Court upholds 'under God' in Pledge of Allegiance

[Againsheila]

funny how everyone's pledging allegiance in a country where nobody has any faith in governance, and everyone hates their fellow man for their ideal of what that allegiance should be eh?

There is a difference between our country and our government. I love our country, I do not care for our leadership and haven't for sometime. As for the people, I stand proud with Americans...I think illegals should be sent home and people who are loyal to their home country instead of this one should go with them. Then we might get some leadership in power that really cares about America.

Mr "I'm a citizen of the world" is the worst person we could have ever elected and all true "Americans" knew it at the time. We need an "American" president, not a citizen of the world.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

That damned liberal court in San Fran!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Context, context, context.

This psalm was chanted by the captives who had been transferred out of Jerusalem, after its destruction in the year 587 b.C. and before the destruction of Babylon in 539 b.C. by the Persian armies of Cyrus. If you read this psalm from the beginning, you shall discern the nostalgia that the Judean refugees felt, as well as their indignation towards Babylon, and we shall also discern their hopes for repatriation, according to the relative prophecies that they believed in.

The object of their indignation is Babylon – the international power at the time – and it is against Babylon that they are protesting. In this psalm, they are recalling everything that Babylon had done to them; they are also remembering their children, whom the Babylonians had killed by dashing them against rocks, and they feel their indignation overflowing. As a result, they are inclined to add that whoever renders unto the Babylonians the same malice that they had shown to the Judeans, will be worthy of being blessed. This would make them feel vindicated for their calamity.

This is the cry of anger by parents who had witnessed their children being dashed to death against rocks by the Babylonian soldiers, and their yearning for retaliation and justice. You should remember here that, at the time, justice was meted out through the maxim “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, therefore this yearning was actually a rather “progressive” one for their time; in an era when an avenger normally required that his enemy be punished with a sevenfold punishment, Israel had been taught by its own Law that it should not exceed the extent of the enemy’s actions if it were to retaliate – only to respond with something equivalent.

 

[sparky]

It's a PLEDGE , not a PRAYER!

~S~

 

[bodecea]

It's a PLEDGE , not a PRAYER!

~S~

A socialist prayer, to boot.

 

[Barb]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

Because "indivisible" just wasn't enough? Face it that mess was put into action during the "Red Scare" of the fifties, to differentiate red-blooded Gawd fearing Americans form those godless communists and their fellow travelers hiding under your bed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6Sa4zmoKE"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6Sa4zmoKE[/ame]

 

[saveliberty]

It's a PLEDGE , not a PRAYER!

~S~

Your not saying the pledge to God fool. Just an acknowledgement of the role Americans saw by God in the birth, development and preservation of this country.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The object of their indignation is Babylon – the international power at the time – and it is against Babylon that they are protesting. In this psalm, they are recalling everything that Babylon had done to them; they are also remembering their children, whom the Babylonians had killed by dashing them against rocks, and they feel their indignation overflowing. As a result, they are inclined to add that whoever renders unto the Babylonians the same malice that they had shown to the Judeans, will be worthy of being blessed. This would make them feel vindicated for their calamity.

This is the cry of anger by parents who had witnessed their children being dashed to death against rocks by the Babylonian soldiers, and their yearning for retaliation

So the 'context' is that the jews are no better than the evil Babylonians they're claiming are so bad?

That's like saying it'd be fine for Israel to nuke every German city in existence as revenge for Hitler.

wrong^2 =/= right

 

[Foxfyre]

The object of their indignation is Babylon – the international power at the time – and it is against Babylon that they are protesting. In this psalm, they are recalling everything that Babylon had done to them; they are also remembering their children, whom the Babylonians had killed by dashing them against rocks, and they feel their indignation overflowing. As a result, they are inclined to add that whoever renders unto the Babylonians the same malice that they had shown to the Judeans, will be worthy of being blessed. This would make them feel vindicated for their calamity.

This is the cry of anger by parents who had witnessed their children being dashed to death against rocks by the Babylonian soldiers, and their yearning for retaliation

So the 'context' is that the jews are no better than the evil Babylonians they're claiming are so bad?

That's like saying it'd be fine for Israel to nuke every German city in existence as revenge for Hitler.

wrong^2 =/= right

No, it is saying that the context is in the culture and experience of the people living at that time. To assign 21st century American concepts of ethics and morality to people who lived almost 3000 years ago is as silly as assigning 21st century American concepts of ethics and morality to primitive jungle tribal people.

Had we lived in the time that the Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians, we would have a much different view of the world ourselves. And had those people been born into our culture, their writings would look much different.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The object of their indignation is Babylon – the international power at the time – and it is against Babylon that they are protesting. In this psalm, they are recalling everything that Babylon had done to them; they are also remembering their children, whom the Babylonians had killed by dashing them against rocks, and they feel their indignation overflowing. As a result, they are inclined to add that whoever renders unto the Babylonians the same malice that they had shown to the Judeans, will be worthy of being blessed. This would make them feel vindicated for their calamity.

This is the cry of anger by parents who had witnessed their children being dashed to death against rocks by the Babylonian soldiers, and their yearning for retaliation

So the 'context' is that the jews are no better than the evil Babylonians they're claiming are so bad?

That's like saying it'd be fine for Israel to nuke every German city in existence as revenge for Hitler.

wrong^2 =/= right

The context is as it's been explained which is a lot more than what you did when you cited the one verse. If you don't understand the Bible then perhaps you should cease quoting it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No, it is saying that the context is in the culture and experience of the people living at that time.

So their God couldn't hold them to a higher standard? Their god is no different than Molek and couldn't provide any higher morality than the depraved ungodly masses around them?

To assign 21st century American concepts of ethics and morality to people who lived almost 3000 years ago is as silly as assigning 21st century American concepts of ethics and morality to primitive jungle tribal people.

So 21st century man is more moral than the god who gave them their morality 3k years ago?

Had we lived in the time that the Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians, we would have a much different view of the world ourselves.

Only if we, too, listened to their religious authorities.

And had those people been born into our culture, their writings would look much different.

Because they'd listen to philosophers and moral persons rather than warlords and priests?

 

[Meister]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

 

[bodecea]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

That's pretty shocking. Can you link it for me?

 

[mal]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

That's pretty shocking. Can you link it for me?

Shocking was his (3) Monkey Pic that was Removed...

Racist and Homophobic at the same Time...



peace...

 

[Coyote]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

Perhaps he got accidently smited...that could account for a lot

 

[Meister]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

That's pretty shocking. Can you link it for me?

I can't link you to it, Bo.....I've looked but just can't remember what thread it was in. Maybe if pro comes back he can remember. It idd get pretty heated because I wouldn't accept science over religion. He then said that me and my ilk should just die, which meant christians. Then he backed off and said that wasn't what he meant. He then said that those who don't believe in science over religion should die.
That's when I lost all respect for the boy.

 

[Meister]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

Perhaps he got accidently smited...that could account for a lot

Accidently smitted? Please explain, because I'm not sure what your saying?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

God and religion really bothers pro. He wished all christians and their ilk would just die in another thread.....then tried to back off that statement.
I just shake my head when I read his distain for religion.

That's pretty shocking. Can you link it for me?

I can't link you to it, Bo.....I've looked but just can't remember what thread it was in. Maybe if pro comes back he can remember. It idd get pretty heated because I wouldn't accept science over religion. He then said that me and my ilk should just die, which meant christians..

Fail.

You said no evidence would ever change your mind.

I stated that the world would be much better off without people like you, who revel in ignorance and abhor reason. I stand by that. People who think like you are the reason religion, corrupt politicians, and tyrants continue to rule in the world.


Next time, try being honest.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

This should piss the so-called athiest off.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the use of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments on Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who claimed the references to God disrespect his religious beliefs.

"The Pledge is constitutional," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded."


The Facts

This shouldn't make an atheist angry. IMO.

Unless they have some kind of agenda they are pushing for, then it would piss them off. But most athiests in america are normal, freedom loving, americans who dont want to stifle other people's freedom of expression through religion.

IMO.

If you are an atheist who is angry at this maybe you should examine exactly WHY this makes you angry especially considering you aren't forced to say it if you dont want to (i used to say under ME instead of under GOD when I said the pledge in school because I was a good little atheist boy).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It's a PLEDGE , not a PRAYER!

~S~

It was before GOD was added.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the United States is an oath of loyalty to the flag and to republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.

get your facts straight before you open your big fat mouth.