Supreme Court rules in favor of public legislative prayers

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

certainly wasn't nefarious, just thought the call for civility was amusing...would you like me to edit in the irrelevant stuff?

No, I liked it.

Me too.

[Felch]

I don't like to quote myself, since it's narcissistic, but if anybody wants to use, "Nobody is trying to start a fight, I'm just inviting you to add something substantive to the discussion. So fuck you, and fuck your lies. - Felch" as part of their sig, I'd be honored.

[Berzerker]

if you're going to be removing references to religion, why is "Creator" in the preamble ok, but "God" in the pledge is not?

If the pledge fails the establishment clause for mentioning God - why doesn't the preamble also fail?

The preamble does not tell children to swear allegiance to the state's god, the Pledge does. How are you missing that distinction?

In the same place it credits the Creator as the source for natural rights. Where do you think the whole edifice comes from? It comes from Aquinas. And last I checked most Christians consider Aquinas to be one of theirs.

Quote it... And where did Jesus say we have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Are you seriously arguing that the Pledge is more important than the preamble?

I wouldn't argue that seriously or not, one document speaks of religious freedom and the other tramples it with collectivist claptrap

I'm sorry Berz, if the preamble is fine with honoring God and his blessings on America than the pledge is also fine.

The people signing onto the Declaration of Independence were adult men who knew or believed they'd be hanged for seceding from England, they were not coercing children into pledging allegiance to the state's god. To use them as justification for the Pledge is

[Ben Kenobi]

The preamble does not tell children to swear allegiance to the state's god, the Pledge does. How are you missing that distinction?

The fact that the Preamble states that our rights are God-given is ok with you? Seems that would fall afoul of the establishment clause if you are arguing that rights come from God.

Quote it... And where did Jesus say we have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Sorry, Berz. Not buying your attempt to parse things. It just doesn't cut that fine.

You seem ok with the 'Deist god', but not with the Christian God.

I wouldn't argue that seriously or not, one document speaks of religious freedom and the other tramples it with collectivist claptrap

Both affirm that rights come from God. If rights come from God, it stands to reason that taking God out would also remove our rights.

The people signing onto the Declaration of Independence were adult men who knew or believed

Where does the constitution bar parents from teaching their faith to their children?

[Berzerker]

The fact that the Preamble states that our rights are God-given is ok with you?

Sure, if thats what those men believed why should I care - to paraphrase Jefferson, it makes no difference to me if my neighbor believes in 20 gods or no god, that neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Seems that would fall afoul of the establishment clause if you are arguing that rights come from God.

Why?

Sorry, Berz. Not buying your attempt to parse things. It just doesn't cut that fine.

I'll ask again, where do the Constitution and Declaration of Independence say this is a Christian nation? And where did Jesus mention natural rights from a Creator?

You seem ok with the 'Deist god', but not with the Christian God.

I'm okay with both if children aint told by teachers to swear allegiance to them

Both affirm that rights come from God. If rights come from God, it stands to reason that taking God out would also remove our rights.

The Pledge tells children to swear allegiance to its god, the Declaration of Independence does not

Where does the constitution bar parents from teaching their faith to their children?

How does your question relate to what I said?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

And Christians tend to use Creator.

Again, if you're going to be removing references to religion, why is "Creator" in the preamble ok, but "God" in the pledge is not? If mentioning God is sufficient to 'establish a religion', than the simple mention of God is sufficient in the preamble to fail the exact same criterion.

It makes more sense to me to say that America is just fine thank you very much with public references to God, and that this peculiar American tradition began right at the start.

The Declaration of Independence predates the 1st amendment, which doesn't allow the establishment of religion.

[Kidlicious]

And we've been saying the Pledge like that for 60 years. So what?

[kentonio]

As the US government specifically said after the constitution that the USA was not a Christian nation, I'm intrigued by how people can continue to try and argue that the USA is a Christian nation.

According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers.

[Kidlicious]

Idk if anyone is saying it is in an official sense. The Cold War was against radical atheism. If you don't know that you don't know our history.

[kentonio]

The Cold War was not a war against radical atheism, what are you talking about?

[Kidlicious]

The Cold War was not a war against radical atheism, what are you talking about?

MrFun doesn't represent my country. You have no idea how offensive you are.

[kentonio]

MrFun doesn't represent my country. You have no idea how offensive you are.

MrFun isn't an atheist. Also how do you know I don't know how offensive I am? I find that offensive.

[Pax]

Cold War was a war for to see who would control the markets.

[Kidlicious]

MrFun isn't an atheist. Also how do you know I don't know how offensive I am? I find that offensive.

Do you know what a Pinko is? It has fallen out of use since the end of the Cold War. It means you are a communist sympathizer. That's what MrFun is. So don't think he represents the USA. Someone like Obama could not be elected during the Cold War because he's a Pinko.

Point is, yes things are changing, but this was a christian nation (not officially), and it still is. That's why we still say "under God."

[Kidlicious]

Cold War was a war for to see who would control the markets.

For the capitalists yes. For the christians, not so much.