|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
|
Opinions from Athens, GA
From the Athens Banner Herald Paper:
July 30:
<a href="http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/063002/opi_20020630001.shtml" target="_blank">Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit was a waste of time and money</a>
Quote:
Constitutional framers obviously meant for our America to be created as a 'nation under Jesus'
David Kravets of the Associated Press, in his report on the ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, quoted Circuit Judge Alfred T. Goodwin as writing the following: ''Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that says the United States is ''one nation under God'' is as objectionable as making them say ''we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.''
When I read our Constitution, I find that the framers, according to the Constitution itself, drafted it on ''the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty Seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.''
To whom is the ''our Lord'' here referring? I think the historical evidence shows the reference can be only to Jesus Christ -- the same Jesus Christ who, according to the historical record, died on a Roman Cross in the first century and rose from the dead three days later.
The framers who subscribed their names to the Constitution represented ''the People of the United States,'' and thus, it would seem, that the people of the United States recognized through their elected representatives that their Lord was the Lord Jesus Christ, and expressed that recognition in their duly ordained and ratified constitution. In other words, we are a ''nation under Jesus,'' or at least we were at the point in time when the Constitution of the United States was drafted and ratified.
Ronald E. Houser
|
July 2:
Quote:
Ruling against pledge's 'under God' is good for America
I would like to pledge my support for the recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision that the 1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion.
The pledge plainly and obviously promotes a religious message, as demonstrated by both the 1954 law and the public outrage that this decision has created. This was not always the case. Originally the pledge stood for patriotism, but that was not enough for 1950s-era McCarthyism. It was modified to include the words ''under God.'' Our government wanted to sponsor the misguided belief that one must believe in God to be a patriot. This of course is against everything our country stands for and is an affront to our non-believing veterans. (Yes, Virigina, there are foxhole atheists.)
If the constitution clearly prohibits religious tests for office (Article VI), why do we have this religious test of patriotism? Election-year politicians and close-minded members of the public would like to make this out as an assault on American values, but they do not realize there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. The real assault comes from those who seek to abolish the plurality and secularity valued by our Founding Fathers. Because of them, not the non-believers, government-sponsorship of the pledge has been ruled unconstitutional. ''[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion'' (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796-97).
I support the rights of all Americans, and I hope you will too. Once again we are ''one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' Today is a good day to be an American.
Reed A. Cartwright
|
July 3:
Quote:
Furor over pledge is a poor reflection on our priorities
The current ''controversy'' about the legality of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is the latest installment in the disconnected world of flavor-of-the-week scandal obsession. That public debate, realized in endless pundit chatter in both print and broadcast media, is obsessed with the wording of the pledge, during what is arguably the most tumultuous period in American history, indicates a sad state of priorities.
Our president's very legitimacy is dubious; his foreign policy strategy frustrates our allies and fuels the recruitment efforts of our enemies. Our economy is rapidly deteriorating as increasingly alarming scandals surface on a daily basis. Our unchallenged military might gorges on massive budget hikes and spreads its influence, imperially, across the globe. We are speaking constantly about the ''war'' on terror, yet Congress has yet to declare war on anyone. American citizens are stripped of constitutionally guaranteed rights at the whim of Ashcroft's Justice Department. Bush Administration hawks assure us that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction and that we should invade Iraq as soon as possible, yet no conclusive evidence to this effect has been presented to the American public or our allies.
Americans need to wipe the blindly patriotic sleep from their eyes. The sky isn't falling yet, but we'd better start talking about the storm clouds gathering instead of wasting our time debating song lyrics.
Brent Buice
|
Quote:
Removing 'under God' shows U.S. isn't driven by religion
I wouldn't have made an issue out of the pledge having ''God'' in it, but, I do think separation of church and state is important enough to come down on the side of the atheist.
I've yet to hear anyone's personal conception of God that wasn't either draconian, insane or just plain stupid. I doubt God would be much impressed by all these new found gleeful supporters in Congress anyway. The Cold War ushered in these words to impress the godless communists. It'd be better to usher them out to impress the Moslem hordes that reason can prevail.
Thomas Rice
|
Quote:
In lambasting Dems about pledge, Thomas ignored facts
I am glad Cal Thomas (June 28 column) doesn't let the facts get in the way of his less-than-subtle diatribe against godless and unpatriotic liberal Democrats.
Mr. Thomas contends that the recent Pledge of Allegiance decision ''will be manna (defined in a dictionary as ''Bible food'' or ''divine aid'') for Republicans, whose party is most identified with patriotism and flag-waving.'' Mr. Thomas goes on to say that ''these San Francisco judges... are the types of liberal judges favored by...Leahy, Daschle, and Gephardt.'' Obviously, ungodly and unpatriotic Democrats.
Mr. Thomas fails to note that the, admittededly silly in my opinion, two-judge majority court opinion was written by Judge Alfred Goodwin, a Nixon appointee who is not known for liberal opinions. The judge, by the way, is a World War II veteran and a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves.
Phil Boston
|
Quote:
Pledge debate highlights the best of American society
Although I am a Christian and disagree with the federal court decision to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, I feel that, as Americans, we should marvel at the freedom an individual has to question an issue such as the use of ''under God'' in the pledge.
That is what many young men across this country have fought and died for -- the right to stand and be heard as an American and a citizen. As a 21st century society, we are far too quick to attack and ostracize any dissenting voice when the viewpoint angers us. What ever happened to sensible debate? Also, in response to Mr. Thomason's comments on June 28 regarding deportation of individuals who refuse to pledge, that's exactly what happened in 1937 Germany.
Mark Cunningham
|
Quote:
Americans shouldn't have to endorse religion to be patriotic
I am writing to applaud the decision to deem the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional.
It saddens me to see such a backlash in regard to the ruling. Do people not see that it should not be one's patriotic duty to recite a pledge that acknowledges a god in which he or she does not believe? If the purpose of the pledge falls in line with its title, then it is designed to be a declaration of respect and solidarity. Where does religion fit into that? The simple answer is that it does not.
The weak argument that ''God'' has come to mean any higher power is an erroneous one. ''God'' is a monotheistic term and is thus incompatible with a number of prevalent religions, from Buddhism to Hinduism, not to mention those who practice no religion. I want to be a patriot, but I do not wish to endorse a theistic stance by doing so. The phrase ''under God'' has little to do with patriotism and is contrary to the freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution that is so fundamental to American democracy.
Justin Horton
|
|
07-02-2002, 09:59 PM
