|
Post by AcaciaPhoenix on Sept 22, 2005 9:22:11 GMT -5
Ok,
I'm rather upset by the fact that one individual can change roughly 50 years of tradition...(the Pledge of Alligiance originally did not have "One Nation Under God" until after WWII)
Who gave the man the right to take away The Pledge of Alligiance just for two words within? I'm sorry but how is saying "under god" unconstitutional??
The dude is probably right there each pay day with his hand out for money....well GUESS WHAT!!! On each and every piece of money are the words "In God We Trust" What's going to be next?? Complete revision of our currency??
I may be Pagan, but I see more and more ppl overturning things that have any remote connection towards God. It's sad really, and I know many Christians who are saying things like "what about MY rights?"
And don't even get me started on the recent situation going on with the Archdiocese of Philadelphia with the former Cardinals and corruption regarding Priests and sexual misconduct...despicable...
*snorts and storms off*
Acacia
|
|
Null
Shadow Keeper
Posts: 121
|
Post by Null on Sept 22, 2005 23:17:30 GMT -5
Are you saying your upset about someone trying to return the pledge to it's original form, or are you referring to Senator Ferguson of Michigan?
Regardless.
The original pledge written in 1892 read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The extra shit was added in 1954 at the height of the Red Scare as an attempt to differentiate Americans from those evil godless commies. The cold war is over folks, so we need to stop grabbing our ankles and reciting this god-awful (pun intended) bullshit every time an American flag rears its ugly head.
I think the First Amendment says it best:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I think "under God" qualifies as an establishment of religion.
It's not very hard to make a revision to our currency. Hell, just look at those state-specific quarters, those were MAJOR changes, removing four itsy bitsy words wouldn't be a very difficult transition at all.
Once again: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
As you can see, the theist slogan on our coinage is once again in direct violation of the Constitution.
I've stopped listening to Christians when they bitch about being discriminated against. When they say "discrimination", they're really complaining about how they can't integrate their religion into every facet of life and then force feed anyone who disagrees. It's kind of hard to feel sorry for them when you consider that Christians are a SUPER MAJORITY in this country.
Just open the phone book and make a note of how many pages are dedicated to churches. These people aren't being discriminated against; nobody has a problem with them believing in all that water-walking nonsense, the problem is with them IMPOSING their belief on others.
There's a separation of church and state, lets try to keep the two as far apart as possible. It's for the best.
-Null
|
|
|
Post by Mairi on Sept 24, 2005 11:28:57 GMT -5
Null Wrote: The original pledge written in 1892 read: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
The extra shit was added in 1954 at the height of the Red Scare as an attempt to differentiate Americans from those evil godless commies. The cold war is over folks, so we need to stop grabbing our ankles and reciting this god-awful (pun intended) bullshit every time an American flag rears its ugly head. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If that was the original pledge, then I feel we should go back to that and continue to have the pledge said in schools.
It's so simply, so easy; figures the goverment wouldn't be able to think of it.
Mairi
|
|