Thread: Red Skelton's Pledge of Allegiance

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

And then of course those who weren't complaining before will begin to do so.

There will always be opportunity to complain, regardless of whether or not you agree that it's thereAbsolutely. I would like to state before I write anything else that it seems the founding fathers were mostly men of faith. The debate as I see it is one of the ROLE of that faith in our Government.

Anyway, doesn't general faith in God form a central role in the founding documents, principles, and philosophies of the USA?Central in that a freedom associated with choosing that faith was desired, not expressing one faith for everyone by anyone else, let alone the Government.
Wasn't it is a decent respect to the opinions of mankind to declare the causes which impelled the revolutionaries to assume the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them? If someone feels that their nation is not under God, then why should they continue hold that nation to providing them with the rights that that nation's government admitted was afforded them?Because "...all men are equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Of the people for the people, not of SOME of the people for SOME of the people.

If the nation of the USA is not under God, then its principle founding document no longer projects its declarations onto the people of the USA

You cannot logically assume the premise of your conclusion in your argument. This is known as begging the question.

The founding fathers wanted economic freedom, religious freedom, and general autonomy to maintain both of these things among other desires. Never forget that parsing and paraphrasing are dangerous as they remove context. I would also leave everyone with an excerpt from Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson Concludes: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem."
This is my sentiment exactly.
As for the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, I have no problem saying them. I do have a problem with a state religion. For instance, the Taliban.

Respectfully to everyone,

-Rob

Interesting. I like to use a lot of logical fallacy in light discussions because of the response it can generate, but I begged the question here because I knew it would get my point across without too much effort on my part to present my argument.
So although I admit to parsing and paraphrasing for the gain of my object (Maybe I should run for office?) I still know that the government of the USA included the providence and provision of God in some if not many of its founding philosophies. I also know it was a reflection of the guiding principles of those who shaped the founding documents to say that God grants all men certain rights that the new government should be designed to protect. There is not as strong an explicit justification for the government to protect those rights as because they are God-given although I'm sure other implicit justifications are there just the same.

By the way, for some reason I don't think that a government-prescripted admission that its nation is under God demands the reflection of an instituted state religion.