Kollyfornia Strikes Again....

[Gypsy me]

Wow this is still going?

GM, do you think my arguments are political correct? Really? Do tell!

Rich, my post was in no way directed at you statements or anyone on the site, it was just my op, my thinking on the world we all live in, "as I see it" nothing more or less.



The "all to be Politically Correct" by that I meant, we always have to be so careful anymore, in govenment, in public, everywhere so not to upset the other guy or group or religion. In my mind...I think (why do any of us have to take offense at all. It's not all about you, me or them.)

That brings me to Gypsy's point. You have to start out by respecting that other view, whether in a pledge or general conversation. If you don't, then it will always piss you off, probably the other guy too,

Grumpy, That is what I meant, we have to respect EVERYones ideas of how we should all progress but sometimes it's a difficult job because somebody will always have to be right and somebody will have to be wrong.



Times got worse when Belief/religion and respect stopped being taught to the young children in schools. Therefore givng them (children) no direction of what respect is as they grow up. Kinda hard to split Belief and Respect---to me those two things go hand in hand from that come decipline in it's natural form.



Personally, I think we should give the Native Americans their land back ...and start over with half the knowledge we have today. Because this society we live in today is destine for ruin.

It's why you hear so much about getting back to basics, because the basics had purpose.



To be a fair peaceful nation No matter what you believe, ones belief bring a sense of peace to that individual. It's the splitting hairs that creates the disharmony. As I said, somebody will always have to be right and somebody will always have to be wrong. This is where it's at today. The truth is nobody is right and nobody is wrong. All that is needed is to accept and respect your mine and our beliefs.



~cheers~

 

[David Crockett]

****Note: I promised myself I wouldn't vent anymore political frustrations on this site, since it is dedicated to Sport Tracs, but as a US soldier, I once again feel compelled to stand up for what I feel in my heart to be right.****



Anyone who thinks the Pledge of Allegience is un-Constitutional is slimey, communist, twinkle-toed, c**k-sucking, SOB (Offense intended). How in the heck to we allow these loons to get voted into office and our judicial system? What extremist faction do these people represent? Am I the only person who would like to see the state of California sink into the ocean or get annexed to Mexico?



There is a simple answer to this problem: THE KIDS DON'T HAVE TO SAY GOD!!!!!!!! They can say Allah, Shiva, Budha, Earth Mother, Kim Jon Il, Ghenkis Khan, Barney, or whatever in the hell they feel is the "Great Spirit"n in their lives. If they are athiests or agnostics, they can say nothing, or leave the room for the 30 seconds it takes the rest of the class to recite the pledge.



However, let us not forget: this country was founded and established by Protestant Christians. The pledge of Allegience is meant to be a reminder of who and what we are (as Americans) and is one of the fundamental truths to our existence.



I just wish our country could get it's head out of it's ass and get back to some good, decent, morale values and remember the ideas and events that made this country and have made this country great. I mean, !Damn!, we are at war; with people people dying left and right in the middle-east and natural disasters demolishing entire cities, yet we STILL have demented left-wing WACKOS who are more concerned with rebuilding the nations values and principles to suite THEIR needs. God, I wish I could have been born 70 years ago. Things just seem like they were much better back then......



DD

 

[Jim Reeves]

A visitor walked into this huge gymnasium on the campus of one of the leading universities in the country. Inside was the most amazing thing he had ever seen. It was a model of our solar system, built to the scale of 1:1,000,000 and perfect in every respect. All the planets and their moons were exactly to scale. Their orbits perfectly seperated and shaped. The sun perfectly placed, the colors exact, the grid that supported it all made of such thin wire that it was nearly invisible, causing everthing to appear to hover freely in the air. Around the planet Earth was a mist, made of Oxygen and Hydrogen, capable of sustaining life. It was the most amazing thing he had ever seen. A man sat quietly in the corner, gazing at this wonderful design.

"This is the most amazing thing I have ever seen", exclaimed the visitor. Who in the world built this thing, and how long did it take them to design it?"



The man sitting in the corner smiled and said, "You're not gonna believe this, but yesterday there was absolutely nothing inside this building, and then late last night there was this big bang..."



I am a Christian. That is different than someone who "believes in God". There are many who believe in God that are not Christians. I believe in God and I believe that Jesus Christ is who the Bible says He is. I have experienced God and the Love of Christ, and I have no doubts about that. I respect your right to have a different opinion, but that does not mean I respect your opinion. How can you respect an opinion when you believe it to be wrong? I do not want the government to tell me or anyone else what God they should or shouldn't worship. I will not lose any sleep if they remove the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance. Removing His name will in no way lessen who He is. Maybe I am not smart enough to believe otherwise, and you are too smart to believe as I do. Maybe.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

BB, Q, DD et al-



Glad to see that the passion for keeping things based upon the roots of this country is still alive. I was beginning to wonder.



To all those who are appethetic-

If a MINORITY can so affect the MAJORITY, we have lost our Democratic ways. This issue is not one to be left up to a single judge and 5-6 individuals. This country has more than 300 million people. We cannot let one group of under 10 people dictate how the rest of us are to live. That is called a tyrannical dictatorship.



To all those who agree with the removal of "Under God"-

Agnosticism and Atheism is still a form of religion, it is the religion of unbelief, of Science, etc. It is your right to "worship" (or lack there of) any way you wish, but it is our rights as Christians and believers to do the same. The "Under God" term is a term of affection for a higher power that has obviously had a great influence on this country from Day 1. As other have pointed out, the Declaration of Independance, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers, State Constitutions, Treaties, opening of courts, Innaguration Speeches, etc. all refer to "a" God, not necessarily the Christian God. This has been upheld in court around the countries for decades.



The Pledge of Allegiance was not written at the founding of the country so do you want to say that we should go back to that point? Who case when "Under God" was added, it was. The Income Tax has been upped since 1956 as well, should be just completely ignore the Congressional Edict that changed it as well? How about Social Security? Medicare? EPA?



If you want to take the Plege out of our everyday use or revert to a previous version, I want to do the same with Medicare... with Social Security... with the Income Tax....



To all those so diametrically opposed to the "Under God" term-

Get with it. It's 2005 not 1956. The Pledge has been in it's current form for nearly 50 years. You need to grow up and not be so easily offended. This is not an establishment of religion and not against any part of the BOR.



I can't wait for the Supreme Court to take this case and cram it back down your throat. It's time that the congress acted on some of these judges. The 9th Circus Court has been over turned, what nearly 75% of the time? Guess what's going to happen again.



Rocco-

We are a Democracy. If your referendum fails, guess what? That's the will of the people. That will should not in any way be overridden by a judge. Look at Kommiefornia again. The people voted to deny Gay Marriage by referendum. It passed by nearly 3:1 yet the state congress has voted a bill to allow such an act. This is not a thread to debate gay marriage on, this is but an example of the power of the people getting tossed out by elected appointees. The people lose more power, more rights and freedoms everyday due to this kind of garbage. I will not lose sleep over "Under God" not being in the pledge, offended yes. But it is just one more freedom that I, as a Christian has lost to an atheist.



Amazing. Tolerance from the LEFT is as non-existant as their views of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

 

[Fred]

If you want to take the Plege out of our everyday use or revert to a previous version, I want to do the same with Medicare... with Social Security... with the Income Tax....

And I'd like to add Welfare and Immigration. My parents moved to America from Canada in 1963, a little before my time. Before they were allowed into the country, my Father had to prove that he had secured a source of employment AND sign a document stating that he would NEVER apply for or accept government assistance. Both he and my Mother had to 'report in' to some agency each year to be kept track of. We've come a long way, baby.

 

[Bill V]

Shek, you just summarized the problem--that some people continue to think that "the will of the people should not in any way be overridden by a judge". And that's not the least bit true! The "will of the people" is not what this country is founded on--that falls into the category of "mob rule". Compared to the rights and duties of each individual, the "will of the people" is meaningless. This country was founded on NOT subjugating individual freedoms simply because the majority feel a different way. When a judge rules against "the will of the people", sometimes it's because it's their job to protect those in minorities (and I'm not necessarily talking racial minorities--I mean of any belief that isn't in the majority) from "the will of the people".



In Germany in the 30's and 40's, it was "the will of the people" that declared that the Jews (and many others) were unacceptable. But I guess, from your standpoint, that's OK--after all, it was "the will of the people", and that's what's most important...



BigBear--Well said. I highly respect your beliefs, and your acknowledgment that removing these words from the Pledge does not at all lessen your beliefs, or your rights to have and practice those beliefs. Thank you for pointing out some middle ground in this conversation.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Bill V, though I agree with you to an extent, the "will of the people" has to count for something, and by and large should be honored.



Yes, I expected a Nazi reference in your post, and to true form, I got one. That's the whole slippery slope mentality and it is a cop-out.



When we put "Under God" in the Pledge in 54, we didn't become Hitler's Germany.



I am all for protecting minorities. But, the Constitition is a living document which may be amended, that very fact means that the framers KNEW that they didn't have all the answers and wouldn't be able to envision all the issues. With that said, that means there is an opportunity, no an OBLIGATION, for new laws, and changes to laws, and those NEW laws and those law CHANGES should be based on THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR, I respectfully disagree. The true cop out is dismissing the point I'm making by declaring my example to be a "cop out". The example does have enough similar ties to be worth mentioning, and regardless of what you think of the example, my point is still valid--subjecting all people to the majority "will of the people" simply because it is the "will of the people" is not a good thing.



Here's maybe a less extreme example--Let's say that someday, somehow, 60% of this country were to be Hindu. (The way that came to be is unimportant--it may have been through immigration, evangelism, or whatever.) Should the consumption of beef now be outlawed in this country? If you were to put it to a referendum, it would most likely pass. If you put it to Congress, they would most likely pass it, to get/keep their political clout with the voting populus. But the judicial system would likely strike it down, realizing that it's an example of government forcing the majority's religious beliefs on the minority. And all the Christians would likely celebrate it as a great victory for religious freedom (and rightly so!)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

If we as a people have to make "extreme examples" of what "might happen", and use those as excuses to not do, or not allow things, then that isn't the America I want to live in.



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR--Agreed. Except, of course, when those extreme examples of what might happen come to fruition. (New Orleans, anyone?)



My employment involves analyzing the extreme examples of what can go wrong with our products, and determining ways to prevent them--so I apologize if, to a certain extent, that's become my natural inclination in assessing issues such as these.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I too in my job do a lot of analysis, and I say to other engineers several times a week: "We are complicating things by making the exception the rule!"

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

This is far from an extreme case. This is a case of a law/change made 50 years ago comming to an unnecessary question. Should the "Beef be Outlawed?" question ever come up and pass, i would again be disappointed but I would have to live by it. Where I live is dry county. more than 60% of the population voted it that way. Do I like it? No. But I do have to live by it.



People voted congress in in 1956 the same way they do today. You want "Under God" removed? Vote a congressman in who will do so. A judge should not have that ability.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I totally agree with that R Shek.

 

[TrainTrac]

For the record, our country is not a democracy. The Founding Fathers established a Constitutional Republic. The original way that the Congress was set up in Article I, Section 3 (prior to the 17th Amendment) was for the states's interests to be represented in the Senate and the people's interests to be represented in the House. And the way that representatives were to be apportioned in the House was intended to protect the minority from the majority.



Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments!:angry:

 

[Fred]

Let's say a Muslim is in a school in the US. He hates the US

Maybe he should go somewhere he doesn't hate. I'd be willing to contribute a couple bucks for his one way ticket.

 

[David Crockett]

God, Guts, and Guns made America a free country. I say we should keep all three.



DD

 

[Bill V]

Q--



In the example you give, my opinion is that the kid would be allowed to not recite it if that's his/her wish, but that the class can and should still recite it. I see the instilling of patriotism/duty/respect for the country and its premises--the pledge's original intent--as being something that falls within the realm of government practices that are not only acceptable but necessary. However, the religious/deist aspects don't belong there--they contradict the "with liberty...for all" later in the pledge. I know some may see that difference as minimal or non-existant, but to me it's a clear demarcation. (sp?)

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I like how the people that espouse the whole "protect the minority from the majority" and "we are not a majority rules country" are usually the ones in the vocal minority on controversial issues!



Wonder why that is?



TJR

 

[Bill V]

TJR--



I suspect you know the answer to your question. It all goes down to the old saying, "Power corrupts." The minority, whoever they may be on whatever issue, realize that this saying is true, until they are in the majority, when the corruptive effect of power causes them to suddenly forget it--until the new minority points it out to them again. It happens to everyone--myself most definitely included. It's in the very human nature of "majority" and "minority".

 

[TrainTrac]

Many of the Founding Fathers, who grew up during the Age of Enlightenment, were in fact not Christians, but Deists. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Paul Revere, John Hancock, James Madison, James Monroe, and Alexander Hamilton among others were Deists. Hence the references in our Charters of Freedom to a "Creator" or "God", and not "Christ" or "Christian".

Deism is defined in Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941, as: "[From Latin Deus, God.Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist." And Deist is defined in the same dictionary as: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

Interesting read:

OF THE RELIGION OF DEISM COMPARED WITH THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION by Thomas Paine.