McDermott omits 'God' from Pledge

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
:rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Wait till you see what lies ahead. You will eat those words.

OOOhh. I'm scared. Answer the questions, please, fine sir.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
God also gives our leaders their authority.

so we, as americans, are god? because the last constitution that I read said we selected our leaders and gave them their authority.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so we, as americans, are god?

Just me. Thank you. Enjoy your evening.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so we, as americans, are god? because the last constitution that I read said we selected our leaders and gave them their authority.

Perhaps it's too deep a concept for a liberal mind to grasp.

 

[nescientist]

I'm not sure I should even bother to argue the Pledge when there are two people who honestly believe that the President of the United States is there by God's will.

Wow. I mean, wow.

First off, God is omnipresent and omnipotent, right? By that logic every other leader in history was "chosen by god", and they're definitely a mixed bunch. Isn't one of the theological tenets of your religion that man cannot understand God's plan? So... why does it matter that our leader is chosen by God? I mean, Hitler was chosen by God if you subscribe to that kind of belief.

Or do you honestly think that God is specifically interested in this election, or even this country? Do you pretend to know God's plan? If so, will there be cake?

Read some history. We've had crappy Presidents before, we will again - but I don't know if that's what you're getting at.

On topic: this guy may well have been a bit of an ass, but the "under god" phrase in the pledge is a nonessential cold-war-era insertion. Our country is predominantly Christian, yes, but we are NOT a Christian nation. Read the First Amendment.

I don't really care about the Pledge, but the involuntary recital of it by minors is a bit demeaning to genuine patriotism, isn't it? Orwellian in a way that this nation just doesn't need to be?

Just my 2 cents.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Just me. Thank you. Enjoy your evening.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by nescientist
I'm not sure I should even bother to argue the Pledge when there are two people who honestly believe that the President of the United States is there by God's will.

Wow. I mean, wow.

First off, God is omnipresent and omnipotent, right? By that logic every other leader in history was "chosen by god", and they're definitely a mixed bunch. Isn't one of the theological tenets of your religion that man cannot understand God's plan? So... why does it matter that our leader is chosen by God? I mean, Hitler was chosen by God if you subscribe to that kind of belief.

(shrug)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by dmp
(shrug)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

almost makes you sound like a borg.

resistance is futile :

 

[NewGuy]

Being ALLOWED by God and being ENDORSED by God are two different things.

God allows all things to work for His purpose. If Hitler got into power, God allowed it. If Hitler died, God allowed that and most likely ENDORSED it.

Bush and or Kerry are not necessarily ENDORSED, but ARE in fact, allowed.

Understanding God's soverignty and justice would be in order to understand the nature of the issue.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hello, I am 7 of 9!

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
almost makes you sound like a borg.

resistance is futile :

My 2 year old recently started exerting independence. When we travel as a family, he inists on climbing into his car seat by himself.

"I DO IT!" he exclaims.

I stand back, hands-off, as he climbs into the car. After he puts a foot inside, I put my hand a couple inches from his backside; incase he should lose his grip on the seat, and fall. I'm there waiting - each time I anticipate and think about him falling back. I'm allowing him to test his wings - to control his destiny and make his own path. I open the path (car door) for him. I point him towards the goal. But he does the climbing. By removing himself from my protection (Me putting him in the car), he's owning up to being responsible if he falls. Nevertheless, I stand there, ready to grab him.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by dmp
My 2 year old recently started exerting independence. When we travel as a family, he inists on climbing into his car seat by himself.

"I DO IT!" he exclaims.

I stand back, hands-off, as he climbs into the car. After he puts a foot inside, I put my hand a couple inches from his backside; incase he should lose his grip on the seat, and fall. I'm there waiting - each time I anticipate and think about him falling back. I'm allowing him to test his wings - to control his destiny and make his own path. I open the path (car door) for him. I point him towards the goal. But he does the climbing. By removing himself from my protection (Me putting him in the car), he's owning up to being responsible if he falls. Nevertheless, I stand there, ready to grab him.

An excellent example, and more elloquent than I could have done today.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by dmp
(shrug)

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

You are entitled to your opinion but it is just that, opinion. There is no god- never was, never will be. Now you have mine.

Luckily, mine is every bit as correct as your according to the laws of this country.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Moi
You are entitled to your opinion but it is just that, opinion. There is no god- never was, never will be. Now you have mine.

Luckily, mine is every bit as correct as your according to the laws of this country.

Whoa! Holy crap didn't see that coming but i'll fight for your right to say that.

 

[KLSuddeth]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
almost makes you sound like a borg.

resistance is futile :

You would do well to remember that.


dismissed

 

[acludem]

I do not say the words under God when I recite the pledge of allegience. You know why? Because I don't believe in God, and I don't believe we are one nation under God, and I don't like to tell lies when I am reciting an oath. Rep. McDermott has absolutely every right not to say "Under God" if he's not comfortable doing so. Pete Sessions should shut his pie hole and mind his own damn business.

You all talk about taking the words out of the pledge, problem is they weren't there when it was written. The person who wrote it, a Baptist Minister no less, would've been furious about the words being put in, according to his family. "Under God" was put in the 1950s by Dwight Eisenhower because we didn't want to be "Godless Commies". That's a fact. This is not now, nor has this ever been a "Christian Nation." It is a nation of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics, Atheists, Wiccaans, and every other religion you think of. In colonial times there were already Catholics, Protestants, Jews and even Muslims in this country.

As for whether or not the majority of the founders were abolitionists, I'd say it was about evenly divided. Most from the north opposed slavery, most from the south supported it. Then you had Madison and Jefferson who both hated slavery yet owned slaves. Jefferson said that slavery "was like holding a wolf by the ears, you didn't like it, but you didn't dare let go"


acludem

 

[kingjames04]

Originally posted by mattskramer
If the founding fathers were abolitionists, why did they not vote to end slavery right away. Even Thomas Jefferson owned a slave. Anyway, even if we put the slavery issue aside, there is more wrong. They did not blink an eye while "natives" were forced to move west. Women were not allowed to vote for a very long time. Was it really necessary, for a growing nation, to not allow women to vote. I don't agree with this huge devotion we give to the founding fathers. They helped create a nation but let us not give them undue praise. They were far from perfect.

The delegates to the Constitutional convention from South Carolina and Georgia were the only ones against abolishing the slave trade at that time. The rest conceded to form the union.

Thomas Jefferson put a clause in the original declaration against slavery, it was later removed before the final draft was ratified by the Continental Congress; because of the same two states objections.

Even at that, the Constitution set a sunset of 1808 for the slave trade.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and America is better than Rome.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
I do not say the words under God when I recite the pledge of allegience. You know why? Because I don't believe in God, and I don't believe we are one nation under God, and I don't like to tell lies when I am reciting an oath. Rep. McDermott has absolutely every right not to say "Under God" if he's not comfortable doing so. Pete Sessions should shut his pie hole and mind his own damn business.

You defend one man's right to speak or not speak, and then in the next breath say another man should shut up and not have the right to speak.

Bottom line, I agree he shouldn't have to speak those words, but then he shouldn't have been leading the recital of something he doesn't believe in.

 

[jcon96]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
"The founding fathers were not necessarily right."



Most people have to rent a backhoe to dig a hole that deep.

The founding fathers were a product of their times. Matter of fact, they were well ahead of their times and they were brilliant. Your questions about why didn't they give women the vote, etc etc are simply inane. Social issues and attitudes evolve over time. You might as well ask "why didn't they give blacks not only freedom, but the vote as well?"

The reasons are much the same as why horses were used as beasts of burden instead using trucks. It's because the gasoline engine had not been invented yet and the people using horses could not picture any other means of moving manure. And look how that has evolved ..... today you can do it with a computer.

Unless I am just a little tired this morning, you are equating the black vote to the use of horses as beasts of burden? That because it was the way to do things before and elsewhere than that made it okay? In your mind the decision to remove the vote from a sement of the population was because it had always been done that way? I await the logic that shows why woman could not vote , maybe a comparison to oxen pulling flatboats, or something along those lines. As to the natives of this country, I could not think of an apt comparison, but I am sure you will.

 

[acludem]

Pete Sessions can say whatever he wants but he shouldn't leveraging personal attacks on a colleague on the floor of the House of Reps. I've recited the pledge where the person leading it doesn't say "under God" since every else does it doesn't matter.

acludem