Republican presidential nominee

[Tacks]

Uh maybe because our founding fathers created our nation to be without specific religion?

Unfortunately for you our country caters to every man equally no matter if they're the 10% or 90%.

[Lueyen]

If you're "pro-choice," for banning the pledge of allegiance, for gay marriage, for the removal of the the Ten Commandments from Federal buildings, and for taking "In God We Trust" off our currency... then you're a liberal. And I'd say a good 90% of the people on the NT are for these things.

You do realize that Guliani takes liberal stances on both the abortion issue and on gay marriage?

[Narrock]

If you're "pro-choice," for banning the pledge of allegiance, for gay marriage, for the removal of the the Ten Commandments from Federal buildings, and for taking "In God We Trust" off our currency... then you're a liberal. And I'd say a good 90% of the people on the NT are for these things.

You do realize that Guliani takes liberal stances on both the abortion issue and on gay marriage?

Yeah, but he's conservative on a lot of other issues, and he's a fiscal conservative. You can bet that taxes won't go through the roof like they did under the clinton regime.

[Narrock]

Uh maybe because our founding fathers created our nation to be without specific religion?

Unfortunately for you our country caters to every man equally no matter if they're the 10% or 90%.

"Under God" in the pledge of allegiance does not cater to any specific religion.

[Burgy99]

When I registered to vote, I choose Democrat. Does that mean I support everything that every democrat believes in, no. My biggest thing, is protecting civil rights and conserving the Constitution that Bush loves to ignore. In area's that liberals want change, atleast they are pretty open about it before you vote for them. Republicans and the conservative party are narrow minded, and you get a collection of semi intelligent people ( Bush regime ), they completely take advantage of these short sighted people to garnish votes. They tell you " I love god ! " so you jump boat and vote for them, and they go on a compaign of terror and lies, absolutely screwing our economy and getting our americans killed. Atlot of these kids thought they were going to do some good by joining the military, only to find out the whole war was based lies.

Our constitution was based on seperation of church and state, and the government works for the peoples needs, not the other way around. 200 years later I don't know why you'd want to change a good thing.

[Narrock]

I found a perfect icon for Tacks. It seems to sum up his life quite well:

[Spazz]

I think a good portion of the world needs to wake up and realize that not everyone is of they religion. Muslims and evangelicals are a good example of this. When sayin my oath to the land it shouldnt include any god nonsense. That said the world is far from perfect and god in the pledge and on the money is a small issue compared with the real shit that needs fixin.

If you're "pro-choice," for banning the pledge of allegiance, for gay marriage, for the removal of the the Ten Commandments from Federal buildings, and for taking "In God We Trust" off our currency... then you're a liberal. And I'd say a good 90% of the people on the NT are for these things

I beleive in those things but i dont think id call myself a liberal anymore at all. Im all about people making the choice they think is best for them not the govt and other people it doesnt effect doing it for them. Why do you and your kind constantly want to push your morals on everyone ?

[Tacks]

Uh maybe because our founding fathers created our nation to be without specific religion?

Unfortunately for you our country caters to every man equally no matter if they're the 10% or 90%.

"Under God" in the pledge of allegiance does not cater to any specific religion.

yes, it does

[Jay]

Uh maybe because our founding fathers created our nation to be without specific religion?

Unfortunately for you our country caters to every man equally no matter if they're the 10% or 90%.

"Under God" in the pledge of allegiance does not cater to any specific religion.

Uhh, you're kidding right?

[Tuggan]

well hes right. its not any one specific religion, just to the religious. christians arent the only ones that refer to their diety as "god".

[Tacks]

you mean "God"

and nobody here can debate that in the context it's used that it's not the "Christian God".

[Lueyen]

Our constitution was based on seperation of church and state, and the government works for the peoples needs, not the other way around.

Nope sorry the US constitution was not based on separation of church and state. To say that the document was even partially based on this is erroneous. Of the entire document religion is only mentioned once, and that is in the First Amendment. It is not mentioned specifically in the Preamble which sets forth the goals of what it is to establish. One would think if the document was based around that premise, then the words "separation of church and state" would be found there in... which they are not.

[Arlos]

Seems a lot easier and makes more sense than offending 90% of the population who wants "Under God" in it.

Actually, I'd be willing to guess that the numbers of people who really want it out and who really want it in are about the same. Most of the rest of the populace couldn't care one way or the other. Again, no one's talking about BANNING the pledge whatsoever. We're only talking about removing 2 words that were added in the 1950s. I want them to keep using the pledge, I think it's important. I just want those 2 words removed.

To turn your question back on yourself to some extent, how does it offend you if it's not there? Especially considering when it was created, it WASN'T there? Ask your grandparents; if they grew up before WW2, they never said it with the "Under God" in there, and it didn't seem to effect them negatively, did it? If you want to add it, why not silently add it in there?

See, the issue can go both ways. I just feel that as a secular declaration of allegiance to a non-theocracy, mentioning a diety (and understand, I'd fight just as hard against a mention of any OTHER diety as well) has no place in the pledge.

-Arlos

[Arlos]

No, Leuyen, that was not an original intent of the Constitution itself. It WAS, however, Jefferson's specific intent as part of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, you can read letters from him to contemporaries where he talks about the fact that "He has created a wall between Church and State" to be his proudest achievement in his political career.

So, seeing as how 1) Jefferson was completely open with his intent, AND made it publicly known to his peers, and 2) The continental congress ratified the Bill of Rights knowing that intent was part of the end result... Well, it necessarily follows that they agreed with that intent, and helped carry it out.

So, while the initial document of the Constitution does not mention that separation, it can quite convincingly be argued that by the time it was done, it WAS an intent, because they knew what the end result would be if they passed the Bill of Rights, and they voted in favor of passage anyway.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

No, Leuyen, that was not an original intent of the Constitution itself. It WAS, however, Jefferson's specific intent as part of the Bill of Rights. Indeed, you can read letters from him to contemporaries where he talks about the fact that "He has created a wall between Church and State" to be his proudest achievement in his political career.

So, seeing as how 1) Jefferson was completely open with his intent, AND made it publicly known to his peers, and 2) The continental congress ratified the Bill of Rights knowing that intent was part of the end result... Well, it necessarily follows that they agreed with that intent, and helped carry it out.

So, while the initial document of the Constitution does not mention that separation, it can quite convincingly be argued that by the time it was done, it WAS an intent, because they knew what the end result would be if they passed the Bill of Rights, and they voted in favor of passage anyway.

-Arlos

My intent Arlos was not to revitalize a dead horse if you will, but to show that the prominence given to subject was out of proportion, and that the framers didn't base the constitution around the idea.

Although there is validity to the argument for "a wall of separation", I do not consider most issues brought under it's banner constitutional ones. The argument that it was the intent of the founders and ratification places way to much importance on the views of one of the many constructors of the document and in the case of Thomas Jefferson one who did not as I recall even have a hand in writing the First Amendment, he was in Europe at the time.

[Arlos]

Jefferson wrote the entire Bill of Rights. And, as I posted, documents exist, ie letters he wrote to contemporaries, outlining his intent re: separation of Church & State.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Jefferson wrote the entire Bill of Rights. And, as I posted, documents exist, ie letters he wrote to contemporaries, outlining his intent re: separation of Church & State.

-Arlos

No James Madison wrote the original Bill of Rights in 1789, the same year Jefferson returned to the United States from Europe after he finished serving as the U.S. minister to Paris. He was then appointed to Secretary of State by George Washington.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Declaration of Independence for which he was the primary author.

[Arlos]

You're right, I was mistaken. Jefferson was involved, he corresponded with Madison frequently, but it was indeed Madison who wrote them, largely inspired by the bill of rights Mason had put in the Constitution of Virginia.

-Arlos

[numatu]

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

Creator. God. Divine. These terms speak nothing of religion, or of theocracy, which is what Jefferson really meant by separation of Church and State. General terms mentioning the divine, and in some cases the judeo-christian divine, were not just spoken and written down again and again throughout history, but were actively part of the history and architecture of the government.

Unlike any other country in the world, the Declaration says our rights come from not the government, but from our "Creator". The individual holds power as the sovereign, and then loans power to the government. It's the fundamental basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Mentioning this in public areas has nothing to do at all with becoming a theocracy which would be a specific denomination or branch of religion controlling the country; nor does it mean we're becoming a theocracy when federal officials are sworn in putting a hand on the Bible, which has been done in this country since Washington. It's clearly not, as Jefferson and Madison were an integral part of all the initial proceedings of government.

[Markarado]

Numatu put it just right.

[Evermore]

If you're "pro-choice," for banning the pledge of allegiance, for gay marriage, for the removal of the the Ten Commandments from Federal buildings, and for taking "In God We Trust" off our currency... then you're a liberal. And I'd say a good 90% of the people on the NT are for these things.

You do realize that Guliani takes liberal stances on both the abortion issue and on gay marriage?

Yeah, but he's conservative on a lot of other issues, and he's a fiscal conservative. You can bet that taxes won't go through the roof like they did under the clinton regime.

no but i bet the typical spend like there is no tommorrow goes thru the roof like it does under every republican regime.

[Spazz]

I swear they do it on purpose so that the democrats have to raise taxes and everyone boos and hisses.

[Evermore]

i had that same thought spazz

[Spazz]

They do it to thier own too. There was a guy named george bush when i was a kid. Said no new taxes then he looked at the damage his party did and had no choice but to raise em. They say tax break and i guess it is but you end up havin to pay it a few years down the mo fuckin road anyway.

[Zanchief]

Give him a break Spazz, he's a war time president.