|
|
Signup to Pray |
You must log in.
|
|
Pray for Me |
You must log in.
|
|
Online Bible |
2 Chronicles 11:20
And after her he took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah, and Attai, and Ziza, and Shelomith.
_VIEW_CONTEXT |
|
|
|
 |
Posted by: JG on Tuesday, March 30, 2004 - 05:27 AM
|
 |
 |
I pray we Christians become as dedicated to the Lord and Jesus as this man is to satan. I need you to stand with me in prayer to pray for favor with the Supreme Court so they keep God in this Pledge
A Fanatic and the Pledge of Allegiance
By JAY AMBROSE
Mar 28, 2004, 08:32
This is the Fanatic Michael Newdow
Something fanatical is at work in the war of Michael Newdow against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and nothing points that up better than a comparison he made before the Supreme Court this week.
Excising those words from the pledge, he said, would be akin to the court's decision to end racial segregation in the schools in Brown v. Board of Education a half century ago.
"Aren't we better off because we got rid of that stuff?" he asked .
Why, yes, of course we are, because what was going on was a horror in which literally millions of children were treated as if the color of their skin would somehow contaminate children whose skin was of a different color.
In violation of the Constitution's pledge of equality under the law, black children were required to go to different public schools than white children went to _ and almost always to inferior schools. The youngsters themselves were made to feel inferior. School segregation was oppressive and hatefully ruinous. It had the consequence of limiting opportunities, of drawing a don't-cross circle around human potentiality.
So skip ahead to the case in which Newdow is now arguing that the Constitution has been abridged because his daughter recites the pledge in a public school classroom. The harm to her is what exactly? If she doesn't want to participate, she doesn't have to. Or she can say all the words in the pledge, skipping the two that upset her father. Is she thereby indoctrinated into some state-sponsored religion, as prohibited by the Constitution? Obviously not. Is she embarrassed? It seems unlikely.
And when you read his words and those of some of the justices interrogating him this past week, the issue turns out to be more about Newdow than about her.
He is her biological father. He never married the mother, who is a Christian with absolutely no objection to the child acknowledging God in the pledge. The issue is whether his child should hear two words that he does not want her to hear.
"I am an atheist," he said in court. "I don't believe in God. And every school morning my child is asked to stand up, face that flag, put her hand over her heart, and say that her father is wrong."
Please Click here to stand with us and enter a prayer
On this basis, then, the court should undo the work of Congress in 1954 to insert the words?
Newdow _ a physician and lawyer _ is offended, and although 90 percent of Americans say in a poll that they want the words to stay, he and those who support him believe the offense to him and others in like position is so significant that the court should rid the pledge of this phrase.
To me, that's fanaticism, and it's a fanaticism that was put into sharp relief when Justice David Souter responded to the contention that the pledge was much the same as a prayer.
"As a religious affirmation," said Souter, "it (the pledge) is so tepid, so diluted, so far from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar."
Amen. |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
>