MY FLAG NOT MY GOD
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.
This is it original form:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the
Republic for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added.
At this time it read:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the
United States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands, one nation,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. It to bad her heed her objections. This created a slippery slop between the separation of church and state
Today it reads:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
At the time god was added the majority of the population believed in the god of the Israelite's, While the word god still remains in our pledge of allegiance the wording needs to be changed again.
New wording if the Religious Freedom Act is not rescinded.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Christian Faith of America, and to the moral values for which it stands, one nation under the Christian God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all Christians."
I had been one of those people that argued to keep the word god in the pledge. Because I believe in God. However, it has become evident to me that the word god does not refer to my God, but the god of the Christians. If it was my God I'd have no objections, but I would not object to it being remove from the pledge.
The Religious Freedom Bill is nothing more than a way to entwine religious moral values into our civil laws. I wonder how Christians would feel if the Muslims religion was the majority faith in the country. Lets say their Bill would be called Sharia Freedom Act. Now not only can you refuse to sell things to someone, if you wife cheats on you, you can kill her. But if your husband cheats you can't kill him. But you, Christians, will be happy to know under the Sharia Act no gays or transgender people they will be killed. OK, now do you agree to remove the word god from the pledge?
When it come to civil law the only right people have when it come to religion is to practice it. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that everyone in the United States has the right to practice ( not demand everyone live like them) his or her own religion, or no religion at all. Therefore, religious people must obey the First Amendment. This means that while they can teach about the influences of your religion in history, literature and philosophy -- you can't promote religious beliefs or practices as part of the civil and state laws.
What is next, back to praying to false gods in schools. Amending the Constitution to include the Ten Commandments. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4 (also known as RFRA), is a 1993 United States federal law aimed at preventing laws that substantially burden a person's free exercise of religion. Short of locking them up, what could stop them from practicing their faith. How can selling a cake to someone create a burden to you exercising your faith under the US Constitution?
Many State are using the RFRA to structure laws to discriminate against certain groups of people. Because they to not confirm to christian values. These State Bill's are allowing the christian values to direct the law. We need to fight to have the RFRA rescinded. Stop these christian fanatics from dictating their values into our lives. Put religion where it belongs in churches and temples not in the community.
Let look closer at Indiana's Bill's
What does Indiana’s RFRA actually do?
To start off, we should ask: does Indiana’s RFRA actually legislate discrimination of LGBTQ people?
No, it doesn’t. At least, not explicitly in the bill itself. Indiana’s RFRA does however provide a legal defense for individuals and businesses (which are defined as “persons” in the RFRA) to deny service (i.e. discriminate) to any LGBTQ person based on “substantial burden” on their “religious convictions.”
Some one needs to tell me what is the burden that is create by doing business with gay people? Lets see you start a business to attract customer, not drive them away. Seems to me that it is their business that is creating their burden.
If sexual orientation and gender identity were listed as protected classes, this would ultimately mean that anyone appealing RFRA to justify not serving an LGBTQ person would face an uphill battle. It would make it increasingly difficult to appeal to religious beliefs as a credible basis for denying service to someone based on their sexual orientation.
In essence, it would put to bed all of the accusations that the real intention behind RFRA is discrimination, which is exactly what it is. If it was not discriminatory the services would be denied to those persons living out of wedlock, anyone that had an abortion, or did not believe in their god in general, right?
Freedom of religion does not mean punishing those that don't practice yours. Your prophet Jesus said love you neighbor. Not only love your neighbor it they are christian. The only burden I can see that a LGBT person could present is that you feel you may be LGBT and are ashamed of it.
