WE are losing it. (2023 Update)

[Kenneth]

Howdy,

Perhaps I misunderstand just what your "Thats [sic] crap" refers to, but the phrase "under God" was added June 14,

1954.

All the best,

[Kenneth]

'Happy to...

It advantages that group that supports, or believes in, those particular principles. (But, I truly suspect you knew that .)

The simple intuitive test would be to ask yourself how you would feel were you to enter a court that displayed some other set of "moral imperatives." Might you feel in any way disadvantaged, or diminished? To whatever degree you might, one could suggest that your privileges had been diminished.

All the best,

[Leon]

Let me explain where I was coming from. I do believe that the Bible should be involved in the oath process, no exceptions. The judge that I was talking about had the 10 commandments displayed openly in the walls of the court room. Some people wanted those removed. I say too bad.

[Leon]

So you agree, it being added indicates that it is a part of the pledge.

[Kenneth]

Let me start by saying I very much appreciate your response to me question, but it does raise another:

How might it feel for you if you were called into court as a witness, or perhaps even charged with a crime (just for the sake of my example ) and on entering the courtroom behind the judge you saw hanging on the wall some set of moral principles completely different from those with which you grew up?

Would you feel it appropriate were I to say to you at that point "You can ignore them if you find them offensive."?

Thanks again,

[Fred the Red Shirt]

messagenews: [e-mail]...

I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a religious oath. Any requirement that a person make a statement implying religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder? and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind other people?

We simply disagree.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress to edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

[Swingman]

"Advantages", "privileges diminished"? ... in what way, specifically?

[Kenneth]

'Sorry, I was not playing word games...

Of course it is part of the pledge "now", but the clear intent of the original post about it was that the phrase was not part of the pledge originally.

All the best,

[Leon]

That advantaged group would be a vast majority of the people in the United States. Disputing that is in fact an attempt to twist and manipulate.

That would be just fine with me. As long as the imperatives were of Good morals.

Might you feel in any way

Only if I was an idiot.

To whatever degree you might,

If I in fact felt that my privilidges had been diminished, it would be because of my own doing. If I had a problem with that, I could certainly go to another country and see how those courts would fit my wants. No one that has not broken any laws is forced to stay in the United States and be governed by its age old ways that worked pretty darn well unill some people started twisting and manipulation the laws.

[Buddy Matlosz]

Are you kidding? They're too busy violating them.

B.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

IIUC, you are saying that if a President choses to put his hand on a bible when he takes his oath of office the rest of us should be required to do the same when we testify in court?

Why shouldn't we have the same freedom when we take an oath that the President has when he takes the oath of office?

[Leon]

Nor was I.

IIRC "I" made the original post about the Pledge of Allegence being attacked because God was mentioned in it. Further response to my post disputed that God was part of the pledge.

[Larry Blanchard]

ROFL! Actually, I can imagine them doing just that :-).

Didn't a state legislator once try to change the value of Pi ?

[Tom Watson]

He puts his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution.

Not the other way around.

(we hope - although some, of late, appear to have this confused)

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

[Larry Blanchard]

Yeah, right.

[Doug Winterburn]

Well, since those moral imperatives are displayed all over the Supreme Court building (and on most federal buildings in Washington, D.C.) in stone and in fact are the underpinnings of our legal system, it advantages all Americans.

I might feel I wasn't in the United States, and if that was the case I might have no privileges at all.

[Leon]

That's sad and further evidence of morals going down the tubes. I have been in Texas court rooms on numerous occasions and the oath required So help me God.

Any requirement that a person make a statement implying

If that person objects, he can simply say in him mind, I take all that back. He can deal with that when his time comes. If he does not believe in those set of beliefs or morals, they should not matter to him. It should only bother him and his God if he is being deceitful or dishonest. You see, God is not easily fooled and knows whether you are being honest or not.

I don't know about you but I and many others are still only human and have many faults. We all need constant reminders so that the constant presence of evil does not dominate. Who? reminds others?

No kidding.

I cannot explain that to you. Most prefer it and are conforted by it. I would much rather feel that this nation is monitored by God than not. Maybe you feel that you don't need or feel his presence if you have to ask that question.

[Kenneth]

Hi Leon,

Please see my comments inline below...

As before, you are completely correct. What we are exploring here has to do with protection for the rights of the minority.

Do you mean "good" in the opinion of the judge in my example, or in your own opinion?

This last one leaves me a bit confused.

If you were charged with a crime, and felt that your privileges had been diminished would you be leaving for that other country before or after your trial?

Are you really suggesting that all the people charged with crimes are guilty? If that were true, we could save a fortune .

Also, when you say that things "worked pretty darn well" I would have to ask "For whom?"

Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of our nation's history knows that while those "old ways" worked "pretty darn well" for some of our people, it worked very poorly for many others.

As before, I thank you for your response,

[Larry Blanchard]

The Constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority. Failure to do so is mob rule.

And of course YOU would be the judge of that.

Leon, you're a lost cause. You just used a long-winded sentence to say "Love it or leave it".

Age old ways? OK, you got me - I hadn't realized till now that you were trolling :-).

[Kenneth]

Assuming that you are correct, why would it be important that such oaths are spoken?

Thanks,