Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Good Morning, Hollywood!

Nice post and excellent outlay of FACTS, which sometimes are glaringly absent in some of the discussions here...

Thanks for noticing Jato, I try. Seriously though, so many people are unaware of the reasons behind the current situations. That is why I am doing History first and foremost and PollySci second. Political Science is useless unless you understand the times affecting the motives. Have a good one.

'god' is a religous concept. Even if it is not exclusive to a single religion, it doesn't make it secular. To me it makes no difference whether it says god, Vishnu, Thor, Allah, Satan, Jesus or Jerry Garcia.

The only way the government can keep the 'under god' in the Pledge is to make it a purely individual expression. And in that case the occasion that the Pledge is recited can not be limited to just the Pledge. Anyone can use the occasion to perform other activities that will be just as patriotic.

btw,
History of the National Motto

Claiming that you have the 'facts' usually means you don't.

Wow, that is all I can say.

First we have somebody who argues that the "law" of the Pledge (which doesn't exist) can be ruled UnConstitutional (even thought it is not in the Constitution) by the Judicial System. Now if we made a law stating that "every school child in America must say the Pledge recognizing God..." then you would have a legitimate argument. I feel that logical readers have determined for themselves that nonsensical arguing is in essence a admittance of ignorance. The Pledge (which is voluntary, the JW's have been sitting on it for years) is not a governmental sponsorship of religion you dope. It doesn't violate the first amendment, unlike the prohibition of student-led prayer at extracurricular events. Ahh, we have much learning to do outside of what we are told. How do I know? Easy, you quoted a "scholar" about what he thought the first amendment meant void of any historical evidence to support his claims.

Next, I am given a link to a website that is clearly biased in its representation of the facts of our national motto. Again, history will prove me right. Lets read the words together, "Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." Francis Scott Key, fourth stanza, The star spangled banner, OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM. Funny, it doesn't seem logical that our NATIONAL MOTTO would originate in OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM. Lets see people, 2+2=4...you see where I am going, put it together. It was the mindset of nearly all Americans during those times and was echoed nearly daily by clergy, laymen, and (gasp) politicians (please read the opening prayer again if you doubt that these men trusted in God), and reached it height during the Civil War when the treasury department first minted it onto coins. Yes, the motto wasn't included on all monies until Eisenhower after the second world war and korea. You can find all this info at the treasury departments website.

In fact the addition of the motto on money has been challenged seriously once in our Nation, here is a snippit; One of the first legal actions to challenge religious sloganeering of this type was made in 1978 by American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair. In the case of MADALYN MURRAY O'HAIR et al. v. W. MICHAEL BLUMENTHAL, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, et al. (462 F. Supp. 19 -- W.D. Tex 1978), the court opined: "Its use is of a patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religious exercise." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in the 1970 case ARONOW v. UNITED STATES. Subsequent cases also fell short, even though they argued that the motto clearly encouraged religion and made a statement about god and theology. On September 14, 1988, then-President of American Atheists Jon Murray addressed the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Coinage concerning proposals to redesign the nation's currency. At that time, Murray expressed concern about including "In God We Trust" on the national currency, suggesting instead a return to the secular "E Pluribus Unum" ("One from many") that was used earlier in the nation's history.

Yes, not only did the high court totally blast the lawsuit, the NINTH CIRCUIT COURT did as well. That is ironic, as that was the same court that 32 years later ruled wrongly on the Pledge, and has had 12 of 16 cases they ruled on overturned by the SC in the last couple of years, it is good to see that they once got things right.

I am amazed by the absolute ignorance about American History and the causes of laws and policies. I am also amazed that people can take only one thing somebody says,and try to disprove it in one small scope. The broad picture is never realized. While I have been provided mostly opinion either by scholars or writer, I have stated mostly fact.

Good day.

I'm sorry to carry this on longer, but I still have a question;

Do you think atheists and others that do not believe in this 'god', they should also have the freedom to express their Patriotism in a way they choose to whenever the Pledge is recited?

Because if the only option to saying the Pledge is to be silent, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech for them.

And speaking of money, it's still legal for me to cross out 'God' on the bill, so I'm not too worried about it..