Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pledge Ban upheld ("no under God")
Fox ^ | February 28, 2002 | FOX

Posted on 02/28/2003 11:40:27 AM PST by Iron Eagle

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:35:36 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last
To: Iron Eagle
Screw the 9th Circuit Court of Schlocks...
141 posted on 02/28/2003 6:52:58 PM PST by harpo11 (I have not forgotten September 11, 2001--3000 Innocent Americans Murdered by Terrorist Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle

142 posted on 02/28/2003 6:56:04 PM PST by harpo11 (I have not forgotten September 11, 2001--3000 Innocent Americans Murdered by Terrorist Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicks bad seed
The Under God bit was added in the 50's so who cares if it's removed down the road.

You're right that it was added. But sometimes people get used to something that was added.

Like Roe v. Wade, for example.

Some USSC justices thought abortion should be kept around because Americans had gotten used to it.

143 posted on 02/28/2003 7:27:44 PM PST by syriacus (Chuck Schumer. ALL the Senators will learn you have ignored your constituents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: scisyhp
So what do you worship? Animals? Yourself? Or what?
144 posted on 02/28/2003 8:11:11 PM PST by OperationFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
I don't care if the libs do hear us shouting it out - they can't put us all in jail.
145 posted on 02/28/2003 10:50:21 PM PST by Let's Roll (Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: eabinga
"Could you enlighten us about the difference between laws and Laws, or happiness and Happiness??"

Not without your dictionary. Sounds like it would be an interesting topic. Please ping me if you start a thread or find an existing one that would be suitable for an expanded discussion. I have some questions of my own on the topic.

On the issue of the Pledge, I find some good arguments here on both sides of the issue. A deeper discussion of this would have to include another side of the issue -- whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance should be an indicator of someone's patriotism and love of country in the first place.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of fidelity to our Republic and to the Constitution which governs and protects it. Saying it once is sufficient for me, for an oath is forever.

And to be sure, I enjoy repeating it when I have an opportunity, as I consider it an honor, a privilege and a right to salute the Founding Fathers and our military who served and are serving, many of whom gave their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to protect and bequeath to me such a gift.

And yes, it is still a thrill to stand shoulder to shoulder with the brothers and sisters of our Republic as we re-affirm our love for country and the principles of freedom for which it stands.

With that said, I would like to invite all FReepers to join me in saluting and pledging allegiance to the flag of our country.

I'm not going to ask anyone what version you will be using. As old as I am, I have used all versions and they all work for me.

I so pledge. Eastbound

146 posted on 02/28/2003 11:12:57 PM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
Interesting. The court doesn't like the words 'under G-d', in the pledge.

I wonder how it felt when in 1991:

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. (Received in Senate from House)

HJ 104 RDS


1st Session

H. J. RES. 104


March 6 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 6), 1991



To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe,' this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving,' the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it

Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 1991.




The Noahide laws, given by G-d, to Noah after the flood for all mankind, in Genesis 9, and reiterated in Acts 15:20-21. The council's decision was sent out to all the communities of Believers. It is repeated in Acts 21:25. Later at Mt. Sinai the 10 Commandments are given (Mosaic law), which incorporates the Noahide laws. Gentiles (non Jews) are to follow the Noahide law.

Anyway, the 7 Noahide laws are:

1. no idolatry
2. no sexual immorality
3. no blasphemy
4. no bloodshed
5. no theft
6. no eating of non-kosher food
7. establish just courts

So, how do they reconcile that this is a nation founded on G-d and the Noahide laws, and yet it's unconstituional to have 'under G-d', in the pledge?

147 posted on 02/28/2003 11:15:07 PM PST by ET(end tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nicmarlo

148 posted on 03/01/2003 7:15:44 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Saddam! / Check out my Freeper site !:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
THAT, meekie, is very kewl!
149 posted on 03/01/2003 3:01:09 PM PST by nicmarlo (** UNDER GOD **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: All
We must see the jurisdiction of all courts below the SCOTUS level changed so that establishment clause cases no longer are heard by them. This can be done since Congress established the lower courts via legislation; it can simply alter the original bill.

The 9th should also be broken up. Furthermore, the judges should be impeached.

Contact your House and Senate members ASAP!

As for those on this thread that say they didn't know the Pledge was voluntary, ignorance is not an excuse. If you don't care to find out what your rights are, too bad.

150 posted on 03/01/2003 9:20:22 PM PST by rwfromkansas ("No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
151 posted on 03/02/2003 5:33:12 AM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wcbtinman
Have read many works by the founding fathers, and the federalist papers, I can't agree with your interpretation of "an establishment of religion".

One of Jefferson's proudest achievements was the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom. Here's a link comparing his bill with that enacted.

Statute on Religious Freedom

To me it seems very clear that in order to protect the freedom to worship as one wishes, it's essential the government neither make laws establishing a religion, or make laws about "an establishment" of religion. In the latter, I read it as make no laws about a church or method of worship.

You'll note in the Statute on Religious Freedom the comments about forcing someone to pay for a belief he does not espouse. That clearly seems to refer to acts of government.

Is Jefferson one of the "Godless, socilalist liars" you're talking about?

152 posted on 03/03/2003 7:27:56 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I take it you've given up the debate.

Just a breather.

Shall religious practices be dictated by the state under majority rule?

That's the import of my question about the Satanists.

If so, why? If not, then why are we arguing?

153 posted on 03/03/2003 7:30:25 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jimt
"Is Jefferson on of he "Godless, socialist liars" you're talking about?"

Jefferson is always brought up when socialists argue for the mythical "seperation" of church and state. Jefferson was one of, I believe 3, of the Founders who were considered 'Deists' or something to that effect. I'm not really sure if that is equitable to some sort of 'atheist' or not. I have read several differing explainations.

Jefferson and his 2 or so compatriots did not comprise the majority of feeling about religion among the Founders. So, I can only read the plain English of the 1st Amendment and note that the word 'the' or 'a' was not used. Instead the Founders used the word 'an'.

While I'm no great shakes at the English language myself, I asked a professor at FL State University if it meant what I thought. He agreed that using strict construct in the language, the meaning was plain and was exactly as I was protraying it to him.

BTW, he also agrees about the very plain English used in the 2nd amendment. We even found a dictionary from the late 1700's in order to verify that the meaning of 'an' , and the meaning of 'infringed' were still the same today. They are.

Was Jefferson a Godless, socialist liar? I don't think so. But, his position about the confluence of church and state was not the view of the majority during the formation of the Constitution, and the writings of the Founders clearly indicate that God, and in particular a Christian God was the basis of all of the laws written, and the basis of justice in early America.

The socialist liars among us have twisted, re-interpreted, and parsed the words in the Constituion until the document is hardly recognizable sometimes. The fact that they have gotten away with it for some 60 or so years does not change the wording, meaning, definitions, or the intent of the supreme legal document of America.

154 posted on 03/03/2003 5:57:16 PM PST by wcbtinman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-154 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson