America is a proud Secular Government which will never allow the Middle Eastern Abrahamic Extremists and their Religious Theocracy to overthrow our Proud Secular Government which promotes (The Separation of Church from State).
Wait a second... Those kids didn't submit to the all powerful and invisibe deity we're supposed to worship... and they weren't immediatly ripped asunder by gleeful blood-thirsty demons? WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!
IF PEOPLE WANT TO ADD "UNDER GOD", LET THEM. IF YOU DON'T WISH TO UTTER "UNDER GOD", DON'T. RIGHT? HAVE WE SETTLED ALL THIS? CAN WE NOW TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE? SOMETHING A BIT MORE INTELLECTUAL, PERHAPS? DID YOU, IN ALL YOUR WISDOM, NOT DISCOVER THAT ELVIS PRESLEY DIED OF WOODWORM IN HIS WOODEN HEART? WELL, YOU HAVE NOW.
@Snipes8161 I know that a the science journal Nature carried out a study a few years ago, comparing the accuracy of Encyclopedia Brittanica with science entries on Wikipedia. Wikipedia had more errors, but the difference was negligible. If it helps, please let me know which of the statements I attributed to Wikipedia and I will try to find other sources that will back them up. There are many other sources that will show the date when "under god" was added to the Pledge.
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.)
In 1777-78 America fought hard against THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND's Spaghetti Monster at Valley Forge. General George Washington did not bow down to King James Book as the word of God during the time of the INQUISTION, which was incorrectly depicted by a Christian Artist named Arnold Friberg.
Thomas "Tom" Paine from (1737 to 1809) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, his book was notorious for The Age of Reason that advocates deism and promotes for the reason of free thinking and argues against institutionalized religion and Christian doctrines. Lets not forget about the 300 year Flat Earth Inquisition when millions of people were dyeing for our Religious Freedoms on a 100,000 Burning Crosses.
I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag, Of the United States of America: I would like to see Abraham Lincoln's QOUTE added on the back of The American Penny, ("The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma"), US President.
In 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance which violates the separation of religion from a Secular Government. Native Americans and Pagans of the Free World should never be forced to bow their heads down to a Dead Middle Eastern Man who has been Elected to be our New God!
In 1966, the phrase "In (a Spaghetti Monster) we Trust" was added to the American Dollar Bill which is Unconstitutional, what is next Blasphemy Laws? To the Republic For Which It Stands, With Liberty And Justice For All: SINCERELY One Free Secular Nation ABOVE Religious Theocracy.
Speaking of "salutes" in general......I just recently heard that the standard military salute originates from the old knights in their armor. They would greet one another.......by reaching up to lift the visor of their helmet...so they could be identified. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, although I'm not sure if it's true.
@bamissfa If you mean that I edited out the words under God, then you're welcome to check any other copy of the film, part 7 of "Why We Fight" from 1945. It is in public domain, so you can find copies of it on Internet Archive and probably other places on the web. They recite the pledge in the first 2 minutes of the film, so you don't have to hunt for it. It's easy to confirm that this is true. No one said "Under God" in the pledge til 1950s.
@hallsofmedicine Ahhh, there's someone posting on youtube who we should take as a better authority than wikipedia. Do you or Rex Curry have any better sources that support these claims that Bellamy was a Nazi? Please check out the Wikipedia entry about the Roman Salute. You'll see paintings 100-200 years old showing people saluting with their arms up. Then you can find other sources that show the same old paintings, if you don't trust wikipedia. The gesture was not invented by Bellamy.
The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a National Socialist whose stiff armed salute to the flag was the inspiration for the famous Nazi salute. adding the phrase "Under God" doesn't change the fact that it was written by, basically, a Nazi. This is nothing but symbol fetishism. I love my country(although I despise the current incarnation of our government) but I will NEVER recite in zombie like fashion, something written by a Socialist, Nazi, or otherwise.
@hallsofmedicine Do you have some citation supporting the claim that Bellamy was a Nazi, or that his salute inspired the Nazi salute? According to the Wikipedia entries on Bellamy and the Roman Salute, it was probably a gesture that was around for hundreds of years before being copied by Bellamy or the Fascists or Nazis. How about if we all remain free to support or not support any country we feel like, without having to swear our loyalty or commanding children to swear their loyalty?
under God was added, because communist didn't believe in God, which separates Church and State, We are becoming a Communist nation...Because the enemy has infiltrated our way of life.
@rsmall64 Them dang communists even infiltrated Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." Dude, the idea of a secular state is an American idea that predates Marxism and maybe predates the term "communism."
Church and state mingling together is the OPPOSITE of freedom and democracy., In fact, communism is more in line with Biblical principles and Christianity than the SECULAR REPUBLIC the United States was founded upon.
@Syrinx69 Good point. In Acts, there's a scene where God strikes down some Christian because he didn't share a fair amount of his crops or livestock with the other members of his community, and strikes down his wife because she knew about the hoarding and lied to the apostles. It's a pretty clear and easy argument to say that Christians are depicted as socialists or communists in that chapter. Unfortunately, it's a socialist theocracy.
Many who claim "Christian" roots as the American source of our philosophical and political policies, like to conveniently exclude many equally important truth's from the discussion. Most of the 13 original states required oaths of acceptance of the New Testament as a prerequisite for obtaining office or becoming fully naturalized citizens.
@MamaMario13 It's not. This is my point. Re-read what I posted. Some colony states required oath's of acceptance of the New testament before they would naturalize citizens or allow them to run for office. Others did not. It was this plurality of the role of religion that disproves the concept of a "Christian" America. But, there is no denying concepts of faith as having informed some of the Founders when they finally formulated our form of government.
@MamaMario13 My writing error. The word 'truth's' lacks quotation marks in my original post. Additionally, note that Jefferson carefully chose to use the word "Creator" in the Declaration. He only used the term 'God' in connection with man's 'nature,' not a particular denomination. Believers in a "Christian America" would do well to engage in a full reading of American history, not just select quotes & supporting passages. The same goes for everyone else.
@DougMcCallister1 Don't take my word for it, friend-O. You can buy copies of this fairly cheap because they're in public domain. You can also watch multiple copies of it on archive.org. Just search for "Why We Fight" (the name of the series of 7 films), and this episode is "War Comes to America." You'll see the same thing in the original. Also if you look up the pledge of allegiance in Wikipedia or almost anywhere, you'll find info about how "under god" was added in the 50s.
@deidzoeb It's amazing how some people will spew opinions on the net and never use the same world wide web to inform themselves of factual history and information. That DougMcCallister1 calls you a dumb ass is absolutely hysterical. You'd think someone so hell bent on the truth would apologize for wrongly insulting you.
@Northcoda Make of it what you will. For fifty years, give or take, teachers made children recite the Pledge of Allegiance without that phrase, until it was added in 1954. Here's another fun fact. According to the Wikipedia entry, the pledge was written to go along with an event "conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to sell flags to public schools and magazines to students...." I pledge allegiance to this guy wanting to sell more flags. Ugh.
@deidzoeb It was also pushed as a counter to the socialist agenda that was being pushed around the world in the 1950's. Remember that Communism had taken over about half the world in the 1950's and most Americans were trying to show the world that they werent like the crazy communists, trying to take away individual freedoms, for the sake of a "collective good". Sadly we have Obama doing the same, just under a different name of Democratic Liberalism.
@jacobew2000 Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Pledge. The guy who wrote it was a socialist! He toned down some of it because he figured some Americans wouldn't agree to "equality" if it meant women or "fraternity" with non-whites.
Yeah, Obama is following communist policies, the same way the Soviets and Mao bailed out banks and private corporations. You might want to read some more about Communism before you reveal how little you know about it.
It implies nothing. It ASSERTS that there is a separation. This is not a christian nation no matter how much these fanatics want it to be a theocracy. Just ask the Quakers, if this was a christian nation as founded. Or, how about those million peasants who tried to establish Jamestown in the late 1500s, for king and eventually tobacco and profit. Case closed. The history of The United States had many religions, & the founders understood this, along with religion in European governments.
@biped19 Actually your wrong when it comes to that. Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's. Sadly that part of the true history of the USA has been ignored and even shoveled under the rug of history. The truth is that they didnt want a NATIONAL religion, not to completely ingnore or worse, cast religion out of society, as socialists have tried to do repeately in the past 60 years.
There were no "official" religions. It contradicts the Constitution. Cite your source. And, you can stop with the mcCarthy "socialism" nonsense. This nation has some pre-socialist concepts built into it, like freedom of speech and Congress issuing the currency interest free for commerce, Article 1 section 8. . . As usual the neo-con-artists want an adam smith quacademic theocray with war, god and the FED. Get out traitors.
@photolitherland , now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge! That part of the argument is over (unless you want to also allow us to revisit previous court rulings on various liberal rulings?)! I would love to open up that can of worms because I think, and polls say, conservatives would win!
@jacobew2000 I think you're letting your emotions get the better of your judgment. You have a number of strong, affectingly expressed opinions, but I think you're twisting and reinterpreting history, modern and past, in a way that justifies your reasoning, rather than taking it for what it is. Creating a mixture of truthiness and re-interpretation that distorts historical facts to fit your point of view isn't right. We should champion the truth as it is, not personal truth as we want it to be.
@jacobew2000 "now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge!" You have too much confidence in the latest ruling. This wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling or an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
Honestly, I dont know why manifest destiny had anything to do with anything. That was simply a concept of the US having the right to become a nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That was pretty normal European ideology of the times and was not controversial at the time. Same for womans rights. Unlike today, they didn't see any reason for women to be anything more than the caretaker of the family, and men should be leaders and income makers of that family. Pretty normal then!
@jacobew2000 The thing worth noting is that Christian morality changes over time. Christians endorse slavery then reject it, treat women as property then as citizens, treat non-Whites as subhuman then eventually as equals (maybe someday). Because Christians don't always take morality from the Bible. They retrofit the morality of their times into the Bible, rationalizing it as necessary. Selecting some lines of scripture to support a position, ignoring other parts as necessary.
@deidzoeb, I completely disagree with you on that assumption. The bible has not changed, and most views by mainstream Christian groups today still hold the same views as they did in the 1800's. The bible never says to treat women as property, and in fact demands men to love their wives as they would themselves. Many Christians, particularly in the north, always thought slavery was wrong. You are generalizing too much to push an antichristian viewpoint. Even today politicians abuse scripture
@jacobew2000 Lots of Christians in the 1800s endorsed slavery and racism. They gradually changed. So if the Bible presents one clear message about how to live, why did Christians change from endorsing slavery and racism to rejecting them? I didn't say the Bible says to treat women as property. I meant that US laws treated women as property, and the laws were mostly written by and endorsed by Christians. Christians have apparently changed their understanding of how to treat women.
@jacobew2000 I didn't say the Bible has changed. I said Christian morality has changed. If the Bible presents one clear message about what behaviors are right and wrong, then why did Christians endorse slavery for centuries, then change their mind about it? Why did European Christians treat women and non-whites as second class citizens for centuries and change their mind about that? Why are Christians in many countries gradually changing their minds about whether homosexuality is wrong?
@deidzoeb , that is exactly what you are saying when you try to say that Christian morality has changed in the past 250 years. As I said, most christians didnt endorse slavery, and thats why it was banned in 1805 in most of the northern states. YOur definition of "second rate citizens" for women is in the wrong context of history. Most women thought that their rolls were in fact to take care of the families and that men were the breadwinners. Homosexuality is wrong, and will always be wrong!
@jacobew2000 says "...most christians didn't endorse slavery..." We're not going to have a meaningful conversation if you are that far out of touch with reality and fact. Christians made up the majority of society in the US and UK for centuries when those countries made slavery legal. If they had been opposed to slavery all along, they would not have allowed it to become legal, or they would have outlawed it sooner. The fact that they didn't shows how they endorsed it, then later changed.
Ya crime is down for the 3rd year in a row, but is up some 600% since the 1950's. I found an interesting statistic at jrsa dot org /programs/historical dot pdf. It clearly shows the incredible increase of all crimes, particularly in the late 60's/70's. That in my opinion clearly shows that that generation no longer viewed god as being in their lives.
Political correctness and tolerance for evil is why America will in near future implode. America was made on christian ideals and morals.
@jacobew2000 I did some more searching, and the graph you've provided is correct, but more than a decade old. Violent crime has been on a steady decline since the late 80's and is currently only a little over twice the 50's levels, whereas homicide has actually returned to about the same rate as it was the 50's. Even property crime rates have been on a decline, though are still a little over double 50's levels (you can check this all out on Wiki and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Website).
@TheCuriousCreature, Im glad that you looked at the statistics and seen that crime rates are in fact higher today than in the 1950's. I think that my point is made in that any crime rates that would increase even 25% today, would be considered a crisis, and yet the secularists dont want to link the 200-500% increase in crime to the fact that you have tried everything you possibly can to remove god and religion from the public arena. It was never intended to keep religion out of our govt.
@jacobew2000 I think you're making a correlation here, though, not a causal link. Most Japanese people don't believe in God (64%), and yet they have amongst the lowest crime rates in the world (I know, I've spent several months living and traveling throughout Japan).
@jacobew2000 It's way too simplistic to say that this one factor is the cause of increase in crime. Don't you think the economy and changes in laws affect crime rates? It's not like lots of people started brewing and bootlegging alcohol illegally during Prohibition because they lost faith or because the Bible was taken out of schools. They did it because they disagreed with the prohibition laws. I imagine there was a dip in crime rates when prohibition was repealed - nothing to do with bibles.
@jacobew2000 The intentions were to keep government out of religion, as that was the concern. A government representing the majority was established with the ovious understanding that the country, society, and government would reflect that representation ... which includes morals and religion. Hence why you didn't see anyone in 'or out' of the government care about public monuments and memorials projecting Christian symbols. The concerns fall with the government interjecting into religion!
@lonewulf44 Please read up on the history of religion in the states. This is completely wrong viewpoint that you are pushing. Until the 1860's, the view of govt was that of the states having the power over the federal govt, not the other way around. Many states had their own state religion, and if you didnt like it, you could go to a state that had your religion. Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them. 10th amend was intended to restrict Fed, not state rights!
@jacobew2000 In one comment on this thread, you write "Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them." In another comment, you write, "Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's." Which is it?
@jacobew2000 And also, almost 64% of Japanese people have professed not to believe in God, and yet Japan has amongst the lowest crime rates in the world (which I believe, having spent quite a bit of time in the country). Only 33% of the world is Christian ~ it would be strange to say that the other 67% is immoral just because they don't follow Christian ideals and morals.
@TheCuriousCreature Also compare the religious beliefs of people in prison and people outside. From what I've heard, there are many more Christians in US prisons, although I don't know what percentage of them might have converted in prison, after repenting of their crimes. We could also look up how many repeat offenders are Christians.
@jacobew2000 And finally, I think it would be strange to say that our nation's Christian principles were necessarily better than they are now, lest we forget that our country was founded in slavery, war, manifest destiny and discrimination against women, different races and cultures.
@TheCuriousCreature, I completely disagree with you that our country was "founded in slavery". Did you know that the first "slave" was in fact a law case of a black man suing to put a fellow black man into permanent servatude? Manifest destiny was a simple principle of politics, not religion, and your definition of christian discrimination against women is completely wrong and not in the bible, nor against any particular races/cultures. Read the new testiment, not the old. It changed it.
@jacobew2000 Well, slavery's been around since even before Ancient Rome. What I meant was that our Founding Fathers didn't have the moral sense to abolish slavery in our nation's founding, in spite of the Christian values they may have held. You seem to be suggesting that things were better when government was 'more Christian' ~ but there was manifest destiny, lack of women's suffrage, and slavery back then.
@TheCuriousCreature, many of the founding fathers did see slavery as wrong, but it was a difficult time in our nation. At the time of the creation of the US, we were fighting for the very survival of not only the US but of the very lives of those who were seen as traitors by the British Govt. They decided, against the will of many states of the north, to make a slave 3/5th of a person with the idea that one day, they would come back and make them 100%. It was better than 0/5ths the south wntd
@jacobew2000@jacobew2000 What I'm saying is, terrible things happened during the time you're suggesting the country was more religious. If you're going to (I'd say, somewhat unfairly) connect increased crime rates to secularism, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to connect slavery, lack of women's suffrage, and manifest destiny to religion?
I'm also interested in your thoughts on Jefferson's Deism, considering he's a notable founding father with somewhat harsh feelings towards the church.
@TheCuriousCreature, Jefferson did think there was a god, despite what the secularists what people to believe. His biggest concern was not of there being religion in politics, but rather that of a particular Christian denomination, such as Catholism, having more input in the US politics. I believe that all the founding fathers would be upset if they saw how radical American politics have become in trying to exclude God completely from our society. US was made on Christian theology!
@jacobew2000 You mischaracterize the situation drastically when you say Americans have been "trying to exclude God completely from our society." Have you seen the ACLU protesting that churches should all be closed? There's a big difference between keeping our government secular as it was intended, and excluding God from society.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means a whole religion, not one denomination or the other.
@deidzoeb, see that is my point and the reason why I believe that you are wrong. You are reading that first amendment in the eyes of today, instead of the context of when it was written. The average American of those times was decidely christian, and taken in the context of history, they never intended our nation to be secular or anti-christian. You otta read about the great "REVIVALS" of the 1820's, and then tell me that most americans then thought of separation of church and state.
@jacobew2000 Well, Jefferson and Madison pushed for the first amendment because they didn't want for the tyranny of the majority to oppress the rights of the minority. I'd definitely recommend looking into the religious histories of Jefferson and Madison and how they strove against a religious/Christian state ~ Madison, in particular, had a visceral aversion to public officials' employing religion as an engine of civil policy, in his opinion "an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
@TheCuriousCreature , Jefferson and Madison pushed for the 1st amendment because the saw how the church of england dominated english Federal politics in the 1700's. But they thought that the FED govt would be limited in scope, and never thought that it would dominate into/against States Rights (hence 10th amendment). Fed govt has intruded into many things that it has no business into. Taxes for socialist programs is a great example. Time for a constitutional convention to remove Fed govt powr!
@jacobew2000 The word "religion" did not mean "denomination" 200 years ago. Taken in the context of history, they wanted no establishment of religion. That doesn't mean they wanted to establish a religion but not one denomination.
@deidzoeb , If you talked to an average American then, they thought of themselves as "A Virginian protestant", etc. There was open hostility toward what we call other denominations today. So thats what RELIGION meant to Americans then! There was no idea in the hearts or minds of the various state assemblies that there should not be God, and if you look at their state constitutions (many older than the US), they graphically state that! Remember they thought 10thamendment prevented fed intrusion
@deidzoeb , I am not mischaracterizing the situation when I say that major groups, including the ACLU (better look up the history of this socialist organization), and other groups such as Athiests For separation of Church and state, and many liberal democrats in office, are in fact pushing ways of doing this. You love asking where it is in the constitution for god. I will ask, where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state". There is no such thing anywhere in there!
@jacobew2000 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" implies "a wall of separation between church and state." If there was no separation of church and state, it would mean that Congress or the federal government had established an official state religion, so it would violate the
Show me where in the Constitution the words "freedom of religion" or "right to a fair trial" appear. They are there in concept, just as separation of church and state is. That wall of separation is the cornerstone of this nation. It's why it was called the "great experiment". The ignorant of your Bible thumpers is sickening.
Why would any freedom loving people NOT want separation of religion and government unless they were theocrats on par with Iran and the Taliban?
@jacobew2000 I think CuriousCreature pointed out Manifest Destiny because it was immoral and yet it was carried out by US citizens who were majority Christian, even if the movement wasn't led by Christians or identified as a religious policy.
@jacobew2000 And not all of our Founding Fathers were Christian ~ Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a Deist: check out some quotes from him.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
@jacobew2000 Here's another strong Thomas Jefferson quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear."
@jacobew2000 Also note that the Constitution does not even once explicitly mention Jesus, God, Christ, the Bible etc. ~ the only exception is the mention of the Year of our Lord, which was common parlance in religious and secular writings of that era. The founding fathers were very careful not to make any explicit Christian religious references in the Constitution ~ largely because they believed that the new government should not be involved in matters of religion.
@TheCuriousCreature , they also were very specific to not put "separation of church and state" in the constitution too! What we have done now is taken things like Education, and liberalized it in a way that they teach our kids that there is no GOD and as a result, IS OPENLY HOSTILE TOWARD RELIGION NOW! They are teaching our kids secularism as being right, homosexuality is right, and that morals is anything that you want it to be, instead of being neutral as you claim they are!
@photolitherland, actually our govt wasnt established with the idea of excluding god from the political arena. It wasnt that way for over 150 years, until the start of the 1940's. If you know history, the chief justice black was anti-catholic, and thats why they changed the law. They started moving the law from state to federal govt during this period too. Wonder why it was ok for 150+ years and then suddenly it wasnt ok anymore? It was politics more than rule of law that caused the change.
An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, President Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942
@arenusaura, The problem is that we now have teachers in public schools and universities that dont teach it that "neutral" way. They are often openly hostile toward any sort of religion, and unfortunately are teaching our kids in the public schools that they are "idiots" or "uneducated" if they believe in GOD. So there is an athiest agenda being taught to our kids! That has been an agenda for 60 years. First remove god, then ethics, then values, then teach them that certain things are moral!
Taking out "Under God", imo, isn't underscoring Christianity in America ~ it's showing religious tolerance, by forming a government where all races and creeds can come together. Even though most of our Founding Fathers were Christian, there were so many different denominations (Presbyterian, Quaker, Catholic, etc.), they knew it would be wise to keep government out of religion, and vice versa. That's why the First Amendment exists, and should continue to be followed.
@TheCuriousCreature, the problem with tolerance is that we are now becoming so tolerant of everything, that evil and sin is now ok to do in our society. We went from being tolerant in race (which I agree with) to the next step of having to tolerate everything else, from corruption, to homosexuality, to single parent families, to mad spending. Crime rates have exploded since 1940's, and we wonder why... Americans think that we should be able to do anything we want, but ignore the consequences.
@jacobew2000 Actually, crime rates are down for the third year in a row, if you look it up. Anywho, I've never looked at homosexuals or single parent families as being evil or sinful. I agree, though, that we shouldn't be tolerant of things like corruption, and that's because it's something we know can hurt other people. How people live their own lives and what beliefs they hold, so long as it's not hurting anyone else then it's really their own business in my opinion, not the government's.
Slavery continued to matter even after the Dred Scott decision. Public institutions unconstitutionally proclaiming religious belief will continue to matter after the 9th Circuit's ruling.
@deidzoeb , must be constitutional, since this is the most liberal, antireligion court in the nation that has said that "under god" in the pledge and on money doesnt violate the constitution. Sorry, but unless the supreme court rules otherwise (fat chance), your crying over nothing now!
If you look at history of legal decisions in the US, you'll find all kinds of judgments like this by lower courts and even the supreme court that were later overturned as unconstitutional. I'm not crying or holding my breath for the supreme court to make a fair ruling about this any time soon. You can call the 9th district "the most liberal, antireligion." You can call it constitutional. They can rule it constitutional. It's still a violation of the establishment clause, plain as day.
Maybe one should ask if it is unconstitutional on other grounds. Like if the pledge has become a religious test for a public trust (i.e. public school) for instance.
@deidzoeb, the establishment clause is the biggest misinterpretation of the courts about the history of religious freedoms in the US. The 1947 SC decision was a result of an ex-kkk chief justice Black that hated catholics, and simply did not want them to have any money. Its as simple as that! The clause you mention was a speach made by Jefferson in 1802, and was a view not widely held in its day by the general populus. Until 1940, it was legal to have church prayer, etc, etc. 150years later!
@jacobew2000 Seems like a fair and obvious interpretation of the establishment clause to me. I'd say until 1940, prayer in school was not prosecuted, but it was unconstitutional and should have been recognized as illegal. We have a similar situation today where several members of the Bush admin admit to authorizing "interrogation techniques" that should be prosecuted as torture (as they were when Japanese did them or local sheriffs), but we don't have the political will to prosecute.
@deidzoeb, I would argue that the supreme court, starting in 1940, misinterpreted the 1st amendment. It has now created a situation whereby govt is openly hostile toward individuals expressing their religious values in the public arena. As a result, we no longer teach our kids basic values because teachers are afraid that they might be accused of pushing religious, and often christian values, on poor ol Danny and Sally, kids of some athiest. No wonder crime has exploded since 1940.
Teaching our children morality and values does not require any god, any religion or The Bible. Morality predates the Bible and your god. As for crime "exploding" - it could just as easily be argued that it is due to the illegal addition of God to our pledge and money in the 1950's
Isn't it funny that the most secular non-religious countries on the planet are also the strongest in grade school education, academics, intelligence, health care and low crime rates?
@Syrinx69, actually the crime rate increases can be directly seen when comparing the timelines of the Supreme Court Decisions removing God from our society. The problem today is that secularism is taught as being better than observing God, and our kids are not being taught a neutral viewpoint toward religion, but rather that those who are religious are "quacks". Our public schools have in effect become hostile anti-religious/freedom of expression, out of the fear of maybe "offending" someone.
@jacobew2000 The crime rate increases also goes hand in hand with the war on drugs, and massive profits being made from illegal activities increasing creating more demand for criminals and more insentives for people to become criminals. Secularism is better then religion for things like running a school, or the government.... Though i do agree with you on schools especially should not be afraid of freedom of expression on religious matters. Some definitely are.
@jacobew2000 So, you are blaming schools and teachers? What ever happened to good old fashioned parenting? My children will agree with me far more readily than something they are told at school. Why would you want to trust someone you don't know with the eternal soul and religious education of your child? How about not blaming others for your own failures? If you want your children to "know God" then tell them about God. There are also PRIVATE Christian schools to which you may send your child.
@MyGrammarRules, I do blame the parents because my mother has been a teacher for over 40 years. She is constantly telling me about how many problems she has today with kids that have no values, are rude, and have no fear of adults or rule of law because we have taken those values (from god) out of our school. If I send my child to a private school, I still have to pay the taxes just as if I was sending them to a public school. I do tell them about god, but i hav to compete w/antigod teachers
I know right! Silly people who dont worship a god need to get the hell out of our country! It says "under god" it can be any god. So i just imagine a god that fucks little boys, hates gays, blows up buses, doesnt eat cows, and hates masterbation. I love my made up god.
Actually it is "under God" with a capital 'G', only one god goes by the name "God" and that would be the one of the Christian religion. Though your god is almost the same, so it doesn't matter.
@nlukow13,. Thats why I spelled it with the capital G. I believe that there is in fact one and only one GOD and that is the one of in the Christian Bible. Yah there is many here that is anti-christian/bible because of their own desire to not follow the morals in it, but I will leave that up to you, and your relationship, or lack thereof with him! Ultimately, its GOD that will judge you, not me.
deidzoeb, your comment of 2 months ago wonderfully summarizes in one succinct paragraph why I think the US pledge of allegiance sucks. It's a bad idea to begin with, let alone with that "under God" crap.
Ive seen this a few places in different formats on youtube. I am ashamed to say I had no idea that we have ever changed the pledge.....shame on me..THANKYOU for your posts.
This is the way the pledge should have remained - it is disgraceful that religious fundamentalists had to change it. A secular nonreligion promoting pledge would be acceptable to all those, religious, non religious. New pledge creates a divide between religious, non religious and polytheists.
I'm not religious, but I wouldn't find it acceptable for teachers to force kids to recite any "pledge" to their nation, secular or religious. If a kid learns that his society or nation is worth supporting, then he'll support it without being forced to recite a pledge for it. And not everyone who recites the pledge mindlessly in school (usually without knowing what it means) grows up to fulfill that pledge. It's an ineffective attempt at brainwashing kids -- even without "under God" inserted.
I live in United States and I always said the pledge of allegiance almost every day of school and I am currently saying it. I like the speech. Every kid in the United States learns that speech at a very young age. You are expected to stand up and place your right hand over your heart.
What does it say about a person if they use "talmud" as an insult? Are you confusing that word with "Taliban" or does it just sound vaguely Arabic to you? It's a Jewish text, so it sounds like you don't like them.
What God is that then, because according to you're MRI Cat Scanner you've only got you're left hemisphere super penis Id active, not you're right hemisphere Bosse, that's why you're psychology only has 'Dust to dust', and I have 2 Kings 18:18 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", and 'Hezekiah' ="Return", so you wouldn't know how to follow my Ol' man's Van on any Lay Line Grid!
Well, the U.S. is a Nazi Potemkin Nation origine anyway, that's why you've got practically every name out of the Bible for you're town's, village's, and city's, but only have a half brain Pavlov psychology of 'Dust to dust', when Syn(SINE)aesthesic's have 2 Kings 18:18 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", and 'Hezekiah' = "Return", and I can with my Ol' Green Man's Van = $, but you cannot, because you're is Man Made In China!
I pledge a elegance to the flag of the United States of America and to our Liberal Socialist government for witch it stands one totally segregated nation possessed by Satan with pain and agony for all who inhabit the land.
Our country is not a socailist leberal government, when w. was in office we came close to fascism or even becoming an oligarchy.. i Dream of the day we become socailist... Im a proud socailist liberal of the united states FUCK YA!
I mean socialism is the the understandable and appropriate reaction to unfair systems like capitalism.
Could you explain what you mean by "little people" in a society? Billy Barty? It sounds a little like an insult, but also sounds like what Orwell wrote in 1984, that the upper class generally wants to hold its position, middle class generally wants just enough revolution so they can change place with the upper class, and the lower class generally wants to eliminate classes (socialism).
@deidzoeb Not meant to be an insult, just the start of socialism always starts with pols. creating class envy. They put it into the little peoples head if we take from the rich it will mean more for you. All it does is slow an economy to a crawl. That rich guy wont buy that nice boat, or hire new employees good example was when asshole carter raised taxes on business and wealthy. Beleive me I remember well. States such as Mich. are now in that boat hostile bus. environment 15%+unemployment.
I'd say class envy starts with people feeling that classes are unfair. That starts pretty soon after classes develop in the first place, not after politicians point it out.
Part of our disagreement here is whether it's fair for some people to get rich in the first place. You probably feel that there are fair ways for people to earn and keep a lot of money. I think wealth is created by workers, and most of it is unfairly taken from them by investors and capitalists who didn't work or earn it.
@deidzoeb I want to live where I have the opportunity to become rich. If one has the drive and talent let them go for it. socialism NEVER works it turns the middle class into serfs. The only people possibly would want that dont have much of a brain. for sure they are the "little" people of a society.
Your hang-up against short people makes me not want to bother responding to you anymore. It's not like we're having an exchange of ideas, just me trying to explain and support my position, you dropping assertions like "Yay team, go capitalism, boo socialism." Have a good day anyway.
@deidzoeb, is that any better than your towed line that socialism is ok, and that the present day slavery, aka taxes, to an out of control govt that is spending like drunken sailors is any better? I will shout GO CAPITALISM and BOOO SOCIALISM because every socialist society in the past 150 years has collapsed on itself. I guess that America is doomed because we are ignoring and repeating the same failures of socialism with people like Obama, Reid, Pelosie and I guess YOU! Else we are slaves!
Class Envy starts with people flaunting their wealth and status. One doesn't necessarily have to envy a rich person who drives a nice car though, one can aspire to instead become successful and one day afford a nice car.
What inevitably creates class envy is narcissism; this idea that somehow you deserve a nice car. It's like conservatives who feel that they "earned" their status, when in fact there were other people who helped them along. Wealth is always built upon other people.
When you say "it slows an economy to a crawl", your premise seems to be that an economy must grow a little bit each year. There's no good reason for that. If workers and consumers reached agreements (and most of us are workers on one product or service, consumers of other products or svcs), there could be a balance with zero growth needed. So yeah, if the growth of an economy slowed to zero, that would be fine. It would be a problem for capitalists who don't really work, not for workers.
Capitalists have taught us to believe that most of us workers have to rely on the scraps they throw us, as if there is no other way for everyone to survive. So we have to give them money so they can create jobs for us, and so they can buy things we'll build. It's like saying we have to *bribe* them to keep paying our tiny wages, cuz we're too stupid to run things. In reality, most workers just don't have capital to start businesses, without making huge concessions to banks or investors.
"Fact 4 you." Asserting that something's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I'll try to make a video eventually explaining the problems I see with capitalism and some of the ways we could make things more fair.
Re: raising taxes on business and wealthy. If you look back at the last fifty years or so, the country did very well under high taxes in the 50s-70s, and we've had some hard times in spite of Reagan lowering taxes on business and wealthy. But who are we talking about when we say "the country" did well, or the "economy" was bad. Usually pundits are talking whether rich people did well or not. Wages for working people have not kept up with inflation since the early 70s. ....
... So the only people whose standard of living has gone up has been rich people. That's half a century of experience that should show us trickle down economics have not brought the prosperity that capitalists claimed. Or you could say it brought a few of them prosperity, and it came at the expense of everyone else. ... Which is basically where the prosperity came from, people who didn't work taking surplus value that was created by labor and should have gone to workers who earned it.
I've never said the line when I've pledged in the past. I suspect that most peoples ''God's'' really don't give a damn about this one way or the other. The only one's who seem to get bent out of mental shape over excluding it tend to be religious zealots and self appointed 'morality' supremacists.
My only argument FOR keeping "under God" was that it is part of our history...now that I know it wasn't originally in there I say let's take that shit outta there!
Ya, why not. We who live in America are living in an ungodly and corrupt nation and most of us fail to realize that. I guess the dispute over not wanting God in the pledge is just a sign from God telling us we are unworthy of his name being associated with our country.
We were able to *contribute to* the defeat of Nazi Germany without "under God." It's hard to tell how easily we would have defeated them without a few million Russians and Brits and other Europeans fighting them too. But your point is a good one.
youtube.com/watch?v=WnsuzAxg1Q8
JosephAllenCavin 3 weeks ago
America is a proud Secular Government which will never allow the Middle Eastern Abrahamic Extremists and their Religious Theocracy to overthrow our Proud Secular Government which promotes (The Separation of Church from State).
MagicTellaVision 1 month ago
Wait a second... Those kids didn't submit to the all powerful and invisibe deity we're supposed to worship... and they weren't immediatly ripped asunder by gleeful blood-thirsty demons? WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?!
Chimchimtheomni 1 month ago
IF PEOPLE WANT TO ADD "UNDER GOD", LET THEM. IF YOU DON'T WISH TO UTTER "UNDER GOD", DON'T. RIGHT? HAVE WE SETTLED ALL THIS? CAN WE NOW TURN TO SOMETHING ELSE? SOMETHING A BIT MORE INTELLECTUAL, PERHAPS? DID YOU, IN ALL YOUR WISDOM, NOT DISCOVER THAT ELVIS PRESLEY DIED OF WOODWORM IN HIS WOODEN HEART? WELL, YOU HAVE NOW.
squirell1952 4 months ago
@deibzoeb You know wikipedia isn't the most accurate source of information either <_< right?
Snipes8161 5 months ago
@Snipes8161 I know that a the science journal Nature carried out a study a few years ago, comparing the accuracy of Encyclopedia Brittanica with science entries on Wikipedia. Wikipedia had more errors, but the difference was negligible. If it helps, please let me know which of the statements I attributed to Wikipedia and I will try to find other sources that will back them up. There are many other sources that will show the date when "under god" was added to the Pledge.
deidzoeb 5 months ago
"THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION." (Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: Written during the Administration of George Washington and signed into law by John Adams.)
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
In 1777-78 America fought hard against THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND's Spaghetti Monster at Valley Forge. General George Washington did not bow down to King James Book as the word of God during the time of the INQUISTION, which was incorrectly depicted by a Christian Artist named Arnold Friberg.
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
Thomas "Tom" Paine from (1737 to 1809) was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States, his book was notorious for The Age of Reason that advocates deism and promotes for the reason of free thinking and argues against institutionalized religion and Christian doctrines. Lets not forget about the 300 year Flat Earth Inquisition when millions of people were dyeing for our Religious Freedoms on a 100,000 Burning Crosses.
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
I Pledge Allegiance To The Flag, Of the United States of America: I would like to see Abraham Lincoln's QOUTE added on the back of The American Penny, ("The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma"), US President.
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
In 1954 President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance which violates the separation of religion from a Secular Government. Native Americans and Pagans of the Free World should never be forced to bow their heads down to a Dead Middle Eastern Man who has been Elected to be our New God!
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
In 1966, the phrase "In (a Spaghetti Monster) we Trust" was added to the American Dollar Bill which is Unconstitutional, what is next Blasphemy Laws? To the Republic For Which It Stands, With Liberty And Justice For All: SINCERELY One Free Secular Nation ABOVE Religious Theocracy.
MagicTellaVision 5 months ago
"I pledge allegiance to the fags ... one naked individual ...". That's nice. A little insulting, but nice.
weberbeat 5 months ago
I wish "under god" was never included
mypimpomar 6 months ago
Speaking of "salutes" in general......I just recently heard that the standard military salute originates from the old knights in their armor. They would greet one another.......by reaching up to lift the visor of their helmet...so they could be identified. Sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, although I'm not sure if it's true.
195511SM 7 months ago
definitely hear the edit right before 'indivisible'.
buglegirl1 7 months ago
no way to tell if under god was omitted b/c there are natural pauses after each declaration...to GOD BE ALL GLORY!
God bless America!
bamissfa 7 months ago
@bamissfa If you mean that I edited out the words under God, then you're welcome to check any other copy of the film, part 7 of "Why We Fight" from 1945. It is in public domain, so you can find copies of it on Internet Archive and probably other places on the web. They recite the pledge in the first 2 minutes of the film, so you don't have to hunt for it. It's easy to confirm that this is true. No one said "Under God" in the pledge til 1950s.
deidzoeb 7 months ago
@bamissfa Like all christians, you're living in a blindfolded lie.
official13winters 7 months ago
That's rexcurrydotnet on youtube
hallsofmedicine 8 months ago
@hallsofmedicine Ahhh, there's someone posting on youtube who we should take as a better authority than wikipedia. Do you or Rex Curry have any better sources that support these claims that Bellamy was a Nazi? Please check out the Wikipedia entry about the Roman Salute. You'll see paintings 100-200 years old showing people saluting with their arms up. Then you can find other sources that show the same old paintings, if you don't trust wikipedia. The gesture was not invented by Bellamy.
deidzoeb 8 months ago
By the way, I don't have a problem with the words "Under God".
hallsofmedicine 8 months ago
National Socialism= NAZI! Go to rexcurry.net... and wikipedia is CERTAINLY the most accurate place to find info...NOT!
hallsofmedicine 8 months ago
The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, a National Socialist whose stiff armed salute to the flag was the inspiration for the famous Nazi salute. adding the phrase "Under God" doesn't change the fact that it was written by, basically, a Nazi. This is nothing but symbol fetishism. I love my country(although I despise the current incarnation of our government) but I will NEVER recite in zombie like fashion, something written by a Socialist, Nazi, or otherwise.
hallsofmedicine 8 months ago
@hallsofmedicine Do you have some citation supporting the claim that Bellamy was a Nazi, or that his salute inspired the Nazi salute? According to the Wikipedia entries on Bellamy and the Roman Salute, it was probably a gesture that was around for hundreds of years before being copied by Bellamy or the Fascists or Nazis. How about if we all remain free to support or not support any country we feel like, without having to swear our loyalty or commanding children to swear their loyalty?
deidzoeb 8 months ago
I like this pledge better
ReptarTheKing143 9 months ago
@ReptarTheKing143 Same here.
cochranexyz 8 months ago
under God was added, because communist didn't believe in God, which separates Church and State, We are becoming a Communist nation...Because the enemy has infiltrated our way of life.
rsmall64 9 months ago
@rsmall64 Them dang communists even infiltrated Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term "wall of separation between church and state." Dude, the idea of a secular state is an American idea that predates Marxism and maybe predates the term "communism."
deidzoeb 9 months ago
@deidzoeb Well said!
ArrogantAtheism 8 months ago
@rsmall64
Church and state mingling together is the OPPOSITE of freedom and democracy., In fact, communism is more in line with Biblical principles and Christianity than the SECULAR REPUBLIC the United States was founded upon.
Syrinx69 8 months ago
@Syrinx69 Good point. In Acts, there's a scene where God strikes down some Christian because he didn't share a fair amount of his crops or livestock with the other members of his community, and strikes down his wife because she knew about the hoarding and lied to the apostles. It's a pretty clear and easy argument to say that Christians are depicted as socialists or communists in that chapter. Unfortunately, it's a socialist theocracy.
deidzoeb 8 months ago
@rsmall64 BAHAHAHAHA
Rockabilly500 8 months ago
Under God was added later because we had so many Christians
JosephStalin11 10 months ago
@JosephStalin11 Nope. Please reread a history book.
DuggabbooDC 8 months ago
Many who claim "Christian" roots as the American source of our philosophical and political policies, like to conveniently exclude many equally important truth's from the discussion. Most of the 13 original states required oaths of acceptance of the New Testament as a prerequisite for obtaining office or becoming fully naturalized citizens.
WordAndReason 11 months ago
@WordAndReason read the first amendment if u think its a christian country
MamaMario13 10 months ago
@MamaMario13 It's not. This is my point. Re-read what I posted. Some colony states required oath's of acceptance of the New testament before they would naturalize citizens or allow them to run for office. Others did not. It was this plurality of the role of religion that disproves the concept of a "Christian" America. But, there is no denying concepts of faith as having informed some of the Founders when they finally formulated our form of government.
WordAndReason 10 months ago
@MamaMario13 My writing error. The word 'truth's' lacks quotation marks in my original post. Additionally, note that Jefferson carefully chose to use the word "Creator" in the Declaration. He only used the term 'God' in connection with man's 'nature,' not a particular denomination. Believers in a "Christian America" would do well to engage in a full reading of American history, not just select quotes & supporting passages. The same goes for everyone else.
WordAndReason 10 months ago
THIS DID HAVE 'UNDER GOD' BUT YOU EDITED IT. DUMB ASS.
DougMcCallister1 1 year ago
@DougMcCallister1 Don't take my word for it, friend-O. You can buy copies of this fairly cheap because they're in public domain. You can also watch multiple copies of it on archive.org. Just search for "Why We Fight" (the name of the series of 7 films), and this episode is "War Comes to America." You'll see the same thing in the original. Also if you look up the pledge of allegiance in Wikipedia or almost anywhere, you'll find info about how "under god" was added in the 50s.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb It's amazing how some people will spew opinions on the net and never use the same world wide web to inform themselves of factual history and information. That DougMcCallister1 calls you a dumb ass is absolutely hysterical. You'd think someone so hell bent on the truth would apologize for wrongly insulting you.
WordAndReason 11 months ago
@DougMcCallister1 you are a liar for jesus
debaser71 11 months ago
Is this supposed to somehow deny North America's Christian roots?
Northcoda 1 year ago
@Northcoda Make of it what you will. For fifty years, give or take, teachers made children recite the Pledge of Allegiance without that phrase, until it was added in 1954. Here's another fun fact. According to the Wikipedia entry, the pledge was written to go along with an event "conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, in a campaign to sell flags to public schools and magazines to students...." I pledge allegiance to this guy wanting to sell more flags. Ugh.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb It was also pushed as a counter to the socialist agenda that was being pushed around the world in the 1950's. Remember that Communism had taken over about half the world in the 1950's and most Americans were trying to show the world that they werent like the crazy communists, trying to take away individual freedoms, for the sake of a "collective good". Sadly we have Obama doing the same, just under a different name of Democratic Liberalism.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Check out the Wikipedia entry on the Pledge. The guy who wrote it was a socialist! He toned down some of it because he figured some Americans wouldn't agree to "equality" if it meant women or "fraternity" with non-whites.
Yeah, Obama is following communist policies, the same way the Soviets and Mao bailed out banks and private corporations. You might want to read some more about Communism before you reveal how little you know about it.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
If they could bring the original Pledge, I'd stand and pledge in a heartbeat.
YetAnthony 1 year ago
It implies nothing. It ASSERTS that there is a separation. This is not a christian nation no matter how much these fanatics want it to be a theocracy. Just ask the Quakers, if this was a christian nation as founded. Or, how about those million peasants who tried to establish Jamestown in the late 1500s, for king and eventually tobacco and profit. Case closed. The history of The United States had many religions, & the founders understood this, along with religion in European governments.
biped19 1 year ago
@biped19 Actually your wrong when it comes to that. Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's. Sadly that part of the true history of the USA has been ignored and even shoveled under the rug of history. The truth is that they didnt want a NATIONAL religion, not to completely ingnore or worse, cast religion out of society, as socialists have tried to do repeately in the past 60 years.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000
There were no "official" religions. It contradicts the Constitution. Cite your source. And, you can stop with the mcCarthy "socialism" nonsense. This nation has some pre-socialist concepts built into it, like freedom of speech and Congress issuing the currency interest free for commerce, Article 1 section 8. . . As usual the neo-con-artists want an adam smith quacademic theocray with war, god and the FED. Get out traitors.
biped19 1 year ago
@photolitherland , now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge! That part of the argument is over (unless you want to also allow us to revisit previous court rulings on various liberal rulings?)! I would love to open up that can of worms because I think, and polls say, conservatives would win!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 I think you're letting your emotions get the better of your judgment. You have a number of strong, affectingly expressed opinions, but I think you're twisting and reinterpreting history, modern and past, in a way that justifies your reasoning, rather than taking it for what it is. Creating a mixture of truthiness and re-interpretation that distorts historical facts to fit your point of view isn't right. We should champion the truth as it is, not personal truth as we want it to be.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 "now that its been ruled as legal, they wont get rid of GOD in our currency or our pledge!" You have too much confidence in the latest ruling. This wouldn't be the first time that the Supreme Court overturned an appeals court ruling or an earlier Supreme Court ruling.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
I accidentally clicked on "trash can" next to a comment. Not sure if it was mine or somebody else's. Is there any way to undo this?
deidzoeb 1 year ago
Honestly, I dont know why manifest destiny had anything to do with anything. That was simply a concept of the US having the right to become a nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific. That was pretty normal European ideology of the times and was not controversial at the time. Same for womans rights. Unlike today, they didn't see any reason for women to be anything more than the caretaker of the family, and men should be leaders and income makers of that family. Pretty normal then!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 The thing worth noting is that Christian morality changes over time. Christians endorse slavery then reject it, treat women as property then as citizens, treat non-Whites as subhuman then eventually as equals (maybe someday). Because Christians don't always take morality from the Bible. They retrofit the morality of their times into the Bible, rationalizing it as necessary. Selecting some lines of scripture to support a position, ignoring other parts as necessary.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb, I completely disagree with you on that assumption. The bible has not changed, and most views by mainstream Christian groups today still hold the same views as they did in the 1800's. The bible never says to treat women as property, and in fact demands men to love their wives as they would themselves. Many Christians, particularly in the north, always thought slavery was wrong. You are generalizing too much to push an antichristian viewpoint. Even today politicians abuse scripture
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Lots of Christians in the 1800s endorsed slavery and racism. They gradually changed. So if the Bible presents one clear message about how to live, why did Christians change from endorsing slavery and racism to rejecting them? I didn't say the Bible says to treat women as property. I meant that US laws treated women as property, and the laws were mostly written by and endorsed by Christians. Christians have apparently changed their understanding of how to treat women.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 I didn't say the Bible has changed. I said Christian morality has changed. If the Bible presents one clear message about what behaviors are right and wrong, then why did Christians endorse slavery for centuries, then change their mind about it? Why did European Christians treat women and non-whites as second class citizens for centuries and change their mind about that? Why are Christians in many countries gradually changing their minds about whether homosexuality is wrong?
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb , that is exactly what you are saying when you try to say that Christian morality has changed in the past 250 years. As I said, most christians didnt endorse slavery, and thats why it was banned in 1805 in most of the northern states. YOur definition of "second rate citizens" for women is in the wrong context of history. Most women thought that their rolls were in fact to take care of the families and that men were the breadwinners. Homosexuality is wrong, and will always be wrong!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 says "...most christians didn't endorse slavery..." We're not going to have a meaningful conversation if you are that far out of touch with reality and fact. Christians made up the majority of society in the US and UK for centuries when those countries made slavery legal. If they had been opposed to slavery all along, they would not have allowed it to become legal, or they would have outlawed it sooner. The fact that they didn't shows how they endorsed it, then later changed.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb This is very true that morality changes over time, and also seems to be true for almost all religions I've seen so far.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
Ya crime is down for the 3rd year in a row, but is up some 600% since the 1950's. I found an interesting statistic at jrsa dot org /programs/historical dot pdf. It clearly shows the incredible increase of all crimes, particularly in the late 60's/70's. That in my opinion clearly shows that that generation no longer viewed god as being in their lives.
Political correctness and tolerance for evil is why America will in near future implode. America was made on christian ideals and morals.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 I did some more searching, and the graph you've provided is correct, but more than a decade old. Violent crime has been on a steady decline since the late 80's and is currently only a little over twice the 50's levels, whereas homicide has actually returned to about the same rate as it was the 50's. Even property crime rates have been on a decline, though are still a little over double 50's levels (you can check this all out on Wiki and the Bureau of Justice Statistics Website).
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature, Im glad that you looked at the statistics and seen that crime rates are in fact higher today than in the 1950's. I think that my point is made in that any crime rates that would increase even 25% today, would be considered a crisis, and yet the secularists dont want to link the 200-500% increase in crime to the fact that you have tried everything you possibly can to remove god and religion from the public arena. It was never intended to keep religion out of our govt.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 I think you're making a correlation here, though, not a causal link. Most Japanese people don't believe in God (64%), and yet they have amongst the lowest crime rates in the world (I know, I've spent several months living and traveling throughout Japan).
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 It's way too simplistic to say that this one factor is the cause of increase in crime. Don't you think the economy and changes in laws affect crime rates? It's not like lots of people started brewing and bootlegging alcohol illegally during Prohibition because they lost faith or because the Bible was taken out of schools. They did it because they disagreed with the prohibition laws. I imagine there was a dip in crime rates when prohibition was repealed - nothing to do with bibles.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 The intentions were to keep government out of religion, as that was the concern. A government representing the majority was established with the ovious understanding that the country, society, and government would reflect that representation ... which includes morals and religion. Hence why you didn't see anyone in 'or out' of the government care about public monuments and memorials projecting Christian symbols. The concerns fall with the government interjecting into religion!
lonewulf44 1 year ago
@lonewulf44 Please read up on the history of religion in the states. This is completely wrong viewpoint that you are pushing. Until the 1860's, the view of govt was that of the states having the power over the federal govt, not the other way around. Many states had their own state religion, and if you didnt like it, you could go to a state that had your religion. Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them. 10th amend was intended to restrict Fed, not state rights!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 In one comment on this thread, you write "Many original 13 state constitutions have that spelled out in them." In another comment, you write, "Every one of the original 13 states had an "official" religion. That was the case until the 1900's." Which is it?
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 And also, almost 64% of Japanese people have professed not to believe in God, and yet Japan has amongst the lowest crime rates in the world (which I believe, having spent quite a bit of time in the country). Only 33% of the world is Christian ~ it would be strange to say that the other 67% is immoral just because they don't follow Christian ideals and morals.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature Also compare the religious beliefs of people in prison and people outside. From what I've heard, there are many more Christians in US prisons, although I don't know what percentage of them might have converted in prison, after repenting of their crimes. We could also look up how many repeat offenders are Christians.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 And finally, I think it would be strange to say that our nation's Christian principles were necessarily better than they are now, lest we forget that our country was founded in slavery, war, manifest destiny and discrimination against women, different races and cultures.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature, I completely disagree with you that our country was "founded in slavery". Did you know that the first "slave" was in fact a law case of a black man suing to put a fellow black man into permanent servatude? Manifest destiny was a simple principle of politics, not religion, and your definition of christian discrimination against women is completely wrong and not in the bible, nor against any particular races/cultures. Read the new testiment, not the old. It changed it.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Well, slavery's been around since even before Ancient Rome. What I meant was that our Founding Fathers didn't have the moral sense to abolish slavery in our nation's founding, in spite of the Christian values they may have held. You seem to be suggesting that things were better when government was 'more Christian' ~ but there was manifest destiny, lack of women's suffrage, and slavery back then.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature, many of the founding fathers did see slavery as wrong, but it was a difficult time in our nation. At the time of the creation of the US, we were fighting for the very survival of not only the US but of the very lives of those who were seen as traitors by the British Govt. They decided, against the will of many states of the north, to make a slave 3/5th of a person with the idea that one day, they would come back and make them 100%. It was better than 0/5ths the south wntd
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 @jacobew2000 What I'm saying is, terrible things happened during the time you're suggesting the country was more religious. If you're going to (I'd say, somewhat unfairly) connect increased crime rates to secularism, wouldn't the logical conclusion be to connect slavery, lack of women's suffrage, and manifest destiny to religion?
I'm also interested in your thoughts on Jefferson's Deism, considering he's a notable founding father with somewhat harsh feelings towards the church.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCuriousCreature, Jefferson did think there was a god, despite what the secularists what people to believe. His biggest concern was not of there being religion in politics, but rather that of a particular Christian denomination, such as Catholism, having more input in the US politics. I believe that all the founding fathers would be upset if they saw how radical American politics have become in trying to exclude God completely from our society. US was made on Christian theology!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 You mischaracterize the situation drastically when you say Americans have been "trying to exclude God completely from our society." Have you seen the ACLU protesting that churches should all be closed? There's a big difference between keeping our government secular as it was intended, and excluding God from society.
The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That means a whole religion, not one denomination or the other.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb, see that is my point and the reason why I believe that you are wrong. You are reading that first amendment in the eyes of today, instead of the context of when it was written. The average American of those times was decidely christian, and taken in the context of history, they never intended our nation to be secular or anti-christian. You otta read about the great "REVIVALS" of the 1820's, and then tell me that most americans then thought of separation of church and state.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Well, Jefferson and Madison pushed for the first amendment because they didn't want for the tyranny of the majority to oppress the rights of the minority. I'd definitely recommend looking into the religious histories of Jefferson and Madison and how they strove against a religious/Christian state ~ Madison, in particular, had a visceral aversion to public officials' employing religion as an engine of civil policy, in his opinion "an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature , Jefferson and Madison pushed for the 1st amendment because the saw how the church of england dominated english Federal politics in the 1700's. But they thought that the FED govt would be limited in scope, and never thought that it would dominate into/against States Rights (hence 10th amendment). Fed govt has intruded into many things that it has no business into. Taxes for socialist programs is a great example. Time for a constitutional convention to remove Fed govt powr!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 The word "religion" did not mean "denomination" 200 years ago. Taken in the context of history, they wanted no establishment of religion. That doesn't mean they wanted to establish a religion but not one denomination.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb , If you talked to an average American then, they thought of themselves as "A Virginian protestant", etc. There was open hostility toward what we call other denominations today. So thats what RELIGION meant to Americans then! There was no idea in the hearts or minds of the various state assemblies that there should not be God, and if you look at their state constitutions (many older than the US), they graphically state that! Remember they thought 10thamendment prevented fed intrusion
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@deidzoeb , I am not mischaracterizing the situation when I say that major groups, including the ACLU (better look up the history of this socialist organization), and other groups such as Athiests For separation of Church and state, and many liberal democrats in office, are in fact pushing ways of doing this. You love asking where it is in the constitution for god. I will ask, where in the constitution does it say "separation of church and state". There is no such thing anywhere in there!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" implies "a wall of separation between church and state." If there was no separation of church and state, it would mean that Congress or the federal government had established an official state religion, so it would violate the
First Amendment.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
Comment removed
biped19 1 year ago
@jacobew2000
Show me where in the Constitution the words "freedom of religion" or "right to a fair trial" appear. They are there in concept, just as separation of church and state is. That wall of separation is the cornerstone of this nation. It's why it was called the "great experiment". The ignorant of your Bible thumpers is sickening.
Why would any freedom loving people NOT want separation of religion and government unless they were theocrats on par with Iran and the Taliban?
Syrinx69 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 I think CuriousCreature pointed out Manifest Destiny because it was immoral and yet it was carried out by US citizens who were majority Christian, even if the movement wasn't led by Christians or identified as a religious policy.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 And not all of our Founding Fathers were Christian ~ Thomas Jefferson, for example, was a Deist: check out some quotes from him.
"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Here's another strong Thomas Jefferson quote: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than of blindfolded fear."
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Also note that the Constitution does not even once explicitly mention Jesus, God, Christ, the Bible etc. ~ the only exception is the mention of the Year of our Lord, which was common parlance in religious and secular writings of that era. The founding fathers were very careful not to make any explicit Christian religious references in the Constitution ~ largely because they believed that the new government should not be involved in matters of religion.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature , they also were very specific to not put "separation of church and state" in the constitution too! What we have done now is taken things like Education, and liberalized it in a way that they teach our kids that there is no GOD and as a result, IS OPENLY HOSTILE TOWARD RELIGION NOW! They are teaching our kids secularism as being right, homosexuality is right, and that morals is anything that you want it to be, instead of being neutral as you claim they are!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@photolitherland, actually our govt wasnt established with the idea of excluding god from the political arena. It wasnt that way for over 150 years, until the start of the 1940's. If you know history, the chief justice black was anti-catholic, and thats why they changed the law. They started moving the law from state to federal govt during this period too. Wonder why it was ok for 150+ years and then suddenly it wasnt ok anymore? It was politics more than rule of law that caused the change.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, President Roosevelt instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. Removal of the Bellamy salute occurred on December 22, 1942
RememberJudas314 1 year ago
@arenusaura, The problem is that we now have teachers in public schools and universities that dont teach it that "neutral" way. They are often openly hostile toward any sort of religion, and unfortunately are teaching our kids in the public schools that they are "idiots" or "uneducated" if they believe in GOD. So there is an athiest agenda being taught to our kids! That has been an agenda for 60 years. First remove god, then ethics, then values, then teach them that certain things are moral!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Taking out "Under God", imo, isn't underscoring Christianity in America ~ it's showing religious tolerance, by forming a government where all races and creeds can come together. Even though most of our Founding Fathers were Christian, there were so many different denominations (Presbyterian, Quaker, Catholic, etc.), they knew it would be wise to keep government out of religion, and vice versa. That's why the First Amendment exists, and should continue to be followed.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
@TheCuriousCreature, the problem with tolerance is that we are now becoming so tolerant of everything, that evil and sin is now ok to do in our society. We went from being tolerant in race (which I agree with) to the next step of having to tolerate everything else, from corruption, to homosexuality, to single parent families, to mad spending. Crime rates have exploded since 1940's, and we wonder why... Americans think that we should be able to do anything we want, but ignore the consequences.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Actually, crime rates are down for the third year in a row, if you look it up. Anywho, I've never looked at homosexuals or single parent families as being evil or sinful. I agree, though, that we shouldn't be tolerant of things like corruption, and that's because it's something we know can hurt other people. How people live their own lives and what beliefs they hold, so long as it's not hurting anyone else then it's really their own business in my opinion, not the government's.
TheCuriousCreature 1 year ago
Considering the reteric of today, "under god" is being used as a religious test, Artical 6 dose declare that unconstitutional.
Example all the state laws that require a religious affilation for office or public trust are wrong.
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
Doesnt matter now, as of today, the 9th circuit ruled it legal, tossing out the lawsuit.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
Slavery continued to matter even after the Dred Scott decision. Public institutions unconstitutionally proclaiming religious belief will continue to matter after the 9th Circuit's ruling.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb , must be constitutional, since this is the most liberal, antireligion court in the nation that has said that "under god" in the pledge and on money doesnt violate the constitution. Sorry, but unless the supreme court rules otherwise (fat chance), your crying over nothing now!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
If you look at history of legal decisions in the US, you'll find all kinds of judgments like this by lower courts and even the supreme court that were later overturned as unconstitutional. I'm not crying or holding my breath for the supreme court to make a fair ruling about this any time soon. You can call the 9th district "the most liberal, antireligion." You can call it constitutional. They can rule it constitutional. It's still a violation of the establishment clause, plain as day.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb and @jacobew2000
Maybe one should ask if it is unconstitutional on other grounds. Like if the pledge has become a religious test for a public trust (i.e. public school) for instance.
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
@deidzoeb, the establishment clause is the biggest misinterpretation of the courts about the history of religious freedoms in the US. The 1947 SC decision was a result of an ex-kkk chief justice Black that hated catholics, and simply did not want them to have any money. Its as simple as that! The clause you mention was a speach made by Jefferson in 1802, and was a view not widely held in its day by the general populus. Until 1940, it was legal to have church prayer, etc, etc. 150years later!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 Seems like a fair and obvious interpretation of the establishment clause to me. I'd say until 1940, prayer in school was not prosecuted, but it was unconstitutional and should have been recognized as illegal. We have a similar situation today where several members of the Bush admin admit to authorizing "interrogation techniques" that should be prosecuted as torture (as they were when Japanese did them or local sheriffs), but we don't have the political will to prosecute.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb, I would argue that the supreme court, starting in 1940, misinterpreted the 1st amendment. It has now created a situation whereby govt is openly hostile toward individuals expressing their religious values in the public arena. As a result, we no longer teach our kids basic values because teachers are afraid that they might be accused of pushing religious, and often christian values, on poor ol Danny and Sally, kids of some athiest. No wonder crime has exploded since 1940.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000
Teaching our children morality and values does not require any god, any religion or The Bible. Morality predates the Bible and your god. As for crime "exploding" - it could just as easily be argued that it is due to the illegal addition of God to our pledge and money in the 1950's
Isn't it funny that the most secular non-religious countries on the planet are also the strongest in grade school education, academics, intelligence, health care and low crime rates?
Syrinx69 1 year ago
@Syrinx69, actually the crime rate increases can be directly seen when comparing the timelines of the Supreme Court Decisions removing God from our society. The problem today is that secularism is taught as being better than observing God, and our kids are not being taught a neutral viewpoint toward religion, but rather that those who are religious are "quacks". Our public schools have in effect become hostile anti-religious/freedom of expression, out of the fear of maybe "offending" someone.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 The crime rate increases also goes hand in hand with the war on drugs, and massive profits being made from illegal activities increasing creating more demand for criminals and more insentives for people to become criminals. Secularism is better then religion for things like running a school, or the government.... Though i do agree with you on schools especially should not be afraid of freedom of expression on religious matters. Some definitely are.
GhostInTheShell29 1 year ago
@jacobew2000 So, you are blaming schools and teachers? What ever happened to good old fashioned parenting? My children will agree with me far more readily than something they are told at school. Why would you want to trust someone you don't know with the eternal soul and religious education of your child? How about not blaming others for your own failures? If you want your children to "know God" then tell them about God. There are also PRIVATE Christian schools to which you may send your child.
MyGrammarRules 1 year ago
@MyGrammarRules, I do blame the parents because my mother has been a teacher for over 40 years. She is constantly telling me about how many problems she has today with kids that have no values, are rude, and have no fear of adults or rule of law because we have taken those values (from god) out of our school. If I send my child to a private school, I still have to pay the taxes just as if I was sending them to a public school. I do tell them about god, but i hav to compete w/antigod teachers
jacobew2000 1 year ago
I know right! Silly people who dont worship a god need to get the hell out of our country! It says "under god" it can be any god. So i just imagine a god that fucks little boys, hates gays, blows up buses, doesnt eat cows, and hates masterbation. I love my made up god.
jerkappy 1 year ago
How is that different to the Christian God?
TheDogCalledBaxter 1 year ago
Actually it is "under God" with a capital 'G', only one god goes by the name "God" and that would be the one of the Christian religion. Though your god is almost the same, so it doesn't matter.
nlukow13 1 year ago
@nlukow13,. Thats why I spelled it with the capital G. I believe that there is in fact one and only one GOD and that is the one of in the Christian Bible. Yah there is many here that is anti-christian/bible because of their own desire to not follow the morals in it, but I will leave that up to you, and your relationship, or lack thereof with him! Ultimately, its GOD that will judge you, not me.
jacobew2000 1 year ago
It was your filthy cockroach family whom insisted the word "God" be added.
Why? so they could come back later, scream "church state sep"
and try to get the entire pledge removed in time for the New Treaosn Order.
didn't work though, people saw right through it.
I'm suprised they didn't hang you, fluoride must be working.
TheTruthPusher 2 years ago
The fluoride must be working.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
deidzoeb, your comment of 2 months ago wonderfully summarizes in one succinct paragraph why I think the US pledge of allegiance sucks. It's a bad idea to begin with, let alone with that "under God" crap.
erracht 2 years ago
Ive seen this a few places in different formats on youtube. I am ashamed to say I had no idea that we have ever changed the pledge.....shame on me..THANKYOU for your posts.
jsmythib 2 years ago
This is the way the pledge should have remained - it is disgraceful that religious fundamentalists had to change it. A secular nonreligion promoting pledge would be acceptable to all those, religious, non religious. New pledge creates a divide between religious, non religious and polytheists.
PassionForPasta 2 years ago
I'm not religious, but I wouldn't find it acceptable for teachers to force kids to recite any "pledge" to their nation, secular or religious. If a kid learns that his society or nation is worth supporting, then he'll support it without being forced to recite a pledge for it. And not everyone who recites the pledge mindlessly in school (usually without knowing what it means) grows up to fulfill that pledge. It's an ineffective attempt at brainwashing kids -- even without "under God" inserted.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
deidzoeb: I totally agree. Try to force feed children to recite the pledge is counter-productive.
cobalt100 2 years ago
I live in United States and I always said the pledge of allegiance almost every day of school and I am currently saying it. I like the speech. Every kid in the United States learns that speech at a very young age. You are expected to stand up and place your right hand over your heart.
Fleur114 2 years ago
Oh but you find it acceptable to teach them to embrace homosexuality
and darwinite monkey business don't you little scuzy nurse til 9 talmud creep?
TheTruthPusher 2 years ago
Notice how TheTruthPusher (sic) basically ignores my points and tries to drag the discussion in irrelevent directions.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
What does it say about a person if they use "talmud" as an insult? Are you confusing that word with "Taliban" or does it just sound vaguely Arabic to you? It's a Jewish text, so it sounds like you don't like them.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
Is there actual audio of Eisenhower saying that? I've been looking for it to use in a video.
NinjaMatie 2 years ago
The pledge was more elegant and less divisive before being ammended. I support the restoration of the pledge.
TouchOfGreatness 2 years ago
Oh, here - $: a Square Peg for a Round Hole to bury you're 33rd Degree Spinal Bone's in!
KaOssis 2 years ago
What God is that then, because according to you're MRI Cat Scanner you've only got you're left hemisphere super penis Id active, not you're right hemisphere Bosse, that's why you're psychology only has 'Dust to dust', and I have 2 Kings 18:18 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", and 'Hezekiah' ="Return", so you wouldn't know how to follow my Ol' man's Van on any Lay Line Grid!
KaOssis 2 years ago
Well, the U.S. is a Nazi Potemkin Nation origine anyway, that's why you've got practically every name out of the Bible for you're town's, village's, and city's, but only have a half brain Pavlov psychology of 'Dust to dust', when Syn(SINE)aesthesic's have 2 Kings 18:18 'Sennacherib' = "Dust", and 'Hezekiah' = "Return", and I can with my Ol' Green Man's Van = $, but you cannot, because you're is Man Made In China!
KaOssis 2 years ago
I can haz One Time Cube under God?
deidzoeb 2 years ago
I really enjoyed studying the "Why We Fight" series.
therealkidfrombrookl 2 years ago
*Allegiance, not sure how I messed that one up, lol
hockey14822 2 years ago
hashish
SirFelix377 2 years ago
I pledge a elegance to the flag of the United States of America and to our Liberal Socialist government for witch it stands one totally segregated nation possessed by Satan with pain and agony for all who inhabit the land.
hockey14822 2 years ago
Our country is not a socailist leberal government, when w. was in office we came close to fascism or even becoming an oligarchy.. i Dream of the day we become socailist... Im a proud socailist liberal of the united states FUCK YA!
Bishopbeingdumb 2 years ago
@Bishopbeingdumb socialism appeals to the "little" people in a society.
Trashfished 2 years ago
In much the same way that anti-shaftism appeals to people who want to stop getting shafted.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
@deidzoeb What exactly do you mean by that??
Trashfished 2 years ago
I mean socialism is the the understandable and appropriate reaction to unfair systems like capitalism.
Could you explain what you mean by "little people" in a society? Billy Barty? It sounds a little like an insult, but also sounds like what Orwell wrote in 1984, that the upper class generally wants to hold its position, middle class generally wants just enough revolution so they can change place with the upper class, and the lower class generally wants to eliminate classes (socialism).
deidzoeb 2 years ago
@deidzoeb Not meant to be an insult, just the start of socialism always starts with pols. creating class envy. They put it into the little peoples head if we take from the rich it will mean more for you. All it does is slow an economy to a crawl. That rich guy wont buy that nice boat, or hire new employees good example was when asshole carter raised taxes on business and wealthy. Beleive me I remember well. States such as Mich. are now in that boat hostile bus. environment 15%+unemployment.
Trashfished 2 years ago
I'd say class envy starts with people feeling that classes are unfair. That starts pretty soon after classes develop in the first place, not after politicians point it out.
Part of our disagreement here is whether it's fair for some people to get rich in the first place. You probably feel that there are fair ways for people to earn and keep a lot of money. I think wealth is created by workers, and most of it is unfairly taken from them by investors and capitalists who didn't work or earn it.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
@deidzoeb I want to live where I have the opportunity to become rich. If one has the drive and talent let them go for it. socialism NEVER works it turns the middle class into serfs. The only people possibly would want that dont have much of a brain. for sure they are the "little" people of a society.
Trashfished 1 year ago
Your hang-up against short people makes me not want to bother responding to you anymore. It's not like we're having an exchange of ideas, just me trying to explain and support my position, you dropping assertions like "Yay team, go capitalism, boo socialism." Have a good day anyway.
deidzoeb 1 year ago
@deidzoeb Dont worry when we are socialised we will all be poor.
Trashfished 1 year ago
@deidzoeb, is that any better than your towed line that socialism is ok, and that the present day slavery, aka taxes, to an out of control govt that is spending like drunken sailors is any better? I will shout GO CAPITALISM and BOOO SOCIALISM because every socialist society in the past 150 years has collapsed on itself. I guess that America is doomed because we are ignoring and repeating the same failures of socialism with people like Obama, Reid, Pelosie and I guess YOU! Else we are slaves!
jacobew2000 1 year ago
@deidzoeb
Class Envy starts with people flaunting their wealth and status. One doesn't necessarily have to envy a rich person who drives a nice car though, one can aspire to instead become successful and one day afford a nice car.
What inevitably creates class envy is narcissism; this idea that somehow you deserve a nice car. It's like conservatives who feel that they "earned" their status, when in fact there were other people who helped them along. Wealth is always built upon other people.
InsanityManifest 1 year ago
When you say "it slows an economy to a crawl", your premise seems to be that an economy must grow a little bit each year. There's no good reason for that. If workers and consumers reached agreements (and most of us are workers on one product or service, consumers of other products or svcs), there could be a balance with zero growth needed. So yeah, if the growth of an economy slowed to zero, that would be fine. It would be a problem for capitalists who don't really work, not for workers.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
Capitalists have taught us to believe that most of us workers have to rely on the scraps they throw us, as if there is no other way for everyone to survive. So we have to give them money so they can create jobs for us, and so they can buy things we'll build. It's like saying we have to *bribe* them to keep paying our tiny wages, cuz we're too stupid to run things. In reality, most workers just don't have capital to start businesses, without making huge concessions to banks or investors.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
@deidzoeb You are a socialist and it DONT WORK ! let the free market rock and you can feel the economy humm. Fact 4 you. period.
Trashfished 2 years ago
"Fact 4 you." Asserting that something's a fact doesn't make it a fact. I'll try to make a video eventually explaining the problems I see with capitalism and some of the ways we could make things more fair.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
Re: raising taxes on business and wealthy. If you look back at the last fifty years or so, the country did very well under high taxes in the 50s-70s, and we've had some hard times in spite of Reagan lowering taxes on business and wealthy. But who are we talking about when we say "the country" did well, or the "economy" was bad. Usually pundits are talking whether rich people did well or not. Wages for working people have not kept up with inflation since the early 70s. ....
deidzoeb 2 years ago
... So the only people whose standard of living has gone up has been rich people. That's half a century of experience that should show us trickle down economics have not brought the prosperity that capitalists claimed. Or you could say it brought a few of them prosperity, and it came at the expense of everyone else. ... Which is basically where the prosperity came from, people who didn't work taking surplus value that was created by labor and should have gone to workers who earned it.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
I've never said the line when I've pledged in the past. I suspect that most peoples ''God's'' really don't give a damn about this one way or the other. The only one's who seem to get bent out of mental shape over excluding it tend to be religious zealots and self appointed 'morality' supremacists.
TigerRocket 2 years ago 5
My only argument FOR keeping "under God" was that it is part of our history...now that I know it wasn't originally in there I say let's take that shit outta there!
WolfSyndrome 2 years ago 19
Ya, why not. We who live in America are living in an ungodly and corrupt nation and most of us fail to realize that. I guess the dispute over not wanting God in the pledge is just a sign from God telling us we are unworthy of his name being associated with our country.
hockey14822 2 years ago
What, you mean we were able to defeat Nazi Germany without "under God" in our pledge? How can this be?
Bfdidc 2 years ago 4
We were able to *contribute to* the defeat of Nazi Germany without "under God." It's hard to tell how easily we would have defeated them without a few million Russians and Brits and other Europeans fighting them too. But your point is a good one.
deidzoeb 2 years ago
Well stated. I'm savvy enough about that war to know we didn't win it on our own, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. Cheers.
Bfdidc 2 years ago