Pledge Of Allegiance: "One Nation, Under God"

<p>^What about promises of liberty and justice for all that are betrayed by the truth of social inequality that the system of the United States promotes?</p>

<p>Doesn’t bother me and I’m an atheist. You’re not going to see this removed until you see atheist politicians, which is political suicide at this point.</p>

<p>It doesn’t really bug me but I wouldn’t mind seeing it removed for the sake of being true to separation of church and state.</p>

<p>There are plenty of atheists who have done far more for their country than many die-hard Christians.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well duh you have to read the fine print.
“Liberty and justice for all*”</p>

<p>*Warning may or may not apply to: minorities, women, LGBT, non-Christians, people below middle/upper class, etc.</p>

<p>

The pledge says nothing about Columbus or foreigners.</p>

<p>

This comes down to whether you think a right is an obligation on society to provide something for you, or for you society to not interfere with you doing. Nor does the Declaration of Independence promise anything. The Declaration of Independence does not give anything other than a justification of the rebellion that followed it. Also the pledge was written by someone quite like yourself. </p>

<p>

It was after you proclaimed for the world to hear that you are Catholic.</p>

<p>

Since you are Catholic, I take it you have heard of purgatory? Or did this somehow miss your understanding of the faith that you so proudly pronounce your membership in?</p>

<p>

The part about not throwing stones was a metaphor you obviously missed. I will translate for you: Do not condemn others when you yourself are not free of sin. </p>

<p>

It is God (who is mentioned in the Dec. of Ind. ) that created mankind, not Christ. Christ never claimed to be the Creator of man, he even goes so far as to say that you should pray to your Father in Heaven, and He mentions his Father to.</p>

<p>

This attitude will not help the poor. Giving up on a good ideal, liberty and justice for all, just because some people have corrupted it.</p>

<p>^So much to refute, I don’t even want to quote it all. First off… I’m not allowed to tell people my religion because that’s somehow a sin? It’s a secret now? Yeah, I don’t brag or pray for all to hear, but neither am I ashamed, and I felt that bringing to light my personal beliefs were pertinent to the discussion. </p>

<p>The Declaration includes, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”. Seems as though it claims that rights are to be upheld as a duty of government, lest the people alter or abolish the government to make it so. Also, the bit about it not including the name of Christ was in response to you turning to the DoI to “prove” that we are a “Christian nation”. Yes, I know Christ did not claim to be the Father (though I still believe Him to be God, as a part of the Trinity), but all I said was that the DoI did not necessarily entail Christianity, just some sort of Creator. But as you’ve said, all this document was written for was rebellion against Britain. If it cannot promise anything (your words), then it cannot promise a Christian nation.</p>

<p>I am aware of purgatory and its temporary nature. I am also aware that if Christ says that the rich will have a harder time getting into heaven than a camel will getting through the eye of a needle, He is saying that being rich is NOT a good thing, but very immoral.</p>

<p>Yes, the rock throwing was a metaphor, but it was also literal, as Christ did condemn execution. Therefore, following Christ ought not include killing prisoners who are already captured and removed from society. Also, by saying I shouldn’t judge or condemn, you’re just trying to stop me from making any moral statements or criticizing any hypocritical action, which is an unfortunate interpretation.</p>

<p>I never said I gave up on liberty and justice for all, but that the social and economic systems of the United States (not just a few bad people) literally work against these things. Therefore, there needs to be radical social change (perhaps a democratic economy in addition to a democratic government) to realize these ideals.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No he is not. I am a Catholic and the Church has never institutionally been against wealth, and neither was Christ if you read the Bible in context. That quotation demonstrates the true danger in money, greed (and pride). That is the problem, not being rich – rich people just have to face an additional hurdle of being generous and considerate with their money.</p>

<p>So, as a Catholic, you cannot love money. Which is why being American as well is tough. ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Where does it state that in the Constitution?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong. There is nothing wrong with wealth as long as it doesn’t drive your life.</p>

<p>The first amendment prohibits the fed from establishing a religion or prohibiting the freedom of religion. The sc has exanded upon this.</p>

<p>In what ways does the fed gov deny liberty and justice for all? Last time I checked poor people had civil liberties, were allowed to vote and run for office, and receive specia services from the fed and state gov. Last time I checked the moto for the sc was equal justice under the law. There are no laws that say poor people can’t do this or minorities can’t do that. The courts ensure justice. Heck, the fed goes out of their way to make up for oppression against minorities, and actually violates the bill of rights and 14th (states) to give special consideration to minorities over people of other races. And there are no laws targeting only homosexual sexual reltions, despite the fact that anti sodomy Laws targeted gays, the sc overturned them. Would a system that denied liberty and justice for all have welfare, food stamps, sec 8 housing, affirmative action or civil rights amendments?</p>

<p>“He is saying that being rich is NOT a good thing, but very immoral.”</p>

<p>Let me point you to 1 Timothy 6:17-18</p>

<p>“Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.”</p>

<p>1 Timothy 6:6-10
"But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.</p>

<p>It’s not wrong to be rich. In fact, I’d argue that on a global context, 99% of Americans are wealthy. If being rich was a sin, Paul would’ve condemned the rich people he writes about in this passage. It’s what we DO with our wealth is what is the problem. Are we always looking at getting a “better car”, a “better house” or are we content with being able to having a place to live comfortably, food on the table, and even a “house” for our cars!
There are five questions the Bible asks us to ask about our finances in America.</p>

<p>1) Am I thankful for everything that I have?
2) Do I see the dangers associated with financial obsession?
3) Do I see myself as rich?
4) Could I describe myself as generous?
5) Are my investments making an impact?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Nope. There are no laws targeting only homosexual relationships. Except those that deny our right to marriage, equal treatment under the law, etc. You know… those pesky things.</p>

<p>Sodomy laws only targeting homosexuals are unconstitutional. They can not be legally enforced.
No law says a man and man or woman and woman can’t get married, live together, conduct themselves as a married couple and raise a family in a white picket fenced home. Some states just choose not to recognize it and grant benefits to them (tax credits are not rights). There is a difference. Laws define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, in that states will only formally recognize such unions. They don’t say gays can’t get married. That is why in my opinion the courts will be reluctant to overturn laws. </p>

<p>However, I disagree with the fact that they put things involving rights on referendum’s. If the politicians are too afraid to make a law, they shouldn’t push it on the people. Then again, gay activists were all about supporting those referendum’s…until they lost. Then they cried foul play. It was their own fault for supporting the vote to begin with. It’s also interesting that minorities are so quick to vote against gay marriage, when they themselves have been oppressed and had rights voted away. It’s very ironic that one “oppressed” groups votes down rights for other “oppressed” groups.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That is contradictory. They are not married if the state says they can’t get married… </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you saying that if something isn’t supported by the people that it should be shot down? Please tell me you’re not…</p>

<p>"Are you saying that if something isn’t supported by the people that it should be shot down? Please tell me you’re not… "</p>

<p>The complete opposite. I don’t know how you got a from b. I am saying that if politicians are too cowardly to make a law on marriage, they shouldn’t leave it up to a vote. You should never allow the masses to vote on matter involving things people consider rights. Obviously, I am saying that if there were a referendum on, say, the 14th amendment came up, and the masses overwhelmingly voted against it, it shouldn’t stand, because the masses should not be afforded the opportunity to vote on rights of the minorities. So, in simple terms, even though the minority in that case would have voted for the 14th amendment, it should be held up. The founders made this country a representative democracy, and not a direct democracy, for a reason. </p>

<p>Marriage is defined as a social contract or legal agreement. I don’t think you need a slip of papered to be considered married. Do you need a license to recognize that you are dating someone? No. The only reason states recognize marriage is for tax purposes and such. Marriage is devoting yourself to another person for the rest of your life, not some slip of paper from a government agency. Hence the role of common law marriage. Also, gay marriage isn’t an established, traditional right, which makes it hard for the courts to say it’s a natural right, when history shows that gay marriage was never accepted. The courts extended upon this theory in Lawrence v Texas. Gay marriage is not deeply rooted in our traditions, which is a requirement for something to be considered a natural right. Maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I don’t think you need a marriage license to be married- the act of being married doesn’t change whether you have a license or not, the license is just for government bueracrats.</p>

<p>I honestly believe that the United States of America is the best nation in the world, and I’ve lived all over the world (including the Middle East). People just don’t realize how wonderful we have things here. There is a lot of hatred for America out there, particularly by its own citizens (as evident by this board). Liberty and justice for all does exist in this country-you just have to go outside our borders to truly realize this.</p>

<p>Personally, I’m proud to say the pledge (with “under God”) any day of the week.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Marriage is a right now? When did that happen?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes… you DO need a slip of paper to be considered married. You need a slip of paper for a legal agreement. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This contradicts the first sentence of this paragraph that says it’s a legal agreement. Legal agreements are recognized by a “government agency”.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>First off- marriage isn’t a natural right at all. And there are historical societies where gay marriage is legal. Plus, for a long time, interracial marriage wasn’t legal. But that didn’t stop the courts from allowing it. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See above. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe I’m a progressive, but I think you need a marriage license to be married- the act of being married does change whether you have a license or not, the license is not just for government bureaucrats. </p>

<p>Sorry, I want to be able to visit my spouse on his or her deathbed. I want to be able to adopt with my spouse. I want to be able to have joint life/health insurance and such with my spouse. I want to be able to have spousal benefits for my spouse from my job/the government/etc. It should not matter what genitalia my spouse has. </p>

<p>/my discussion because I don’t want to continue hijacking the thread</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Great points, tiff. Too many people think “liberty and justice for all” means “complete social and economic equality for all.” It doesn’t. There are inequalities in this country (disparities in income, for example) that are perfectly reasonable and that make this country great. Our country is about equality of opportunity, not equality of quality of life.</p>

<p>Marriage is not a right of any kind.</p>

<p>Someone asked where separation of church and state is in the Constitution. Well first I’d like to say that if you really just asked that, you should never argue about anything ever. But secondly, here’s a little quote from this cute thing called the 1st Amendment:</p>

<p>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”</p>