What I don't understand... if these people want socialism so bad, why don't they just pack it up and move to Russia or some other socialist country... plain and simple!

For the record, I believe that religion's place is in the home, not the House or Senate.

"Many people are surprised to learn that the United States Capitol regularly served as a church building; a practice that began even before Congress officially moved into the building and lasted until well after the Civil War."

"From Jefferson through Abraham Lincoln, many presidents attended church at the Capitol; and it was common practice for Members of Congress to attend those services. For example, in his diary entry of January 9, 1803, Congressman Cutler noted: "Attended in the morning at the Capitol. . . . Very full assembly. Many of the Members present." The church was often full "so crowded, in fact, one attendee reported that since "the floor of the House offered insufficient space, the platform behind the Speaker's chair, and every spot where a chair could be wedged in was filled."

Interesting how the 'glory days' start ending once "under god" is added to the pledge

Actually the glory days ended in 1963 with the Bible and prayer was removed from the public schools. Do some research on grades, violence in schools and general education downward trends. You'll see it starts to decline right around 1963.

Seperation of church and state is a myth and it doesn't exist. Its found NO WHERE in the Constitution nor any wrightings from the founding fathers. In fact, the US government used to print Bibles for public schools.

Seperation is nothing more than a made up liberal concept put into place by liberal judges and regurgitated over the years by liberals and atheists.

Yoda, I have to be real careful how I answer that because of the odds of misinterpretation. And yeah, I get long-winded here.

As many have noticed, my public persona here has a bit of a stick-up concerning the Catholic Church. That is simply the example I've used most often as it relates to my disdain concerning *organized religion* and, more specifically the heirarchies in them.

Make no mistake, "spirituality" is a different matter to me.

But to get back to the point, let's put the words right out there:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation [under God] indivisible with libery and justice for all.

Putting "God" into an oath puts a word with many meanings into said oath. For example, is "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea" democratic or a republic? A recent book and study showed four very distinct kinds of belief in "God" - authoritarian, benevolent, critical, and distant. (The book is at: [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Four-Gods-about-God/dp/0195341473[/ame] )

A person's belief in God is a very personal thing - and well it should be. The examples of "God in government" are disastrous. Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, etc.

People often say "God Bless the U.S.A.". I can't bring myself to say that. Why? Because of the implications. The idea that somehow God should favor our country over other other seems to be at odds with what the gospels wrote about Christ's words. God has been used as a sword and a plough. We're threatened with everlasting torment (hell) if we don't follow someone's interpretation of "God's Will". And the problem is that there is no defination of that will. It's not just a set of moving goalposts, it's that everyone has their own goalposts.

Again, that's fine in one's private life - but to want to enforce those beliefs on me by statute of law?

Here's an example of the clash. People complain that American students are falling behind in science. Yet, there are a number of people who, while complaining about that, think that Creationism (or it's latest incarnation: Intelligent Design) should be taught as *science* even though it's clearly *religion*. These two goals are at odds with each other. To be honest, I find it funny in a tragic way that the "Creationists" are evolving their tactics in a way that sounds like an attempt as "survival of the fittest".

Now, you said "after all, it was written by a Baptist minister.". Isn't it interesting that a Baptist minister left "under God" (or any reference to God) OUT of the pledge when he wrote it in 1892 and it was CONGRESS that put it in over 60 years later.

Isn't it interesting that Thomas Jefferson, who fervently believed in God, staunchly defended the separation of Church and State?

I want my country operating on facts, not faith. Yes, I know, 'fact' is something that can be hard to find in Washington, especially with all the disguises out there. Doesn't mean I can't *want* it more than we get it.

I took an oath for my current job. For me, it was reaffirming my loyalty to this country. Here's the oath I took:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

God is mentioned but it's clearly in a personal way. My country is not "following God's orders" - my country and my interpretation of God are two separate entities.

Originally Posted by Ooper

What I don't understand... if these people want socialism so bad, why don't they just pack it up and move to Russia or some other socialist country... plain and simple!

I'll chip in for their Air Fare. First class is what they deserve.

Originally Posted by dklassen

"Seperation of church and state is a myth and it doesn't exist. Its found NO WHERE in the Constitution nor any wrightings from the founding fathers. In fact, the US government used to print Bibles for public schools.

Seperation is nothing more than a made up liberal concept put into place by liberal judges and regurgitated over the years by liberals and atheists.

Good grief you could hardly be more wrong. Jefferson CONSTANTLY wrote about it and it's frequently mentioned in the Federalist Papers.

And it IS in the Constitution.

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion

"Establishment" is a NOUN, not a verb in that sentence. It does not say "Congress shall pass no law respecting and establishment of *A* religion", but that's what most people seem to believe.

A church is an establishment of religion (kind of like how a tavern is an establishment of the owner). So is a graveyard, a Bible school, etc. That clause in the Constitution is the very basis for why Churches are tax-exempt!

Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.

You read a lot into things.

All it says is that congress shall pass no law. It says nothing about government supporting, endorsing or even practicing a certian religion. It says NOTHING about SEPERATION. All it says is congress can't pass any laws... laws meaning making someone else by law having to practice a particular religion... or not. The key phrase is "pass no law"

Then you pick out one person, Jefferson. In case you forgot there were actually 55. Read what some of them wrote.

Funny how a lot of libs will make such a stretch but then completly ignore the rest of the Constitution... aka Obama.

If in fact you are correct, Church would have never been held in congress like it was for so many years nor would the Ten Commands be hanging in the Supreme Court.

"The first clause states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Note that it places no restrictions on the states, only Congress. Amendment 10 states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Therefore the federal courts have no authority to rule in this matter. "

Wow. Just.. Wow...

The Constitution CLEARLY forbids passing such a law and you then say it can "support" and "endorse"?? How does the government do that without passing laws? I must REALLY be missing what you're saying.

And I *am* correct because every single challenge (at least the ones I've heard of when it comes to displaying the Commandments) has upheld separation. Only legal challenges can be ruled on - so has anyone brought forth a suit challenging the hanging of the Ten Commandments in the USSC?

Nobody thought about it before the challenges occurred. it didn't dawn upon THE MAJORITY that leading a class prayer was a state endorsement of an establishment of religion (specifically: prayer). Note that Catholic schools are PERFECTLY within their rights to have a prayer. Those are private schools and work under different rules. (And that covers the whole 'free exercise' clause

Yes, I picked out Jefferson, but you said NONE of the Founding Fathers advocated such separation so I chose to pick my favorite *and* to point out that it IS in the Federalist Papers.

The myth that separation is a myth IS A MYTH. I grant you that it's taken a very long time for all of the ramifications to work themselves out but it IS an ongoing process.

And, just for the record, the quote is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - I'm guessing it was just a typo where you ended up omitting 'prohibiting'.

But it doesn't change the fact that "establishment" is a NOUN, not a VERB. The state cannot force you to pray in school in the morning, to take the school prayer example.

I must REALLY be missing what you're saying.

You are.

I can support or endorse a religion without passing a law than makes you support or endorse it.

Funny; I can't for the life of me, in reading back on this thread, find a logical beginning of the change in topic from the "Socialist Fringe" deeply involved in the new "Democrat reality" to the discussion of "establishment of religion". What am I missing?

Oh, never mind. "Red Skelton". I didn't realize at first that BK's comments precipitated DJ's comments. I just read through everything again.

Yes, dk, a *person* can support and endorse religion. Our *government* cannot. What I do on my own time is my business - but I can't do a fund-raiser for a religious cause at the office.

Yes, dk, a *person* can support and endorse religion. Our *government* cannot.

That's just not true. Our government did for many many years including printing Bibles for our early public schools. It wasn't until liberal actavist judges rewrote history that it changed.

The facts are there and so is our history.

Did you know the first American Bible was printed by...? Yes, Congress. I'd say that's an endorsement.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Let's see; a huge political and social movement to change the fabric of our lives and render the Constitution of the US as obsolete, and that is apparently the direction for the country favored by the current resident of the White House, vs. the strange actions of a man running for one of the many Congressional seats this November?

Oh yeah!!, I see the correlation. NOT!!!!

Now wait just a minute.....many here have posted about Obama's ties to Alinsky, for example. And then draw they the conclusion that Obama is a Socialist. So here is a guy shown in a picture in a Nazi uniform next to a man who was a Nazi in WW2.

If you all use guilt by association....then you should accept guilt by association. Only fair.

dk: And do you see that being done now? Of course not. There are a LOT of practices that used to be common in this country that aren't anymore.

There are a LOT of practices that used to be common in this country that aren't anymore.

Therein lies the problem my friend.