that you would oppose the USSCt doing the same.

And Blackstone also said the the English King could do no wrong. Crimney.

[ContemptofCourt]

Fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom

I'm done with you...no sense in a debate with this type of mindset.

[exmarine]

That, sir, is called a personal attack. It is unwarranted, improper, un-Christian, and against the rules of discussion here on Free Republic. For shame!

I see...so a personal attack on the founding fathers is okay, but not against a rabid bigot? Spare me your moralizing Mr. relativist - you are contradicting yourself. I can't be wrong no matter what I do in your moral system.

[MineralMan]

"Actually, not quite. Oaths to God carry a huge amount of force IF AND ONLY IF the oath-taker has a fear of God. "

And since no man can see inside the mind of another, one has no idea whether an individual person's oath is valid or not. As I said, all oaths are worthless, and only performance can demonstrate a person's intent on obeying or disobeying any oath.

Therefore, my affirmation of such oaths is as valid as anyone's swearing in a deity's name. You may watch and see whether I honor my oath, just as you may for someone else.

I put no faith in any man's oath except my own, since I know that I will honor it. I've seen too many others dishonor their own oaths to trust any oath.