GreenHat-
I did not intend to insult or belittle you. If you interpreted my post that way, I apologize. That was not my intention.
AL-
Actually, when I hear "under god" I do not personally think of the father, son and holy ghost. I typed that to refer to what I considered to be the majority of Society's view. It was a generalization, a poor one I admit, as it seems to have altered your understanding of my intention.
As to your pointing out that the author was a socialist, what does that have to do with this argument? He was a Baptist minister too, wasn't he? To me, it is intriquing that he did not include any of his personal religious beliefs or phrases into this pledge when he wrote it. Maybe, just maybe, he realized that religious references in a pledge of allegiance to our country should not be included as we value freedom and liberty to those of all faiths and/or lack thereof. It was meant to be patriotic...
Yes, I am almost always sarcastic and I think anyone of average intelligence or above knows that I was not being literal in my suggestion that "you guys" should have been a lawyer for Bill Clinton. I am glad to see you picked up on my attempted humor.
I don't see where I attacked Greenhat personally? Where exactly did you read that? I debated his statement's appropriateness to this discussion. Hell, if anything, you might not want to throw the first stone. You attacked me concerning legal technicalities so specific that you ended up citing cases and explaining the intricacies of the law to EVERYONE on this board so we could understand where you were coming from. Trust me, we are all impressed by your knowledge concerning the law, but I think it is safe to assume that you knew what I was referring to in my post before you went into dissertation concerning the finer issues of Con law. Please reread my post, I posed my sarcastic comments to "you guys" not AT GH or anyone specifically.
Anyway, since you have given the reasons the "under god" was placed into the pledge in the first place... why not change it back based on our current society? Or do you think we should still fear the "atheistic communism" as our #1 enemy?
Quote:
By AL
As the legislative history notes, "[a]t this moment of our history the principles underlying our American Government and the American way of life are under attack by a system whose philosophy is at direct odds with our own. Our American Government is founded on the concept of the individuality and the dignity of the human being. Underlying this concept is the belief that the human person is important because he was created by God and endowed by Him with certain inalienable rights which no civil authority may usurp. The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. "
|
Well, if anything, our country's main national security threat in year 2004 is derived from radical religious indoctrinated regimes that support terrorism and terrorists organizations while creating anti-American hatred in the name of their "GOD". Since you support the 1950's reasoning for a change in the pledge, shouldn't congress be enacting anti religion pledges right now if the idea of changing our liberties based on assumed threats from other countries is such a valid concept?
