Scipio

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040615/D8376H9G0.html

It's pretty unfortunate that the court didn't render a ruling on the issue. Personally, I doubt that it would stand up in the court, but now we may never know.

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

cthulu23

Although I'm not passionate about the issue, I do feel that the phrase is not integral to the Pledge, especially considering that it has only been a part of it since the 1950's. Why is so much importance placed on the inclusion of "under god?"

brianna

this feels a little like dodging the issue, frankly i think we as a nation were denied an actual opinion on this case for not good reason.

nanofever

Looks like somebody REALLY didn't want to do the test case thing with this particular case. Which make me wonder, why did the SCOTUS even take this case if they were just going to waffle it on a technicality ?

Edit: I use to believe that Ad Homs were poor form but after reading the opinions of the SCOTUS; I learned that Ad Homs are legitimate arguments.

/The more you know PSA music

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Scipio

What's interesting to me is that the issue of custody wasn't weeded out in the lower courts. If that's such a big deal, how did it make it through two levels of the justice system? Was it a new argument introduced by the solicitor at this level?

__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."

ARTelevision

To me this sort of thing isn't important.
I don't care about it either way they eventually decide.

__________________
create evolution

pan6467

The founding fathers, when they wrote "seperation of church and state" meant to keep any ONE religion out of government and instead meant for us to be able to freely worship the God of our choice.

I do not believe they meant nor intended us to take GOD's name out of our venacular. It does not say which GOD in the pledge or on money.

Everyone needs spirituality and a belief system (even atheists have a belief system and spirituality.... They believe in nothing, BUT it is still very much a belief in spirituality that they hold). GOD can refer to anything any one person places that value on. Therefore, saying GOD is no more offensive than saying love.

But it is important for us to keep GOD in our society because the value of belief (whatever it maybe) still outweighs no belief infinitely.

Yes, more wars and deaths have been attributed to religion than for all other reasons combined........ BUT it is also in the name of religion that man has achieved his greatest charity works and love and all that is good.

(PS no one forces or should ever force a kid to say GOD in school during the pledge. Hell, when I went to school and we were taught to say it every morning before school started, 1/2 the kids just mumbled through it anyway.)

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

Saying "One Nation Under God" is not endorsing any religion, that is what the constitution holds, not a "wall of seperation". As stated in the post above it makes no declaration into any denomination, and as far as God the creator goes, he plays an intergral(sp) role in the foundation and function of our country, to say otherwise is both unamerican and ignorant.

Chalk one up for sensible American's, I'm sick of quasi-liberal facist activist judges, as well as god hating groups like the ACLU.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

nanofever

"What do the words "one nation under God" mean? It could have a few different meanings, but its original intent can be seen in President Eisenhower's statement when "under God" was added in June 1954:

In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."

http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/page/em...ive/ID/453.htm

Actually, "under god" has one very specific meaning.

/the more you know music

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Mojo_PeiPei

"One Nation Under God" has a meaning, it was meant to take a stand against the Godless evil Soviet Union and the Soviet heroes. People harp on religion, but in our more intelligent and "progressive" years atheism and anti judeo-christian sentiments are responsible for some of the vicious and abhorrent crimes ever committed (read: Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin/Lenin, Saddam).

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Zeld2.0

Eh I'd like to believe thats true Mojo but as pointed out by nanofever, its original intent was pretty clear...

As to the actual ruling, I don't really care either way, it seems too trivial to matterbut I'm dissapointed it was waffled in the Supreme Court... seems like on one hand they didn't like it and on the other weren't sure if they should remove or keep it

nanofever

Why do you want to play the history game? The fact that assholes hide behind beliefs is nothing new in this world and attributing a single person's actions to all that hold the same belief structure is rather obtuse.

That goes for all people regardless of creed.

And as for .

I can spit bile too, but when I do it I like to have things called sources that affirm my bile spiting; otherwise, I would look like a foolish person. I'm not suggesting that you are indeed a foolish person. I'm just pointing-out my particular beliefs on the subject.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Mojo_PeiPei

Nano is wrong, the only reason people read it like he does was because truly this country was founded under the Judeo-Christian philosophy and influence. Nano has said nothing, nor shown anything that could be considered a valid argument as to why the pledge in its current state is an endorsement of the christian or Judeo God.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

nanofever

You are right, I wasn't clear in my previous post. Lets see if this is a bit clearer:

"...Opponents of the ruling may say the phrase "under God" does not specify the deity of Christianity and Judaism, but includes Allah and any other supreme being recognized by a monotheistic religion. For anyone to say this, they must ignore the cultural history of this nation. This immediately ostracizes atheists, polytheists, animists and Shintoists. It is fine to say the phrase does not cause government to discriminate among monotheistic religions, but if you believe in no god, more than one god, or engage in ancestor or spirit worship, then you are left out in the cold. If the argument is made that the phrase does not endorse a specific religion, it still endorses a type of religion, and the very fact that it endorses any kind of religion violates the separation.



Failing that argument, other detractors have claimed the ruling flies in the face of American tradition. God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. America grew out of puritanical English colonies. We always have been a Christian nation. So goes the argument.



While mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, God was never actually mentioned in the Constitution itself. The Pledge of Allegiance did not even contain the words "under God" until 1954. They were added during the Cold War to help set America apart from the "godless communists" it was opposing. This was the same reason the words "In God We Trust" were added to the dollar bill at roughly the same time. Those two phrases in those two conspicuous places have little to do with American tradition. They are less than 50 years old.



As far as breaking from American traditions goes, the Declaration and the Constitution were written by slave owners. Slavery was an integral part of the American culture and economy by the time of the Civil War, and it is likely the "American tradition" argument was used against abolitionists. The habits of founders and years of accepted activity do not make something right, nor do they excuse activists from changing things.



The final argument is that this is an unpatriotic act in the middle of trying times. With our soldiers fighting abroad and our citizens in danger at home, this is not the time to attack American traditions. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing. Attacking, suing, and protesting are American traditions. Whether right or wrong, protesting the activity of the government is not un-American. It is decidedly patriotic because it is an exercise of the very rights that make our country great. Taking these freedoms for granted and never exercising them is the quickest way to lose them, especially in times like these when the natural inclination is to crack down on certain liberties in the interest of securities.



More than anything though, all of these are ideological, not legal, arguments. The pledge, an official government activity, endorses religion. Therefore, it violates the Constitution.



For the ruling to be overturned, the justification is going to be flawed because it is going to draw on those ideological principles that have no bearing on a judge's job. They are going to have their minds made up about what they want to do, and then figure out how to go about doing it. ..."


http://www.thebatt.com/news/2002/07/...t-518162.shtml

Does that make it clear? If not, I will dive into my collection, and see if I can find my Golden Book series on Constitutional Law. The topical book in the series is entitled "Eisenhower and The Lemon Test". I swear; I don't know how I made it this far without those Golden Books.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Dwayne

With this whole seperation of church and state issue no one seems to remember the actual wording of the amendment that talks about it. The amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So isnt taking out Under God a prohibition of a religion?

The_wall

Well personally I feel the words under god have no place in the pledge, especially since they were added because communists were atheists. That being said the real issue is how much complete bullshit the pledge really is.

Having just graduated last year, I'll tell you that based on my observations of doing the pledge for 13 years of public school, at least 95% of students don't give a flying fuck about the pledge. Most teachers asked you to stand during the pledge, but no one would recite it, they would just wait for it to end so they could sit again. Some teachers didn't even care if you stood or not. In fact, some of the class clowns would recite the pledge really loud as a joke since it would get so quiet in the class when it came on.

I think it would make a lot more sense if each morning you had to read off something in the Bill of Rights. Something that actually teaches the kids the values and morals that this country was founded on.

__________________
"We do what we like and we like what we do!"~andrew Wk

Procrastinate now, don't put off to the last minute.

pan6467

I agree Dwayne, and to go farther is not allowing a person to say "one nation under God" prohibitting free speech?


Again Mojo would rather attack than read the whole post I wrote. 2 things wrong with what you posted here Mojo.

1) I defended having God said, granted not the way you wanted. Saying GOD only gives the word the value you put on it. If you hold no belief in GOD then the word means nothing aand why would that person worry about saying it? But if one should have to say GOD then NO Government entity (including schools) should be allowed to dictate value on that word, by saying it is only the Judeo-Christian God and not Allah, or Buddah or the Great Mother, etc.

2) The ACLU is neither Godless nor Ultra-Liberal, they are in fact a very needed part of our country to defend our rights. Without groups, like the ACLU, watching government and protecting our rights, our rights could be severely compromised. They are helping Limbaugh, are they not?

I support and donate to the ACLU, and I am not Godless, I know a lot of people who donate from the ultra right to the ultra left because the ACLU defends the rights of everyone unbiasedly.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Original intent though again only holds value if that intent is still there. If one believes in a polytheistic religion then they can say "GODS".

Again, by taking the word "GOD" out is prohibitting free speech and as Dwayne pointed out inhibitting religion. You are not forced to say "GOD" or to have any value behind the word if you do say it.

I see the argument on both sides and to be quite honest , I truly don't see the issue.

Those who fight against saying the word have put a self imposed value on the word themselves. The fact that the government does not force one to even say the word is another point in which one has to scratch their head and ask what the issue is over then?

Just as I can see how the question why is it important to be in the pledge to begin with? One surely does not need to say GOD in the pledge to a country to affirm their belief in GOD.

A true atheist would not have any value on the word and therefore it would mean nothing to them and hold the same value as QWRAHGVKHFD to anyone else.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

onetime2

Seems like much ado about nothing to me. It does no harm to remain there. Should the next step be to take the term "religion" out of the first amendment? After all, it does imply a belief in a higher power.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

archer2371

Well said pan, and I agree. Damn, I think that's the first time that you and I have done so (or if we have in the past, I just haven't mentioned it).

__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

dy156

I don't think the girl's mother took a stand against her father pursuing the case until after cert. was granted.

brianna

this sort of naive attitude about other people and their beliefs is exactly why we should remove the phrase. our country had a horrible tendency to overreact when it came to communism and the "under god" phrase is a leftover relic from those days. i'd like to put such ridiculous stereotyping behind us.

meepa

I notice a lot of people here are saying this is a lot of hooplah about nothing and that they don't care. Well I just wanted to say that it isn't just one attention-starved Californian who did this. I cared very much about the outcome of this case, and the fact that the "under God" clause was in the pledge did make me feel uncomfortable when I was in school. Just because you don't think it is a big deal doesn't mean you can write it off that it isn't important to anyone else either. Obviously kids don't have to say "under God", but be realistic, that's making that person feel singled out because they have to do something different. Believe it or not, that phrase does imply certain things about America and it can make someone with different beliefs, like an atheist, feel very isolated or detached. That, contrary to the belief of some of you here, matters very much.

Mojo_PeiPei

Not to hijack, but since people were getting down on me for not putting forth any bit of substance to my claims here we go...

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/...ryArchives.asp

Here are a smidgen of cases where the ACLU has attacked Christianity. The site didn't even get into all the cases that get filed around Christmas, which is a FEDERAL HOLIDAY celebrating the birth of one of histories most influential philosophers... Jesus. If you truly think the ACLU is as righteous as you say it is, perhaps you should do some additional digging and see some of the more ridiculous cases they file in their quest of eliminating Christianity.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

onetime2

Just as you have a right to your opinion, so do the rest of us.

You are free not to say the last two words and are free not to say any of the pledge at all. How many times has the pledge been said with every single person doing and saying the exact same things? In every instance that I've been in there is a gamut of activity and speech going on during the pledge from people being on different verses to people joking and smacking each other. I doubt many people take note of anyone not saying the last two words.

I guess I'd fall into the camp of people who are sick and tired of hearing about how such and such "forces me to feel singled out" or "different". Fine. Gym class makes some people feel "singled out" and "different" should that be banned as well?

In the grand scheme of things, wars, slavery, torture, terrorism, murder, etc,etc,etc I'd have to say it really doesn't matter very much. But hey, that's what's great about our country, I can have a different opinion.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

Yakk

Those looked like attacks on Religion/State interaction.

As for the ruling itself: The SCOTUS is required to settle cases on lesser grounds before it settles them on constitutional grounds.

SCOTUS doesn't make constitutional interpritation decisions on hypothetical situations.

As for "under God", it is an endorcement of deism. Deism is a pretty large umbrella: most people in the USA are some kind of deist.

Religions are strong enough to stand without government support, and governments are strong enough to stand without religious support.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mojo_PeiPei

Say that to the Catholics and Jews who died in the gulags and the work camps. Say that to the Poles, hell say it to the whole eastern bloc.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

brianna

or say it too the people who were targeted by the mccarthy movement and had their entire lives ruined. the cold war was not a moment of greatness for either of the nations involved and to say that the entirety of the USSR was godless and evil is naive and ridiculous come from you or from Eisenhower.

pan6467

Why is it in this country just the word GOD is cause for fighting. I just don't understand what the fuck. We are the greatest country in the world and we are constantly fighting amongst ourselves over stupidity.

We are destroying what made us great by destroying our heritages, our history and most of all our rights because someone finds offense in how another practices that right, even though the one practicing their right is is doing so in a non offensive way.

To say it makes you feel uncomfortable, I am sorry, BUT you have no right to tell another what they can or cannot say. To tell one they cannot say "under GOD" is the same as them telling you, you have to say it. In either case it is wrong.

Come on now people, the word has ONLY the meaning YOU put on it. Is it that hard to understand, if you put no meaning to the word why are you so uncomfortable that you cannot allow others to say it?

The only solution is to take the whole pledge out of the school and I'm sorry that should never even be an option.

It is on issues like this I can honestly say that the freedoms we enjoy are taken to extremes. If a very small percentage finds something wrong they yell about it until the right that supports whatever the problem is gone, thereby affecting the majority's ability to practice that right.

I am left and very liberal, but for the love of God I do not understand nor affiliate myself with people who are so offended by anything religious or of historical value that they must take away others rights.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

brianna

no one is asking people not to say anything -- the issue is whether or not the government can endorse a religion by making it part of a nationally recognized pledge.

nanofever

Appeal to Emotion.
Strawman.
Neglecting anti-communist dictators who murdered thousands with the CIA's approval, think South America.
Shoddy argumentation all around Mojo.

*golf clap*

Now lets get this track back to the topic, the ruling of the SCOTUS on the Pledge.

On that note, will the people saying the "under god" phrase is ambigious or could have any meaning please read my above post on the history of the phrase "under god. The phrase CLEARLY means a Abrahamic god which is endorsing a religion above others and thus fails the Lemon test. Failing the Lemon test equals being unconstitutional

I guess I really do need to pull-out my Golden Book series on constitution law.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Kadath

I was at a client today. He was talking about a public park with a monument to the Ten Commandments. The local government is "selling" the 10'x10' piece of land with the monument to get around the separation of church and state.

[educational aside]

It's SEPARATION, not SEPERATION.

[/educational aside]

He was pleased with the way the government tricked the public. Pleased. Just fucking solve the problem, people. Don't avoid it.

I should also point out he said it was done to get around the "Southern Baptist athiests." I waited until he was done and asked "Did you just say Southern Baptist athiests?!"

__________________
it's quiet in here

pan6467

No you are telling people they can't say "under God" by taking it out or by forcing schools to not say the pledge.

Just because something may have a history representing The Judeo-Christian God does not mean it still has to. When added to the pledge that was the God of the masses here. Today, people would like to have us believe otherwise, but with the vastness of different religions and religious practices GOD now means whatever that person places the value on it to be.

People (on both sides) can argue this till they are blue in the face with me, but GOD is just a word that only has the meaning the individual puts on it.

There's that comedy bit forget who did it, where he says, "instead of calling shoes, shoes I have chosen to call them feet holders. Shoe to me now means tv remote control. I like calling it shoe better, because it is easier and I say that more than I say foot holders. So my tv remote control is now my shoe and my shoes are now entitled my foot holders."

Values on words people place different values on different words. The word GOD is no different.

Again, I ask why are people so uncomfortable or trying to find so many reasons to get out of saying a word, even to the point that these people are trying to get others who have placed value on the word to not be allowed to say it in government and public places?

Why are these people so adamant about destroying our history and culture to reflect ONLY WHAT THEY WANT SEEN?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

nanofever

That question would better be adressed to Eisenhower than me. He, along with the Knights of Columbus, decided to change the pledge from a netural to a pro-abrahamic god statement. In doing this, he reversed 64 years of the pledge being neutral.

So I also wonder, Why in 1954 were people " so adamant about destroying our history and culture to reflect ONLY WHAT THEY WANT SEEN" ?

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

Mojo_PeiPei

Could somebody perhaps point me to where the government knowingly put the "Under God" as an appeal to the Judeo-Christian God, seriously? Whether it is applied or assumed, which I won't argue seeing as to our foundation has a lot of influence from said God and his philosophies, where does it say it? I will again state how those who feel it is a "violation" should read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, and then show where the difference/problem is.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

Nano, I would be more apt to say okay with the pledge if that were just it. But it is not, a VERY SMALL minority in this country want GOD excluded from everything in the government and in communities.

I am sorry but I am tired of making concessions to appease a vocal minority over anything anymore. There are many things I am vocal about but I don't demand that government infringe on others rights, to appease me.

Again, history aside, if you have no value on the word it means nothing. The ONLY reason it can upset anyone is because they have put a negative value on the word and therefore feel they must change everyone's view.

When are people going to realize that the more you turn to government to solve problems of minute trivial substance like this, you are in fact asking government to take more rights away? IT is nothing more than a freaking word with only the value YOU put on it.

If you choose to believe it is solely the government's way to make everyone worship the Judeo-Christian God then so be it. Don't say the word in the pledge, don't say the pledge, I don't give a damn that is your right.

BUT DO NOT CONTINUE TO PLAY THESE POWER GAMES BECAUSE YOU OBJECT TO THE VALUE OTHERS PUT ON A WORD. iT'S BULLSHIT AND IN THE END TAKING RIGHTS AWAY FROM ME AND MY FUTURE GENERATIONS AND I AM TIRED OF LOSING RIGHTS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE PLAYING GAMES OF POWER AND SO DENSE THEY REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE THEY WANT IT THEIR WAY OR NO ONE CAN PLAY.

Sorry but come on there are people starving, jobs being lost, a massive deficit, partisan politics that have gotten so bad nothing is being done, an education and infrastructure falling apart, an illegal war that is sucking the money dry, AND PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT THE VALUE PLACED ON ONE WORD THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO SAY?????

we don't have to worry about terrorists or other countries, we are very effectively destroying ourselves from within, because everybody wants everything their way. GROW THE FUCK UP AND MOVE ON.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cthulu23

To be fair, the anger that is shown on both sides of this issue illustrate that neither is very interested in "moving on."

DEI37

Holy balls, have YOU hit the nail on the head. I'm raised Baptist, and although I've sort of shrugged off the strictness of what I was raised, I AM still Christian. This kind of silliness is just, well, silly. To make a big "to-do" over something this small, it's pathetic. Some people are to full of themselves to realize that the past 228 years of this country's history have been based off a start around God, His Bible, and Christ like living and thinking. I find it amusing that those that really want God taken out of our lives (and by that I mean those that initiate actions and lawsuits like this...and possibly those that are so adamantly in agreement that they'd fight to the death over it) are also the ones that probably need Him most.

__________________
Generally speaking, if you were to get what you really deserve, you might be unpleasantly surprised.

pan6467

Good point. But to be honest and perhaps I am getting older and not as left and liberal as I want to believe I am, but I am tired an angry and bitter over losing MY ancestors traditions, the history of our great country, and being treated as if my rights don't matter because some little minority chooses to fill up our legal system with bullshit lawsuits that beg government to solve all their problems with the society my ancestors fought and died for while trying to make a better life for their progeny.

I am tired of hearing how the traditions and morals of this country are too religious. It is that way in every country. Go to any other Judeo Christian founded country and ask their courts to banish the 10 Commandments from their courts or take God's name out of anything public. You would be laughed out of court.

I just truly am tired of watching the morals of this country decline. We can blame the press, we can blame whatever, but the truth is when you take away a spiritual foundation of a nation they will in essence decline into immoral and unethical behaviours. That is in fact what we are seeing in our country now. Divorce up, crime up, drug and all addictions up, this country was founded on people helping others and communities taking care of their own and we are so far from that because we have begged government to interfere in everything. And the irony is the people who cry about the government are the ones begging for more laws and more interference from them.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

cthulu23

Since the phrase "under god" has only been around since the 50's, it is a bit inaccurate to say that it represents a facet of American history.