Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Morant61 | 106030 | ||
Greetings Parable! There is quite a bit of debate about whether or not the pledge is constitutional. I happen to believe it is constitutional since the 'seperation' clause is not actually in the constitution. But, even if it is true that a law making 'under God' part of the pledge is unconsitutional, there is nothing in the constitution which would prohibit me from saying it, even in a public school. I am not a 'government', nor a law passed by the government, so I cannot violate the constitution by saying something religious, even in the public setting. The real debate should be whether or not the current understanding of the constitution is correct. The founders only included two provision about religion in the consititution. The state cannot establish a state religion, nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion. The state has done plenty of the second by passing laws which limit my ability to worship when and where I please. As far as the first is concerned, this has been interpreted to mean that the state cannot even allow the mention of religion or God in a public or governmental setting. Yet, if this is what the founders intended, why is God mentioned in the preamble to the consititution? Why does congress open with prayer, including the first congress? Clearly, the founding fathers did not intend for the constitution to be interpreted in the manner it has been interpreted. They were concerned about the government coming in and saying that everyone had to be Church of England, or such. They were not concerned that God might actually be mentioned in public. So, if I as a private individual, say 'under God' even in a public school, which part of the constitution am I violating? ;-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106104 | ||
I respond point by point: The doctrine of separation is well established and is central to our freedom. The issue is not your individual speech, but the 1954 congressional act that inserted "under God" into the Pledge. The real debate is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with how the constitution is interpreted. Your religious freedom is intact. Americans now enjoy the greatest religious liberty in history. No one here is persecuted for their faith. If you disagree, look at Sudan and then tell me you are suffering for your faith. No mention of God appears in the constitution, by design. The framers were careful to avoid this. While the creator is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, this document has no standing as law. Congress opens with prayer out of tradition, just like the Pledge. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in terms of the document itself and precedents set by earlier courts, not to imagine what the framers intended. This is because the intent of the framers is not law. The Pledge, said every school day by millions of students, teachers and administrators is much more than a "mention". Again, your freedom of speech is not the issue, but rather the imposition of speech on those who may not believe as you do. Peace, David |
||||||
3 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | kalos | 106108 | ||
You got that right! That "the intent of the framers is not law" is certainly true. Apparently the law has nothing to do with the intent of the framers of the Constitution. |
||||||
4 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Bible general Archive 2 | Parable | 106113 | ||
What do you suggest the framers intended? | ||||||