Rave if you believe in "One Nation Under God"!!

Republicans spend our money on the rich who do nothing for the poor. It has been tried and proven over and over again in the last 30 years that Tax breaks for the rich drive the debt up much more than it helps the economy. They think the poor and middle class are all freeloaders. And that being born into poverty where you can't afford a college education and therefore will remain poor as your children will and their children etc. is your fault. They say pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Then they make it harder for you in every way by cutting pell grants and other programs to help people get an education. They destroy union wages and won't increase minimum wages, so that people continue to become poorer over time. Their excuse is always the same lame one. It will help big business grow and they will give you many high paying jobs. But for all their trillions in tax breaks to the rich and lost wages of the middle , it isn't going that way is it? The ranks of the poor keep growing, the middle , keeps shrinking , and the rich are getting richer faster than ever. I grew up in the 50's and 60's when Democrats dominated , or liberal republicans once in a great while and things were so much better . Unions were strong enough to give the workers a piece of the pie as it grew. The middle class grew and prospered faster than any time in world history. The minimum wage grew with inflation, and despite much higher taxes on the rich , (versus the middle) , industry giants also grew to be what they are today. And the economy doubled each decade (50's and 60's.) Which is amazing considering automation and productivity was less than half of what it is now. All Because of investing in education , and a wealthier middle class with money to spend or save. Not corporate welfare and beating down the middle class like now. You see people back then including business people who were long term investors in the economy , weren't blinded by greed. They planted , invested for the long haul, grew, and prospered continuously. As opposed to the greedy reap and run business people of today who the republican party support. LIke Mitt Romney. They buy a company rob it of its wealth, and drive it into bankruptcy most of the time instead of making it better. They don't invest in value like they claim. They rob it of value, a lot of it just speculated, and then horde it for themselves. Putting it in overseas banks. They get rich so much quicker that way. But just leave destruction in their wake. Their are a few of the old long term investors left though. They are the Democrats like Warren Buffett , and Bill Gates, They may not have made their wealth as quickly as Twitt Romney, but they went a lot farther didn't they. They built something great. They didn't prey on the weak, and leave a rottting carcass. Twitt is what they call a vulture capitalist. httpp://www.rollingstone.com/...
Now their are quite a few of the Democrats who aren't who they claim to be either or Blue Dogs who are DINO's so they are even worse in some ways. But of the 2 parties, I have experienced which ones are the best for the most people. Another Huuuuuuge problem with today is, The wealthy have something deadly for our democracy. About 40,0000 lobbyists representing multi billion dollar corporations. The Wall street lobby has already taken Dodd/Frank and picked it clean of any effectiveness. It's full of loopholes and deregulations to the point of being worthless. See how
http://www.rollingstone.com/p... So our future holds more financial chicanery and meltdowns, with bailouts from us. There is no Democracy any more, and even when Democrats are able to pass any legislation (rare now days thanks to the "NO" party) to protect the citizens from Wall Street (extremely rare now days), lobbyists march to Washington to destroy it. They use the word "liberal" derisively and everyone follows them in their hatred , and demonization of the left. It's easy to lead the weak ,...as Adolph Hitler showed us ...to hate and demonize others . Which is a good reason by itself , that I will never become one of them. So, you can support the party who try to help the 99% with their leader Obama or the party of the richest 1%. Twitt Romney. It will make no difference. Democracy is dead. People like Twitt and the lobbyists will have free reign soon. And I feel bad for all the good people here.
www.salon.com/2012/09/10/why_...

" It is simply a matter of freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. " That phrase, which is not in the Constitution, is often used to denigrate Christianity and promote personal agendas. All that the Constitution requires is that the GOVERNMENT NOT butt into religion, NOT dictate what religion a person must practice. England had a national religion, and the founders did NOT want that. They wanted people free to practice whatever religion they wanted - AND THEY CAN. And their rights to freely practice ANY religion are assured because our country was founded on freedoms FROM government. None of the first five freedoms in the Bill of Rights limit the individual - merely the GOVERNMENT. Those rights are supposedly immune from government interference. No one's being a Christian interferes with your being an atheist. I live with an agnostic. If you believe that being an atheist means you cannot appreciate the foundations of our country, then I think I have pegged atheists incorrectly my entire life.

I think you underestimate the American people, as does our government underestimate the American spirit. Those words represent our heritage and our history. Most people know this is nothing more than an agenda to further separate American citizens and we know that that is a necessity if one is trying to bring a country to its knees. Any group wanting to overthrow a decent country MUST NOT ALLOW people to assimilate - they MUST be divided.

"I think you'll find that most rational people agree with this position."
My response to that is that it depends on how many Americans are that ignorant or filled with hatred for their homeland.

EDIT: Just noticed you responded in that large block of text. You should really separate them to make them easier to read.

[That phrase, which is not in the Constitution, is often used to denigrate Christianity and promote personal agendas.]

The very first line to the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That's exactly what happened.

"Justice Hugo Black adopted Jefferson's words in the voice of the Court, and concluded that 'government must be neutral among religions and nonreligion: it cannot promote, endorse, or fund religion or religious institutions.'"

[All that the Constitution requires is that the GOVERNMENT NOT butt into religion, NOT dictate what religion a person must practice.]

And by requiring "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the country, they are forcing people to pledge themselves to God.

[England had a national religion, and the founders did NOT want that. They wanted people free to practice whatever religion they wanted - AND THEY CAN.]

And having God in the pledge and on our money doesn't make Christianity the national religion?

[And their rights to freely practice ANY religion are assured because our country was founded on freedoms FROM government. None of the first five freedoms in the Bill of Rights limit the individual - merely the GOVERNMENT.]

And it is the government that added "under God" to the pledge, making it the nationally recognized religion.

[Those rights are supposedly immune from government interference. No one's being a Christian interferes with your being an atheist. I live with an agnostic.]

Agnostics can be Atheists, it's a completely different answer to a completely different question. However, that's neither here nor there.

[If you believe that being an atheist means you cannot appreciate the foundations of our country, then I think I have pegged atheists incorrectly my entire life.]

Christianity and God are not the foundations of our Country in any shape or form. That's the very problem that's being fought in order to remove the unconstitutional addition to the pledge and our currency.

/EDIT

[Those words represent our heritage and our history]

I fail to see how. The original pledge is as follows:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

It has been modified four times since then.

This country was founded as a secularist nation. God wasn't entered into the pledge until 1954. That was the first time, to my knowledge, that Christianity was recognized in any fashion by the government, something that is strictly against the constitution.

We fought against Great Britain to get away from them and secure religious and economic freedom. By recognizing any one religion over another, we are harming what the founding fathers set out to achieve.

[Most people know this is nothing more than an agenda to further separate American citizens]

How is it an agenda to separate citizens when the act would make the pledge more inclusive?

[Any group wanting to overthrow a decent country MUST NOT ALLOW people to assimilate - they MUST be divided.]

By placing God into the pledge and onto our money, we are dividing the Christians from the rest of the country. By fighting the removal of this segregating phrase, the Christians are further dividing the country into "us" verses "them."

[My response to that is that it depends on how many Americans are that ignorant or filled with hatred for their homeland.]

Not believing in God does not equate to hating America. That is propaganda, and completely wrong. It is, in fact, wanting the America they were promised, one that does not divide its citizens by favoring one religion over another. They are trying to remove the word God from the pledge and from our currency out of love for the country they used to have and want to have again, the country that wasn't a Christian nation, but a melting pot of all faiths and non-faiths, all races, all peoples.

There is no hidden agenda. There is no hatred. There is only what is and is not constitutional. Any religious preference on a governmental level is unconstitutional. Having God in the pledge and on our currency is showing governmental preference for Christianity.

Is it really that hard to understand?

"EDIT: Just noticed you responded in that large block of text. You should really separate them to make them easier to read."

Well, I never knew that formation of paragraphs were designed to make things easier to read. I was always taught that paragraphs separate subjects or items within a subject, thereby creating clarity. What do I know? I was Valedictorian when I graduated from High School. And I did pretty well in university, with a 4.0 GPA.

I'll answer your last question first. I suppose it MUST be hard to understand as most constitutional scholars who are not socialists read the First Amendment to mean just as I said, so apparently they are confused or find simple words difficult to understand. Frankly I believe it is as clear as polished glass. The Constitution requires no "interpreting". All it needs is read as is - a child can understand the meaning of the simple words.

I do understand why you want the words, under God, removed. As an atheist, swearing to any deity is a waste of time and your sworn statement is useless if you cannot swear it is true. But you prefer the socialist version, which it originally was, better than the Christian version. I believe that to be the rub. I have to tell you, that to me it isn't a Christian/non-Christian issue. It is a dismantling of what is America that is an issue. Until you are forced to attend a church, you have freedom of religion. Once you tinker with the Constitution enough, you will have the anarchy that many of us wouldn't mind having. I just doubt you would like it. Every socialist/Communist country that was taken over had to destroy Christianity first - that, I believe is at work here in the USA today.

"And having God in the pledge and on our money doesn't make Christianity the national religion?" Answer: NO, it doesn't. What you seem to want is for enough of the Constitution to be shredded that your side - the socialists - can do as they please and invite sharia law into our country.

"And it is the government that added "under God" to the pledge, making it the nationally recognized religion,"..........true, UNDER PUBLIC PRESSURE to do so. It was adopted by citizens long before Congress finally caught the boat. Sorry, but your dismantling is falling apart, thank God. Too many of us will not be ruled by rag tags who leave no leaf unturned to make misery for others.

Sorry about the long post you are about to see. I am merely attempting to answer all of the points you have raised. We can drop a few if you would like. Simply point out the ones you don't see as relavent and I will consider dropping them for the sake of the discussion. If you are fine with the current topics, however, I am more than happy to continue as is.

[Well, I never knew that formation of paragraphs were designed to make things easier to read. I was always taught that paragraphs separate subjects or items within a subject, thereby creating clarity. What do I know? I was Valedictorian when I graduated from High School. And I did pretty well in university, with a 4.0 GPA.]

Not sure what any of that has to do with this, but the reason for separating blocks of text into paragraphs is simply to split things into easier chunks. It's the idiocy or proper etiquette that forces teachers to say they had to separate at individual ideas. If it helps you any, think of the quoted text as the subject and your response as the content. The subject should never be included in the same block of text as the content.

[I'll answer your last question first. I suppose it MUST be hard to understand as most constitutional scholars who are not socialists read the First Amendment to mean just as I said, so apparently they are confused or find simple words difficult to understand. Frankly I believe it is as clear as polished glass. The Constitution requires no "interpreting". All it needs is read as is - a child can understand the meaning of the simple words.]

Apparently it does need interpreting, since the courts have been fighting over the meanings ever since they were first added. The problem with having set rules is that there are always loopholes and various meanings when all you have is the text to go by. Slight variations on the original rules must be made to keep up with the times as well as people trying to find loopholes. That's why we have court rulings.

[I do understand why you want the words, under God, removed. As an atheist, swearing to any deity is a waste of time and your sworn statement is useless if you cannot swear it is true. But you prefer the socialist version, which it originally was, better than the Christian version. I believe that to be the rub. I have to tell you, that to me it isn't a Christian/non-Christian issue. It is a dismantling of what is America that is an issue.]

I agree entirely, but on the reverse side. Keeping a CHRISTIAN value on a FEDERAL level, placed BY LAW is dismantling what America is. And I take great issue with that. I don't care about beliefs verses non-beliefs when it comes to this issue. I don't care about swearing to God. I don't even really care about pledging allegiance to a flag in a country "under God." That's the benefit of non-belief. I can pledge undying loyalty to a being I don't believe exists. I have no problem with that. The problem I have is that the constitution states in the first amendment, in clear words, that the government shall make no law establishing or prohibiting any one religion. A law was passed to add "under God" to the pledge. That law established Christianity over all other religions. That makes those words and that law unconstitutional, by definition.

[Until you are forced to attend a church, you have freedom of religion. Once you tinker with the Constitution enough, you will have the anarchy that many of us wouldn't mind having. I just doubt you would like it. Every socialist/Communist country that was taken over had to destroy Christianity first - that, I believe is at work here in the USA today.]

Actually, at least one of them didn't. Hitler was a Christian.

As for socialism/communism taking over, I would like to point out that communism is not socialism. Communism stems from socialism, but it is a VERY extreme branch of it. Socialism is nothing more than equality for all. Communism is forced equality while maintaining a ruling class and a poor class. Obviously, communism is not the end goal, but neither is socialism. All we want is for the government to follow its own rules. That's all. And one of those rules is to not make any laws that put one religion or non-religion above another.

["And having God in the pledge and on our money doesn't make Christianity the national religion?" Answer: NO, it doesn't. What you seem to want is for enough of the Constitution to be shredded that your side - the socialists - can do as they please and invite sharia law into our country.]

First off, you have zero evidence that I am a socialist. Secondly, you have zero evidence that socialists are responsible for wanting the pledge returned to it's previous state. Third, the constitution does not have to be shredded in the slightest to show that "under God" being added by law was unconstitutional. It does, however, need to be shredded to prove it wasn't. Finally, Sharia Law is an Islamic thing, not socialist, so that has no bearing on any part of our discussion.

Please refrain from jumping to conclusions in the future. It slows down the discussion and just causes heated arguments that go nowhere.

["And it is the government that added "under God" to the pledge, making it the nationally recognized religion,"..........true, UNDER PUBLIC PRESSURE to do so. It was adopted by citizens long before Congress finally caught the boat. Sorry, but your dismantling is falling apart, thank God. Too many of us will not be ruled by rag tags who leave no leaf unturned to make misery for others.]

Funny, you just said that this didn't make Christianity the nationally recognized religion. Now you say that it does? Whether under public pressure or not, it is still the government recognizing Christianity through law, which is unconstitutional.

However, I have read the history of this law. It was not under public pressure that this law was added. Public pressure existed long before the government agreed to it. There was even a meeting with the president at the time which didn't bring the law into action. What happened was that the entirety of the Knights of Columbus began reciting the pledge like that. That's hardly the majority of the country.

It was originally established by a single man who had read the words "under God" in one of Lincoln's speeches. He thought those were defining words of the man and the country, and thus added them to the pledge on Lincoln's birthday in 1948. The problem,however, was the context, which seems to be lost in time, as "under God" originally meant "God permitting" at the time. That's neither here nor there, however.

Anyway, this spread through the Knights of Columbus for a few years, occasionally seeking a law to add it officially, never getting passed the first stage. At one point they did manage to get the ear of President Truman in 1952, who eventually dismissed it.

Finally, in 1954, on Lincoln's birthday, sitting at Lincoln's favorite pew, a recently baptized president Eisenhower heard pastor George MacPherson Docherty recite the pledge the same way as every other Knight of Columbus. He loved it immediately and talked with him backstage about it. The very next day, a bill was made and pushed through congress, eventually becoming a law that changed the official pledge to recognize Christianity over every other religion in the country.

It wasn't public pressure, it was one man's ambition based on another man's mistake which added an unconstitutional law recognizing Christianity and not any other religion.

From that very day forward, there have been constant struggles to have it removed with the biggest argument coming from those who were not Christians, arguing that the government was recognizing one religion over another, which was and is true. Most of the time, until recently, they were either dismissed outright or blocked because of technicalities. Now that we are finally making some progress toward reversing this unconstitutional law, the media is declaring anyone against that law to be traitors, in one respect or another.

That's the full, abridged history. If you have any questions about it, please feel free to ask. I can go into greater detail about many parts of it, if you'd like.