Amazing how a man who claims not to believe in God seems to have a grudge so big he is wanting the word God to be removed from the pledge of Allegiance and our currency. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314941,00.htmlSAN FRANCISCO — An atheist seeking to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance and U.S. currency is taking his arguments back to a federal appeals court.Michael Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, sued the Elk Grove Unified School District in 2000 for forcing public school children to recite the pledge, saying it was unconstitutional.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Newdow's favor in 2002, but two years later, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue because he didn't have custody of the daughter on whose behalf he brought the case. He immediately filed a second lawsuit on behalf of three unidentified parents and their children.In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento found in favor of Newdow, ruling the pledge was unconstitutional because its reference to "one nation under God" violates children's rights to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he was following the precedent set by the 9th Circuit Court's ruling in Newdow's first case.A three-judge panel from that court was to hear arguments in the case on Tuesday. The same panel also was to hear arguments in Newdow's case against the national motto, "In God We Trust."
Atheist Looks to Remove 'Under God' From Pledge of Allegiance, Currency
- Thread starter jamesrage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
During my studies with David Barton of wallbuilders, I was reminded of the Exceptions clause of the US Constitution that Congress can enact. The clause allows Congress to tell judges what they can and can't rule on. For example, they can rule on anything but Religious issues or GOD over our country.I am going to call my Republican Senators and ask them to enact this.Unfortunately, with this Democratic Majority, I don't see anything being done unless GOD intercedes. I will pray to our Father in Jesus' name for help. 
I suggest we all do!blessed1195
I suggest we all do!blessed1195I'm inclined to agree with him, actually. I don't think it's a very big deal either way - it does surprise me a bit that someone could possibly care so much - but in terms of what is dictated by American principals, it certainly seems like a violation of freedom of religion. How would someone from an atheistic religion like Buddhism feel about making the pledge, when they don't have a God to speak of? It would be a direct violation of their own faith. Now, of course, I don't agree with Buddhism (though it certainly has some valuable things to say), but in terms of legality, I'm not sure you can really make a case for this.People tend to forget that the phrase "under God" has not been in the Pledge of Allegiance ever since its inception. It was added in 1954, during the Red Scare, when public fear of atheism was at its height. Basically, it's there because of a kneejerk reaction to Communism.Most of all, I just don't think this is an important issue. But it definitely doesn't seem to be the place of the state to enforce any particular faith.
However this nation was established as a Christian nation. And it's sliding more and more into a pagan society. Once a nation a nation turns pagan, then the Lord stops blessing it, and he gives it up to it's own destruction. Rome is a good example of it.
(Wakka;25502)
However this nation was established as a Christian nation. And it's sliding more and more into a pagan society. Once a nation a nation turns pagan, then the Lord stops blessing it, and he gives it up to it's own destruction. Rome is a good example of it.
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
However this nation was established as a Christian nation. And it's sliding more and more into a pagan society. Once a nation a nation turns pagan, then the Lord stops blessing it, and he gives it up to it's own destruction. Rome is a good example of it.
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
(Lunar;25505)
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
Not the government, but through conviction of sin can a person truly open their heart to Christ. And God can work through anyone. Kings, presidents, even the average blue collar worker can win souls for Christ. When the Lord is satisfied with a nation, then He blesses it
.And we live in such a nation that the citizens control the nation. Anyone can become president or a congress man. And sinners hate Christ, so therefore they would do their best to take that away from the government and other public places.
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
Not the government, but through conviction of sin can a person truly open their heart to Christ. And God can work through anyone. Kings, presidents, even the average blue collar worker can win souls for Christ. When the Lord is satisfied with a nation, then He blesses it
(Wakka;25507)
Not the government, but through conviction of sin can a person truly open their heart to Christ. And God can work through anyone. Kings, presidents, even the average blue collar worker can win souls for Christ. When the Lord is satisfied with a nation, then He blesses it
.And we live in such a nation that the citizens control the nation. Anyone can become president or a congress man. And sinners hate Christ, so therefore they would do their best to take that away from the government and other public places.
I'm curious - do you believe that freedom of religion is a good thing? Or do you think it would be right for a President of the United States, or congressman, to enforce Christianity?The gist of my point is that little difference is made, either for a believer or a nonbeliever, by adding those two extra words in the Pledge. For a believer, they already know the conviction that is in their own hearts, and so does God. And for a nonbeliever, a government mandate isn't going to change their mind. It may even annoy them or drive them away.There's also the matter of the precedent it sets. Christianity may not always be the prominent religion in America. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of, say, a hypothetical Hindu or Islam or Buddhist majority invoking the precedent of the "under God" clause to enforce their own religion, just as is being done now with Christianity.
Not the government, but through conviction of sin can a person truly open their heart to Christ. And God can work through anyone. Kings, presidents, even the average blue collar worker can win souls for Christ. When the Lord is satisfied with a nation, then He blesses it
I'm curious - do you believe that freedom of religion is a good thing? Or do you think it would be right for a President of the United States, or congressman, to enforce Christianity?The gist of my point is that little difference is made, either for a believer or a nonbeliever, by adding those two extra words in the Pledge. For a believer, they already know the conviction that is in their own hearts, and so does God. And for a nonbeliever, a government mandate isn't going to change their mind. It may even annoy them or drive them away.There's also the matter of the precedent it sets. Christianity may not always be the prominent religion in America. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of, say, a hypothetical Hindu or Islam or Buddhist majority invoking the precedent of the "under God" clause to enforce their own religion, just as is being done now with Christianity.
(Lunar;25508)
I'm curious - do you believe that freedom of religion is a good thing? Or do you think it would be right for a President of the United States, or congressman, to enforce Christianity?The gist of my point is that little difference is made, either for a believer or a nonbeliever, by adding those two extra words in the Pledge. For a believer, they already know the conviction that is in their own hearts, and so does God. And for a nonbeliever, a government mandate isn't going to change their mind. It may even annoy them or drive them away.There's also the matter of the precedent it sets. Christianity may not always be the prominent religion in America. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of, say, a hypothetical Hindu or Islam or Buddhist majority invoking the precedent of the "under God" clause to enforce their own religion, just as is being done now with Christianity.
Forcing people into Christianity is wrong. But it's very good if you have a person who promotes it. They're two different words.
I'm curious - do you believe that freedom of religion is a good thing? Or do you think it would be right for a President of the United States, or congressman, to enforce Christianity?The gist of my point is that little difference is made, either for a believer or a nonbeliever, by adding those two extra words in the Pledge. For a believer, they already know the conviction that is in their own hearts, and so does God. And for a nonbeliever, a government mandate isn't going to change their mind. It may even annoy them or drive them away.There's also the matter of the precedent it sets. Christianity may not always be the prominent religion in America. It doesn't take much imagination to conceive of, say, a hypothetical Hindu or Islam or Buddhist majority invoking the precedent of the "under God" clause to enforce their own religion, just as is being done now with Christianity.
Forcing people into Christianity is wrong. But it's very good if you have a person who promotes it. They're two different words.
we speak of the Pledge as though it was as old as the nation its self. it is not.It was created after the Civil war in order to humiliate Southerners.We somehow like to believe that the Founding Fathers came up with the words "Under God" Not so. Those words were insered in the 1950's so anybody who believes they are defending something our Founding Fathers instituted is mistaken. These are recent additions in the history of our nation and serve only as disfuntional lip service. Such symbolism is worthless. It is simply not worth the time and effort to defend. Forcing unbelievers to recite such disfuntioal lip service does nothing for the Gospel. Believers don't need to recite such whitewash, their actions need to speak louder than any words.Let it go.
(BernieEOD;26805)
we speak of the Pledge as though it was as old as the nation its self. it is not.It was created after the Civil war in order to humiliate Southerners.We somehow like to believe that the Founding Fathers came up with the words "Under God" Not so. Those words were insered in the 1950's so anybody who believes they are defending something our Founding Fathers instituted is mistaken. These are recent additions in the history of our nation and serve only as disfuntional lip service. Such symbolism is worthless. It is simply not worth the time and effort to defend. Forcing unbelievers to recite such disfuntioal lip service does nothing for the Gospel. Believers don't need to recite such whitewash, their actions need to speak louder than any words.Let it go.
Beautifully said. If we pursue such meager crusades, we'll lose ourselves in the long run. Let us concentrate our efforts on saving humanity, let the atheists to there own irrational devices, let them tear down stone and wood.
we speak of the Pledge as though it was as old as the nation its self. it is not.It was created after the Civil war in order to humiliate Southerners.We somehow like to believe that the Founding Fathers came up with the words "Under God" Not so. Those words were insered in the 1950's so anybody who believes they are defending something our Founding Fathers instituted is mistaken. These are recent additions in the history of our nation and serve only as disfuntional lip service. Such symbolism is worthless. It is simply not worth the time and effort to defend. Forcing unbelievers to recite such disfuntioal lip service does nothing for the Gospel. Believers don't need to recite such whitewash, their actions need to speak louder than any words.Let it go.
Beautifully said. If we pursue such meager crusades, we'll lose ourselves in the long run. Let us concentrate our efforts on saving humanity, let the atheists to there own irrational devices, let them tear down stone and wood.
Eight out of ten americans say they believe in Christ. Where are they all when it comes to countering these non believer tactics???
(crooner;27990)
Eight out of ten americans say they believe in Christ. Where are they all when it comes to countering these non believer tactics???
Most Americans are not aware that stuff like this is happening.The media has a huge liberal slant and therefore will not air such stories or they will only provide a token mention of them, for example the Mt. Soledad cross on a war memorial that atheists have been fighting hard for years to remove and they even succeeded in removing the cross off the Los Angeles country seal.
Eight out of ten americans say they believe in Christ. Where are they all when it comes to countering these non believer tactics???
Most Americans are not aware that stuff like this is happening.The media has a huge liberal slant and therefore will not air such stories or they will only provide a token mention of them, for example the Mt. Soledad cross on a war memorial that atheists have been fighting hard for years to remove and they even succeeded in removing the cross off the Los Angeles country seal.
(Lunar;25505)
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
I think I might depart from you on this point. However, I do agree that your nation should probably take those particularly religious things out in accordance with your constitution.I am also, {granted, as an outsider} perplexed by how emotionally packed this issue is to many Americans.
No amount of coercion from the government could possibly make someone truly open their heart to Christ.
I think I might depart from you on this point. However, I do agree that your nation should probably take those particularly religious things out in accordance with your constitution.I am also, {granted, as an outsider} perplexed by how emotionally packed this issue is to many Americans.
Jon-Marc
New Member
I wasn't told before-hand that prayer and Bibles would be banned from schools. However, I remember a high school teacher who started each day with prayer and Bible reading. While I was in the dining room of the school one day, a teacher came through pushing a metal cart. We were told to put all Bibles on the cart, and they were confiscated. This wasn't in a communist country; it was in Battle Creek, Michigan in the early 1960's. Prayer and Bible reading in the classroom ceased after that.Before that time the worst thing students did in the schools was smoke in the bathrooms. Now they sell drugs, carry weapons and kill one another over petty disagreements. There's song that says, "It won't be long before you can't say "God bless you" when somebody sneezes." Unfortunately, there could be some truth in that. After all, we don't want to offend anyone with the name of God.If it is decided to remove "In God we trust" from the coins, we won't be told before-hand. That phrase has already been moved to the edge of some coins, and it could eventually disappear entirely. Most people won't even notice when it does. As for " one nation under God" in the pledge to the flag, this nation was founded on Biblical standards, but we are not a "nation under God". We are one nation turning its back on God and basically saying, "We will not have this man to rule over us."
(crooner;27990)
Eight out of ten americans say they believe in Christ. Where are they all when it comes to countering these non believer tactics???
Then we have to ask Which Christ?- The condom tossing new age jesus who teaches we are free to do whatever we want?- The homosexual jesus?- Jesus the drug pusher?- The flop & twitch in the isles counterfit revival jesus?Even the name "Jesus" is a distortion of his given name. If translated directly from Hebrew, we would pronounce the name sa "Joshua" For his name in Hebrew was "Jeshua" (Pronounced Yeshua). In Latin he is known as (Heysus) from which we translate into "Jesus". So Joshua, being a common name should not invoke the passion it does. There are many with that name, only one who is "The Christ".Too many people claim Christ but their image of him. The first red flag in ones description of him starts with the words "Jesus was". Like"Jesus was a man of peace" or "Jesus was a progressive" Any Jesus who "Was" is a false Christ for the real Jesus IS the King of Kings, Lord of Lords. With that, supporting such disfuntional lip service is a waste of time and energy. The words "Under God" were inserted back in the 50's so it is not some great old tradition handed down by our founding Fathers. Even the pledge itself was concieved after the Civil War in order to force Southerners to re affirm their commitment to the Union.
Eight out of ten americans say they believe in Christ. Where are they all when it comes to countering these non believer tactics???
Then we have to ask Which Christ?- The condom tossing new age jesus who teaches we are free to do whatever we want?- The homosexual jesus?- Jesus the drug pusher?- The flop & twitch in the isles counterfit revival jesus?Even the name "Jesus" is a distortion of his given name. If translated directly from Hebrew, we would pronounce the name sa "Joshua" For his name in Hebrew was "Jeshua" (Pronounced Yeshua). In Latin he is known as (Heysus) from which we translate into "Jesus". So Joshua, being a common name should not invoke the passion it does. There are many with that name, only one who is "The Christ".Too many people claim Christ but their image of him. The first red flag in ones description of him starts with the words "Jesus was". Like"Jesus was a man of peace" or "Jesus was a progressive" Any Jesus who "Was" is a false Christ for the real Jesus IS the King of Kings, Lord of Lords. With that, supporting such disfuntional lip service is a waste of time and energy. The words "Under God" were inserted back in the 50's so it is not some great old tradition handed down by our founding Fathers. Even the pledge itself was concieved after the Civil War in order to force Southerners to re affirm their commitment to the Union.
Similar threads
