Saltysam on November 19, 2008 at 12:48 AM

I see what you’re getting at, and I agree, although I think that it’s actually a two-way street, and the wording should reflect that:

…our governmental system of law was designed to be independent of religious influence

My reasoning being, that religion is not free from a secular restraint against murder.

In the days when Ameircans, REAL Americans, where fighting Germany and Japan, we had no issues PLEDGING to OUR flag, we had no issue loving America, praying, being PROUD and not giving a rat’s butt what the rest of the World thought.

Until we get that PRIDE, that faith, thoses convictions back, we are doomed as a great Nation. Pledge alliegence dang it! Be proud of America, what it is, what it stands for, thoses that fought and died for your “rights”…

We are now a Nation of wimps, and that goes for MANY of you posting here… STAND UP, grow a set, be proud, PLEDGE, sing America songs!!! Crush groups like the NEA, the ACLU and the other America haters…

Bring back American pride! America, love it or LEAVE it!

To bad we have so many “girly-men” in America these days!

Therefore, our governmental system of law was designed to be free from any religious constraints – secular.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Look, I don’t want to get in an argument with you cerebral types, but I’d just like to add a perspective that I think gets lost in this debate.

IMHO, your statement above, though not without historical substance, is colored with the modern interpretation of revolutionary America. Any serious attempt to get a feel for the cultural forces of the times must take into account the 180 years or so leading up to the revolution.

In those days, the Fed was “designed” for the protection of the states from enemies more than anything else. The states were looking for commonality of purpose to legitimize its existence, but their different religions were paramount to their lives. They were very protective of their freedoms, and were steadfastly suspicious of any regime to rule over the individual colonies/states.

I think it would be more appropriate to access the times in this fashion:

…our governmental system of law was designed to free religion from any secular(state interest) restraints .

We can agree or disagree whether this is good or bad, but I think it’s extremely important to point this out, because it helps to illustrate the mindset of the times.

Maybe you should read my post as a whole, barry. Kids that say the allegiance are not going to understand the whole “under God” thing. They will believe you don’t love your country. The only one’s that care about the “under God” are the children that are told that it is wrong by their heathen parents.

HornetSting on November 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM

By this logic you could say that children don’t really understand religion, but that they are indoctrinated/forced into it by their parents.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

that said, I understand the Medved note about the established “sponsored” churches. Churches were the vertex of education, social life, and above all welfare. Churches are still the only hope.
My church has a food pantry that is usually supplied by the government funded Food Bank. However, the food bank is short of food and now church members are supplying the need of our food pantry. Demand has doubled in recent weeks.
Where the government fails, establishments of religion fill the gap. Bush was right to push faith-based cooperation on the Department of Health and Human Services.
And, the laws that categorize churches as non-profit organizations are unconstitutional. No laws can touch churches, per the constitution.
Not even censorship! Michael Newdow is fighting against history. Let him eat bread and wine!

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.

“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” has a meaning.
It is the one part that of the First amendment that is continually ignored.
That is the constitution!

That is the argument! The government has no right to tell people they can not pray! Our nation has recognized that right for 250 years! But, when they stop recognizing that right, if and when,, it will still be the right of all men to pray! When the government steps in and says,’You cannot pray!” They are in fact positioning themselves in front of God! They stand in front of God and say “You cannot talk to this God! You cannot speak to Him!”
They in fact, then, are placing themselves above God.
But as for this atheist,, that is the argument to make to him. it’s none of the governments business what the people do about their religion.
and this atheist,, he hates God. It’s so obvious.
Does he demand that the school eliminate stories about little fairies?? Does he demand that children not be offended by the word Unicorn? or leprechauns? If he truly does not believe in a God at all, would God to him be nothing more than a harmless fantasy than the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow? But instead, he acts as though God is his enemy and must be defeated!

Plus: The daily combative Megyn Kelly interview.

Is she ever not combative? Yeah, she’s a pretty enough lady, but really, would you want to go home to that after an already long, hard day?

*swoon*

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Glad to hear that! I wasn’t sure how to take your original post…

dominigan on November 18, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Limey, you scared me. I thought I was gonna have to get medievel on your ass. You are a patriot and a man among men.

No, they were simply willing to die for the chance.

Troika37 on November 18, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Indeed….and yet many around them were not.

The Founders needed no pledges or anthems to be American.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM

No, they were simply willing to die for the chance.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM

It isn’t my gifted insight but theirs. Unlike you I don’t claim to have all the answers, nor would I presume to conduct a rewrite of the Constitution. It has served well for longer than most such documents and may actually have something to offer the modern world. That’s a conservative position rather than a radical one, but I like it.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:33 PM

Oh my gosh! Did I dare to challenge the ineffable wisdom of the divine founding fathers? My paltry opinions on their fallibility quiver next to your gifted insight! Shame on me!

factoid on November 18, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Funny stuff :)

If you disagree with the Constitution, there’s a process for it to be amended. You cannot, however, state that the Founders’ words meant one thing, when in fact that was not their intent.

They were not perfect men, but their intellect and integrity and desire to hammer out a “more perfect union” are in stark contrast to the thinking of many today.

INC on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

They didn’t have any collective intent. The reason you can find so many quotes about how great it would be to officially recognize Christianity is because they were having the argument about the proper role of religion in government in the first place. To the extent they agreed to an interpretation, all we have is what they put on paper in the constitution.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:30 PM

Well thankfully we have you to tell us, and the founding fathers what we got wrong and how we should reform our lives!

For my part I want to thank you for that as your guidance is a light in an otherwise very dark world!

Like you, I applaud the recent federal appeals court decision declaring the Pledge of Allegiance a vomitaceous monstrosity on the grounds that it compels a child to robotically parrot an incomprehensible promise he is both cognitively and legally incompetent to make, and is therefore a Maoist-style indoctrination insulting to the very concept of a free society.

Ha-ha. Wouldn’t that have been great? A real issue, ringing with uncomfortable truth.

Alas, in ruling the pledge unconstitutional, the court focused only on “under God,” ensuring that the ensuing public dialogue would have all the dignity and intellectual depth of a goose stampede. (The only thing politicians like to trumpet more loudly than their patriotism is their piety…)

Keep reading to find out why the Declaration of Independence, and ultimately the Constitution itself, are unconstitutional.

If you can’t even parse a simple english sentence within the context of the language of the day, you’re a shining testament to the wonders of gubmint edumbacation.

Pointing to certain actions and saying “see, they did it too so it must be OK!” is fallacious and infantile. Guess what? The founding generations fucked things up too.

They wrote the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers. I think they would have a pretty good idea as to what they intended and their conduct does not support your contention.

sharrukin on November 18, 2008 at 4:17 PM

That’s what I meant.

LimeyGeek on November 18, 2008 at 4:13 PM

Prayer went on in public and private schools until the 1970’s. Schools used to be primarily locally run with state supervision. There was no national education department until Carter was elected in 1976 and it was payback to the NEA for their help in electing him.

You cannot, however, state that the Founders’ words meant one thing, when in fact that was not their intent.

Back atcha.