Why ''Under God'' phrase added on the Pledge of Allegiance in U.S?

[danielpalos]

Capitalism requires competition, socialism does not; ask Ding.

THe topic is "Why was under God added on teh Pledge of Alliance?", during the Cold War, and not during the Founding.


I have answered that, because during the Cold War, we had a powerful enemy with a strong internal 5th column, that rejected traditional American culture, including Christianity.


What about that bothers you?

The right wing has no, "faith in Capitalism"; it really is that simple.

You seem to not want to address my point.


Your post is nothing but an Appeal to Emotion, by attempting to play on what you perceive as your opponents "buttons".

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

 

[Correll]

THe topic is "Why was under God added on teh Pledge of Alliance?", during the Cold War, and not during the Founding.


I have answered that, because during the Cold War, we had a powerful enemy with a strong internal 5th column, that rejected traditional American culture, including Christianity.


What about that bothers you?

The right wing has no, "faith in Capitalism"; it really is that simple.

You seem to not want to address my point.


Your post is nothing but an Appeal to Emotion, by attempting to play on what you perceive as your opponents "buttons".

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing has no, "faith in Capitalism"; it really is that simple.

You seem to not want to address my point.


Your post is nothing but an Appeal to Emotion, by attempting to play on what you perceive as your opponents "buttons".

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

 

[bodecea]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

Ironically, the same political leanings (RW) that got "under god" added to the Pledge are now full bore pro-Russia over the U.S.

 

[bodecea]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

 

[sakinago]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

 

[Correll]

You seem to not want to address my point.


Your post is nothing but an Appeal to Emotion, by attempting to play on what you perceive as your opponents "buttons".

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

 

[Correll]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

Ironically, the same political leanings (RW) that got "under god" added to the Pledge are now full bore pro-Russia over the U.S.

Wow. You just revealed that you have no clue about what the Cold War was about, or even why it is over.

And that you are completely blinded by your partisan hysteria.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

 

[EvMetro]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

Since America was founded upon Judeo Christian values, it makes a lot more sense to those who have those values. Those who have no soul will have a hard time understanding this. Since lefties are soul less, they will keep coming back to this question.

 

[sakinago]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority. Don't know what that was about.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with marriage licensing that was designed to stop blacks and whites from marrying (see miscongeniation laws), and then with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first. I can't cite our previous practice of slavery or internment camps as a justification to continue those practices, especially since they violate the constitution. And the US has violated the constitution many times, which is not to be blamed on the constitution, since we went against it.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st. You cannot use your rights to violate another's rights, that's how our constitutional republic is set up.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law effecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban a teacher from praying, even in front of students, as long as that teacher is not forcing his/her students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Business still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

 

[Correll]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority. Don't know what that was about.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with marriage licensing that was designed to stop blacks and whites from marrying (see miscongeniation laws), and then with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first. I can't cite our previous practice of slavery or internment camps as a justification to continue those practices, especially since they violate the constitution. And the US has violated the constitution many times, which is not to be blamed on the constitution, since we went against it.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st. You cannot use your rights to violate another's rights, that's how our constitutional republic is set up.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law effecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban a teacher from praying, even in front of students, as long as that teacher is not forcing his/her students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Business still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

A big part of the reason for bigamy laws is that men married to multiple women would often abandon families and leave women and children without means of support.

 

[sakinago]

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority. Don't know what that was about.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with marriage licensing that was designed to stop blacks and whites from marrying (see miscongeniation laws), and then with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first. I can't cite our previous practice of slavery or internment camps as a justification to continue those practices, especially since they violate the constitution. And the US has violated the constitution many times, which is not to be blamed on the constitution, since we went against it.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st. You cannot use your rights to violate another's rights, that's how our constitutional republic is set up.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law effecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban a teacher from praying, even in front of students, as long as that teacher is not forcing his/her students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Business still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

A big part of the reason for bigamy laws is that men married to multiple women would often abandon families and leave women and children without means of support.

And men can't abandon their families now without child support? Didn't realize that was limited to polygamous families.

Anyway you're point is getting into pre-crime, no one forced those women into marriage against their will (maybe a little of that was going on) but that would be considered kidnapping. It's still not grounds for the government to violate the first amendment, path to hell is paved with good intentions. Government has no place to tell who can marry who, or multiple who's, as long as they are doing so on their own volition, and not against their will.

 

[danielpalos]

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

Job 34:30 That the hypocrite reign not, lest the people be ensnared.

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

 

[sakinago]

"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

You said that. I responded to that. YOu repeated yourself. That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion. Your post is invalid.

Do you think that no one noticed that you were unable to defend your statement?

Your dishonesty was just perfectly revealed.

Your point about this being hypocritical has been debunked.

debunked with what? we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

You have nothing but fallacy.

My point, that you have refused to address stands.


"Hypocrisy"? The Soviet Union and the Communist Ideology was strongly anti-Religious.

As the US had Freedom of Religion, including a phrase celebrating the Free Exercise of Religion in the US was not hypocritical.



Until you address that, the debate is stalled at, I refuted your last point, and you are unable or unwilling to counter my rebuttal.


Whenever you are ready, go right ahead.

this is my rebuttal:

We got a McCarthy era phrase but no anti-hypocrisy laws on the books. It really is that simple.

we don't have any anti-hypocrisy laws on the books, like we did against sex.

It doesn't matter what Communists do, if you have Faith in Capitalism.

You're point on capitalism is, you can't insert the phrase under god and still be for capitalism, am I right?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

United States is a country which is completely based on secular principles. So, I just wonder about: why they added that phrase on the Pledge of Allegiance? Actually scientifically; humanity doesn't need any god, spirituel or holy thing in its life to be succesful. Because we know that these beliefs doesn't provide or help anything better.

In the future or currently is there an movement-act to remove that phrase ? Or Americans want to remove that ? (Also I wonder about same thing for the ''in god we trust'')

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law affecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban teachers from praying, even in front of students, as long as those teachers are not forcing their students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Businesses still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

The Greatest Good for the Least Number

The only minority Constitutionazis care about is the 1%, which sics other minorities on us just to put us in our place, not out of love for those misfits.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority. Don't know what that was about.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with marriage licensing that was designed to stop blacks and whites from marrying (see miscongeniation laws), and then with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first. I can't cite our previous practice of slavery or internment camps as a justification to continue those practices, especially since they violate the constitution. And the US has violated the constitution many times, which is not to be blamed on the constitution, since we went against it.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st. You cannot use your rights to violate another's rights, that's how our constitutional republic is set up.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law effecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban a teacher from praying, even in front of students, as long as that teacher is not forcing his/her students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Business still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

A big part of the reason for bigamy laws is that men married to multiple women would often abandon families and leave women and children without means of support.

The Constitution Is a Pulpit for Bullies

Constitutionazis don't care about laws written for a good reason; all they care about is their fetish of fitting everything into the political dictatorship of the Constitution. It gives them pleasure to boss the public around; supremacy of their Masters is what they really like about having a Constitutional overlord on our laws.

 

[sakinago]

A. America is not a country based on secular principles. Separation of church and state is not in the constitution, only the 1st amendment states that congress is to make no law concerning the establishment of religion or impeding in the free exercise of religion. This is the closest thing you'll find to separation of church and state.

America is actually a country based on religious principles, particularly principles and philosophies of natural law (which stems from religion) . Citing the Declaration of Independence... "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Pursuit of happiness was originally intended to be property, but was changed so it didn't give slave owners a foothold going forward. So it's actual a bunch of religious men's principals that guided and gave us our constitution. God gives us the ability to speak, therefore we cannot take that away, God gives us the ability to defend ourselves therefore people can be armed to do so...

B. Why are we making our kids say a prayer to the government everyday?? Look up the history of the pledge of allegiance...it was made by a national socialist trying to sell flags to schools. And we didn't originally put our hands over our heart, we started out by giving the heil hitler straight arm salute. The only people who should be made to pledge, is our lawmakers and officials, and they should be made to recite to bill of rights everyday.

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law affecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban teachers from praying, even in front of students, as long as those teachers are not forcing their students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Businesses still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

The Greatest Good for the Least Number

The only minority Constitutionazis care about is the 1%, which sics other minorities on us just to put us in our place, not out of love for those misfits.

Huh? The constitution is designed to afford rights on an individual basis, and then further remove rights of the government. In an oversimplified term, what's good for the goose is good for the gaggle, with strict restrictions on the few geese in charge so they do not take advantage of the gaggle, so no one has more rights than anyone else. If you don't like the constitution, move somewhere else that better fits your beliefs. Socialism by nature is the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, with the best of intentions. Constitution is designed so that the "misfits" have every opportunity/rights/freedom etc, as those who are not considered misfits. If one was to afford positive rights to a certain group, that would go against the constitution. I don't know which constitutionalist you refer to, id like to see where you got that number.

 

[sakinago]

So, we have no separation of church and state? Is that what you are saying?

The closest mention to separation of church and state is the first amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with right to peaceable assemble..."

Separation of church and state is no where in the constitution. It's an idea that was originally created to combat the way England and other countries were banning and imposing certain religions, beliefs, and practices on their citizens. It's being twisted now as law, and the idea that religion cannot influence the government...and that government can regulate religious practice on governmental employees, which interferes with the first as shown above. So no, there is no separation of church and state, just that government cannot make laws concerning religion or the exercise of religion.

The Will of the Majority Should Override the Elitist Constitution Anyway

"Free exercise" does not include breaking secular laws. There was already a law against bigamy, so the Mormons could not claim an exemption based on free exercise of their religion. The Muslims can't advocate the overthrow of our government, even though the Koran tells them they can.

One of the biggest functions of the constitution is to make sure the will of the majority does not rule over the minority. Don't know what that was about.

Just because we made a law against bigamy doesn't mean we didn't violate the first amendment, which we did. Government should have no place in marriage, it overstepped starting with marriage licensing that was designed to stop blacks and whites from marrying (see miscongeniation laws), and then with DOMA, which was also a direct violation of the first. I can't cite our previous practice of slavery or internment camps as a justification to continue those practices, especially since they violate the constitution. And the US has violated the constitution many times, which is not to be blamed on the constitution, since we went against it.

And honor killing, or killing infidels, or abortion doctors, is not protected under as a free exercise of religion, since it violates right to life. Free exercise does not permit forcing others into your religion, BC that would be a violation of the 1st. You cannot use your rights to violate another's rights, that's how our constitutional republic is set up.

And again there is no separation of church and state, only in the sense that govt cannot make any law effecting religion, as long as that religion is not violating people's rights against their will, then it becomes a legal problem, that's already laid out in the constitution. So a school cannot ban a teacher from praying, even in front of students, as long as that teacher is not forcing his/her students to pray. Government cannot force business owners to participate in something that violates their free practice of religion. Business still retain the right to refuse business, but that's being eroded. If your crazy religion states your not to do business with anyone outside of religion, it's probably a terrible business practice, but you're not infringing on other people's rights, since they have a right to choose business anywhere.

A big part of the reason for bigamy laws is that men married to multiple women would often abandon families and leave women and children without means of support.

The Constitution Is a Pulpit for Bullies

Constitutionazis don't care about laws written for a good reason; all they care about is their fetish of fitting everything into the political dictatorship of the Constitution. It gives them pleasure to boss the public around; supremacy of their Masters is what they really like about having a Constitutional overlord on our laws.

Again constitution was set up to severely limit the ability of those "in charge" to not effect or unfairly tip the scales in favor of anyone, as governments have proven and continually prove to do, over and over and over. There is no dictatorship, if no one can be solely in charge. But if the United States strays from the constitution, how is that to be blamed on the constitution? Your going to have to cite examples to back up what you're saying. In what way is the constitution oppressing you or anyone else's rights?

 

[Eloy]

Because "Under Clinton" would be confusing?

Aks OB..........................he says "God bless Merica EeryBodddy"

The first response to this post about the phrase "under God" mentions Clinton. This deflection is how Trump followers are like a broken record.