When someone mentions God in their lives and leaves out the name of Christ it tells you that they dont love Christ enough to mention Him. That way the president doesnt offend Hindus and Muslims, etc. He did say what he did about his Christian faith being a sustaining force, but if that was true you would hear Christ coming out of him. When he says that Jesus Christ is the only Son of the true and living God and that He is the only way to heaven, then my ears will perk up and I will commend him for it. I dont believe that he will ever say that. If he felt that way he wouldnt support gay marriage and abortion rights, etc. When we say that we are Christians we have to listen to what God says. We cant be liberal about it and add in a little bit of this and a little bit of that. If we do that we are fooling ourselves. We have to be obedient. Thanks.

Clay, I can't say you surprise me, but I must say you amaze me with your obdurate hypocrisy. My only encouragement comes from the example you continue to provide of the folly of fundamentalism.

Welcome back, by the way, from your sojourn beyond the veil of anonymity.

Anyone who cant accept what I have written above cant accept basic premises of Christianity. Its the way it is, and it is not complicated.

The basic premise of Christianity is to love your neighbor. You don’t have to be a Christian to do that however. It doesn’t have anything to do with marriage equality or abortion issues Clay. Jesus never spoke about either of those issues.

The bible doesn’t say anything about accepting what Clay has written.

Clay I pity you. You can not see how full or pride and arrogance your comments are. Who are you to judge anyone’s faith? Christ was pretty specific about judging others. To be honest I really don’t hear Christ coming out of you. I can’t say that doesn’t make you a Christian because I am not supposed to make such judgments. I hear no love for your neighbor in what you say. I also see a great deal of ignorance about Christ. Jesus was the biggest liberal of his area. He challenged the established order of the institutions of the Jewish faith. No president has ever said what you asked of Obama. Maybe it’s time you spent more time listening to God’s word on such topics as love for all, judging others and setting yourself up as an authority of what God wants.

It is said that there are some 30,000 religions in the world. Religion is man's attempt to reach God. Salvation is something completely different. Salvation is God's attempt to reach down to man and save him from his sin. It is only through Christ's salvation that we can get to heaven. It is the basic premise of Christianity. When we deny this we are denying Christ. Any president who is a true Christian shouldn't be afraid of saying such a statement. Christ said, "no one comes to the Father except through Me." Christ's Father destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of the behavior going on that He considered immoral and not what He wants for man. Christ would in no way want to change such a command. Why would He? One of the ten commandments from His Father is "though shall not kill." He would never want to change that either. To say that Christ was liberal in no way means that he approved of such things. The bible doesnt say anything about homosexuality or murder? How can anyone say such a thing? The bible doesnt say anything about accepting Christ as the only Son of the true and living God? How can anyone make such statements? The bible doesnt say anything about accepting what I wrote above about these things? I have heard the same thing over and over also about Clay needs to stop being so judgemental and look in the mirror at myself. I never denyed being a sinner. Do these comments mean that I am not supposed to write about the basic premises of Christianity? Are they trying to get me to not write about the basic premises of Christianity? I dont see a lot of different people getting on these blogs and making comments. It appears to be pretty much the same people again and again with the same comments. And that appears to be true even when I havent been on here making comments. What is the point of anyone getting on here when all the great majority of commenters want to do is to cut down Christianity and bring in liberal this and that ideas into the discussion and say that Christianity has no right to do this or that and that no one in government should be involved with it, etc? What is the point of it? Other bloggers want to leave Christ out of our lives and deny what He wants for us. I dont. If that means people making comments about me that I am being judgemental or whatever, that Christ isnt coming out of me or whatever, I suppose that means that on these blogs everytime I make a comment people will see those statements being made also. It wont, however, stop me from making the statements that I believe in. God bless.

Clay,

Anonymous has echoed a message I wrote to you here but never posted. From our two perspectives -- Anonymous as a believer and me as a non-believer -- the same sentiment: pity. I know you will reject our pity, as you reject whatever anyone says to you that does not agree totally with your narrow view of religious faith, but I, too, feel sorry for you. You have walled yourself off from humanity, you have rejected your own god's gift, you (and I know you will protest) despise your fellow man. And that's sad. You have been an object of ridicule on this forum -- and, truth be known, much of what you say here is indeed ridiculous -- but more than ridiculous , you are truly piteous.

Clay, I guess I understand why you have such little tolerance for my view of the world. After all, I am a joyfully unrepentant homosexual who has also rejected all of organized religion (don't feel singled out there) as an irrelevant construct of men. But you also scorn the musings of your less orthodox (at least from your perspective) fellow-religionists. Can you not even begin to appreciate that enlightenment comes in many colors and with many voices? Is the voice you hear the ONLY possible truth? I know, I know ... you have told us time and time again that yours is the only way. And that's very sad. And, yes, a little ridiculous.

Clay you have of way of knowing what is in the mind, heart and soul of another person. That they choose to express their faith differently than you does not make them less of a Christian. You judge the president to not be a Christian. That is not your right to say. Only Christ has that right to state who is and who is not part of his flock. Writing about the premises of Christianity does not entitle you to make judgments on who is or is not a Christian. You identify liberals as somehow not Christian. That is not true. True there are those who want to seek to change things in a manner against what is in the Scriptures. That does not mean all liberals or all liberal ideas are wrong. Make whatever statements you believe in. However, when it contradicts the message of Christ by judging other individuals or Christian denominations expect that it will get a response. I don’t ever recall anywhere in the Bible reading that unless I make public statements I am not a Christian. Since no president has ever why the concern of Obama? I do remember reading we all have different gifts which we are expected to use for the glory of God and the benefit of man. As I Christian you should get on here to continue to shine the light in the hopes of helping others see. You won’t accomplish that by being judgmental and lacking the love and compassion of Christ.

Clay,

Funny you should bring up "thou shalt not kill." Pretty emphatic and direct commandment, that one, right? A lot more clearly stated than any prohibition of homosexuality, for example. As I have asked you before, are you as intolerant of our nation's standing military (which, after all, has its core mission the killing of others) as you are of Gay folk, whose only "sin" is acknowledging an innate orientation that creates a sexual attraction to someone of the same gender, resulting, ideally, in a physical expression of love.

Somehow, Clay (as I have said to you before), I suspect your own personal tastes and desires drive your moralistic agenda more than adherence to Scriptural direction. Each of us (even those of us who have rejected religion as a source of "morality") constructs a moral framework in which we live. You have done so; I have done so. As adults, we pick and choose the rules by which we live. You do not live by every "rule" set out in Scripture. To do so would be impractical, immoral (ironically) or illegal in modern America. Because you are (I presume) heterosexual, you find it easy to condemn Gay people. Do you find it as convenient to condemn people who kill in the name of the State? Thou shalt NOT kill. (I don't think the Commandment includes an escape clause for Marines.)

Anyone who doesnt talk about Christ when they are talking about their faith is denying Him. Christ said that he who denys Him, that person He will deny when it comes to judgement. And that is regardless of whatever political faction we say we are from, liberal, conservative or whatever. Also being angry about homosexual or war issues doesnt excuse us from knowing God. God's plan of salvation is a simple one. Thanks.

Clay,

Perhaps you didn't hear me the first time.

Because you are (I presume) heterosexual, you find it easy to condemn Gay people. Do you find it as convenient to condemn people who kill in the name of the State?

Clay the problem is you have no idea what anyone talks about other than what you hear second hand. Even if you are correct regarding the president or anyone else that does not give you the right to make judgement on them or their salvation. That is a direct violation of a specific instruction Christ gave. For you to accuse anyone of denying Christ based on the limited information you have is wrong.

All that said it would appear the President did in fact talk about Christ. Maybe if you had removed the log from your eye you might have been able to see clearly.

http://continentalnews.net/christian-news/obama-talks-openly-about-his-personal-faith-in-jesus-christ-5969.html

If the president made a statement that Christ is important in his life, I commend him for it. If Christ said that "no one comes to the Father except through Me" why did the president cancel the National Day of Prayer? If he feels that strongly about Christ and His commands to pray, why would he cancel it even though people can pray to whatever they want? It wasnt even a Christian day of prayer as it was set up. He said that it would give people the wrong idea about us. Does he think that praying to Christ is right or does he think that it is wrong? Why doesnt he follow Christ's Father's commands about homosexual marriage? Why not His commands when it comes to abortion? Why did he have a cross covered before giving a speech? We can say whatever we want. God looks at our actions. As the bible says, God will line up the sheep on one side and the goats on the other. The goats will ask when did they not minister to God in this way or that way. He will say to them that since they didnt do it for the least of one of the people mentioned, they didnt do it for Him. The unborn are sometimes considered the least of us, but God doesnt consider it that way. You can call me judgemental all you want. I will pray that the president's actions become more in line with these latest words, after what the polls have shown. So Anon, are you a sheep or a goat? Would you recommend that the president be against abortion? Would you recommend that he not cover up any more crosses? Why would you not do it for him if you care about him? Christ may have been against being judgmental, but He would agree that it is ok to witness, and if people need help they need it. Thanks.

Clay,

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question:

Because you are (I presume) heterosexual, you find it easy to condemn Gay people. Do you find it as convenient to condemn people who kill in the name of the State? Thou shalt not kill.

A simple "yes" or "no" will be sufficient.

Oh...and Clay...

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush each hosted special events for National Day of Prayer only once during their administrations, President Bill Clinton did not hold any such events during his time in office,

On April 15, 2010, Fedreal Judge Barbra Crabb ruled that the statute establishing the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional as it is "an inherently religious exercise that serves no secular function". Judge Crabb also stated in her opinion, "If the government were interested only in acknowledging the role of religion in America, it could have designated a 'National Day of Religious Freedom' rather than promote a particular religious practice." However, Crabb stayed her ruling pending the completion of appeals. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice to appeal the ruling on April 22, 2010.

Funny what one can learn just by turning off the radio preacher from time to time. You know, to let some air in.

Clay as Bankstreet pointed out several presidents did not host special events during the National Day of Prayer. I don’t believe he cancelled the observance just the hosting of an event. For that matter why is it that important? As Christians we should pray every day so why single out one day? There is a difference between praying to Christ and using the state to try and promote it. The latter is a direct violation of the US Constitution. In case you forgot the President swore an oath on the Bible to uphold and defend it. In addition nowhere in the Bible is government used to promote faith, Christ never used the secular governmental institutions and neither did the apostles and others as they spread the faith. Are you God Clay? Did Christ give you some sort of authority that requires me to justify my thoughts, words and actions to you? I have made my views on abortion and homosexuality known. You confuse the issue of witnessing and coercing. All we as Christians can do is witness. Those who choose not to accept it need to be treated with respect and love. Christ told us not to judge and to love all even our enemies. Witnessing is what we are to do. Judging others we were told by Christ not to do. Using the government to promote Christ was never something included in any of Christ’s words or any other NT book. You still seem to feel you have the right to judge the president which is sad. It tells me you are selectively applying the Bible to fit what you, or your church has told you, Christianity should be. I can only pray that some day you realize difference between witnessing and judging.

The bible says that Christ says, "he who denies Me, he I will deny." It doesnt say that if we are in a position in government that we are excused from this, or if we have sworn to uphold the constitution or any law that we are excused from it either. It is no different than being in college, and when the class starts talking about religion someone who considers themselves to be a Christian keeps their mouth closed because they know that the professor is liberal and doesnt believe in God. The government is no excuse to not talk about Christ or witness for Him, because the bible makes it clear that God's laws are the most important ones, not ours. It also talks about those being persecuted here who will receive their reward in heaven. If I cannot point out these things about someone without being accused of judging them, how could someone witness to them without being judged themselves? "Oh Mr President, we must keep God first above all else." The President says, "well I did have a cross covered before a speech, do you think that was going too far and denying God?" You answer, "well, uh, uh, well Mr. President, we have to remember to keep God first above all else" because you dont want to appear judgmental. Is this the best thing for the President? Of course not. So why is someone pointing out his having a cross covered judgmental? It isnt. If you dont want to point out something that someone does that may be wrong, how can someone witness? Pastors point out sin all the time. I give out Christian tracts and sometimes help a pastor do it. If we have to be sure that we dont step on somone's toes and appear judgmental, why would we bother to give the tracts out to begin with? It makes no sense. Also I didnt say that I dont love the President or anyone. Thanks for your comments.

Still no answer from Clay to my clear and direct question.

I guess that means he has no answer to give ... and that his attitudes toward homosexuality reflect his inconsistent, selective reading of OT law, to suit his tastes and preferences. Just as I thought. Of course, he's hardly alone in doing this.

Clay in the Bible Christ also says he who is without sin cast the first stone. Pointing out sin is different from questioning someone else’s faith. That is judging them. That is what you are doing. I don’t recall anywhere reading that covering crosses was denying God. You in fact go on and on attacking the Catholic Church over statues yet criticize the President for covering a cross while giving a secular economic speech.

I am not sure where I got this from, but you should pray on it.
“Christ’s words were, “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 10:32). The common assumption is that we confess Christ by publicly accepting Him. But many who confess Christ are in reality denying Him (Titus 1:16). Confessing Christ, then, means more than just proclaiming His name. To praise God and give Him thanks publicly is certainly one way to confess Christ, but it is not the most important way. The most important way to confess Christ is to live and practice Christianity-to live the way Christ lived by means of the Holy Spirit. Those who confess Christ publicly, who openly acknowledge Christ as Lord when the occasion is called for, and practice Christianity in their lives are the ones who truly confess Christ (1 Tim. 6:12, 1 John 4:2-3).
To confess or to deny Christ is accomplished by either living or failing to live up to the Christian requirement. Those who publicly acknowledge Christ may find that this is insufficient to prove they really confess Christ. If they fail to live up to what Christ taught they are, in reality, denying Christ. Those who turn from the truth of God, or reject the Holy Spirit as a source of power and love in their lives, have denied Christ. It is imperative for all Christians to study their Bibles to learn what Christ really taught and then to put it to practice in their lives.”
How can a Christian cast judgment on the faith of another? Didn’t Christ say not to judge others or worry about removing specs from their eye, but to worry about the log in our own. The President may well not be living up to the faith he professes. That doesn’t mean you or I have the right to question is faith or commitment to God. That isn’t the same as opposing him on issues. That isn’t the same as saying that God’s law should guide Christians above all other. However, pointing at specific people and making accusations especially against someone you do not know is hardly something Christ would approve of.

Witnessing is not pointing out the flaws in others or telling them why they are wrong. Do you honestly think that’s what St Paul did when delivering the Good News to the Gentiles? Witnessing isn’t deliberately stomping on someone’s toes then playing the martyr when the backlash follows. If the tracts you are handing out are Chick tracts many of those are about as far from Christ as you can get. They attempt to use fear to scare people into conversion. I don’t recall Christ using or suggesting that when he sent out his disciples.

I pray that someday your eyes might be opened to understand what witnessing for Christ means.

Watching people seriously arguing over the nature and interpretations of the made-up rantings of a made-up god creature, is most entertaining. You might as well argue over the permanent shape of smoke.

Same as always! No one's dead. Clay is well and as loony as ever. Dana the great, speaks in measured tones. BankStreet has not effected an iota of change in the clayfulness of Clay and Robert Littel has had little success with the theistic crowd. Ah! And Anonymous lives on--the crown jewel of these blogs, still obsessed with Littel.
R Anon

Littel maybe you'd care to share your evidence that God is a made up creature. Sorry I forgot that your views require no proof. They are valid because you state them. So obvious that no support is required. All rational, logical minds would agree with you therefore proof is not required. That sort of sounds like an appeal to authority.

Interesting comparison you used. I some ways you could argue like smoke God can take many forms. Kind of like you references you’ve made to man earning knowledge. It kind of makes one wonder who can earn knowledge without some higher authority making a determination it is earned.

There is a reality you need to learn to accept. Your views on God, religion and religious doctrine is just that your opinion only. Nothing more and nothing less. If you wish to take the position that trees only fall in the woods when we can hear them that is an opinion not a fact.

The burden of proof is on you (Clay) Anonymous. You are the one who alleges that a god exists, and a very specific god at that. I just say that is BS because there has never been the slightest bit of evidence that a god (any freaking god) exists or has ever existed, which would necessitate its being made-up somewhere along the way.

Thanks for the update, R Anon.

What we've needed all the while has been a good play-by-play commentator.

Littel it was you who said "the made-up rantings of a made-up god creature" That puts the burden on you to prove that. I've already stated that human logic, reason and intelligence alone supports neither side. You are the one claiming that it supports you. I'm simply asking you to prove that. You are wrong when you state "there has never been the slightest bit of evidence" That is an opinion not a fact. We could argue back and forth, but it doesn't change the fact that both of our positions are matters of belief. You can pretend yours is the logical, fact based position but when you take away the fallacies and misinformation and personal attacks you have nothing.

R Anon it was Littel who chose to make the irrational ridiculing comment here. I was exchanging posts with Clay when he chose to make another ridiculing comment. The only ionterest I have in Littel is showing his rants for what they are. THe irrational, illogcial ranttings of someone who is doing nothing more than stating opinon and belief. If you'd care to try and bail him out by all means go ahead. Maybe you can make an actually logical intelligent arguement. Somehow I doubt it but maybe you can surprise me.

R Anon - There is something eternal about absolutist superstitionists that just can't abide a blaspheming heretic, especially when they know deep down inside that the Tootsie-Roll that is religious belief is actually more like its dog dropped cousins, that they have somehow been able to swallow anyway. They're just angry we won't pull up a chair and share in their feast.

Littel your arrogance is almost as amazing as your ignorance sometimes. What you choose to believe or not believe is your own concern. Frankly it makes no difference to anyone here what you think on the subject. The only anger here comes from you. The only one using insults and ridicule is you. If you want to live in denial that is your right. For someone who believes that his is the only intelligent, logical and rational position I'm just surprised you can't back that up with a sound logical, rational arguement. Ridicule and ad hominem attacks are tactics usually used by someone who can't support their arguement with logic and reason. Your probelm is your vison is clouded by your arrogance, ignorance and intolerance for others who do not share your view of the world or of God. I'm still waiting on that logical rational arguement from you. Somehow I doubt I'll ever see it.

See R Anon, the most illogical and irrational, throwing around terms like rational and logical as if they could even approximate those concepts within the realm of the delusionalism that is superstition based religion.

(Clay) Anonymous - If you really didn't care, you would not be so fixated on denigrating my character, which allows me the opportunity to continue to point out the vacuous nature of your, and all other, religious belief. You keep me coming back, and for that, I have to thank you.

The Presidents religious beliefs are really irrelevant. Of course this thread seems to have digressed from that as Clay has suddenly gone missing and Anonymous is now trying to reason with a different extremist.

Littel the only person denigrating your character is you. For someone who has insulted as many then used the weak argument that certain people don’t deserve respect simply because you find their beliefs ridiculous to complain about character attacks laughable. There was a time when I was like you using ridicule and personal attacks to try and bully others into accepting my views of leave. I could have matched you insult for insult and then some. Returning to my faith I realize how wrong that approach really is. All I'm doing is pointing out the illogic and irrationality of your posts. If you think that helps your cause I should thank you. Nothing does more damage to fundamentalist atheism than your belligerent ridiculing and personal attacks. That you actually believe you have somehow pointed out anything other than your own intolerance and prejudice says a great deal about you.

If you were simply saying you don’t believe in God or anything along those lines I’d of probably never even bothered responding. That you chose to hold your opinions out as some how factual based on logic and reason is the only reason I bother pointing out the one thing you refuse to accept. Logic and reason and human intellect supports neither of us. Both our positions are based in faith. The difference is where it is placed.

(Clay) Anonymous - It is not that I merely don't believe in a god, I don't believe the institutions that have arisen around such beliefs are of benefit to the health of Humanity, if in fact, religion is proving to add to the misery of the world (an easy sell by the way).

Religionists don't have a problem with people who don't believe the superstitious rubbish, as long as they keep it to themselves and let religion carry on as they always have. In all honesty, we don't have a problem with religionists who keep their beliefs to themselves, but we all know how well that works. What you are demanding is that we do not challenge the established order, no matter how nebulous its origins, or how pervasive the attempts for those of your ilk to spread those beliefs. Somehow, our actions are not recognized as having validity, while yours get the full protection of law, organized support systems, tax exemptions, blind ignorant acceptance (instilled shortly after birth), and constant unconstitutional reminders every time we reach for governmental units of exchange in our pockets, or when we (as both children and adults) are compelled to recite Hitlerian loyalty oaths, with our hand over our hearts.

We live in what has been touted as a free society and because of that still functioning precept, you are going to have to get used to the idea that people who oppose the colossal pile of rubbish you seem comfortable swallowing, have every right to counter evangelize against the absurd. It is still America after all, so hang up the ploy you have been using, or just plain admit that you are in your heart of hearts, just an uncompromising Inquisitional Christian after all.

Littel I am not trying to defend any religious institutions including my own. Most have at some time or another actually violated the tenets of the very faith they profess. That said for every misery you think you can name I can likely name far more benefits added also an easy sell.

If you want to challenge religion by all means do it. I’ve practically dared you to do it. So far all you’ve done is use ridicule and insults while claiming to be on the logical rational high ground. It’s a free county and you have that right. At no time have I ever demanded anything from you accept that you acknowledge the possibility of God’s existence which you have on more than one occasion despite your attempt to minimize it. I also demanded you accept the reality that logic and reason support neither side in the debate. At no time have I ever suggested your actions not have protection under the law. Your continued claims of unconstitutionality are unfounded and unproven. What you want is to use the government to do what you can not due destroy religion. Your comments about Hitlerian loyalty oaths is equally unfounded and lacking credibility. You carry around far too many bigoted and biased views and lump all who do not share your atheist faith as being the same.

No one in more uncompromising than you. One could even say an uncompromising Inquisitional Atheist. It was you not I who uses ridicule and insults in a weak attempt to force ideology on others. Attacking any and everyone who questions it. You are the one with no tolerance for views other than your won. I’ve worked and associated with atheist with no problems. Your rants are no better than fundamentalist Christian or Muslim ones I’ve responded to at various times. You have to get use to the idea that despite what you believe all religionist as you call us are not the same and you stand on no logical or rational high ground. As I said before the only difference between us is where our faith is placed. Get use to that reality because that is fact regardless of how much you want to deny it and claim otherwise.

I stand on the entire comment. You are so fixated on jumping on anyone who points out the flaws inherent in religious beliefs, that you cannot pass up an opportunity to jump on anyone who dares to do so. Many just give up, leaving the field to you, which is exactly what I accuse you of doing. The difference between you and me is that if proof became evident (real proof) that a god or gods exist, I would be the first in line to embrace the concept, you on the other hand, even if it was possible to prove a negative, would deny the truth because you are already so delusionally committed to superstitionism that you have 'Clayed' out already.

And by the way, the only other nation on Earth that required children to pledge to a flag in school, was the Third Reich.

I expected you would stand on your comment. Close minded fundamentalists usually do that. Exactly what flaws have you pointed out? I don’t ever remember one unless you consider your no proof argument the flaw. Other than that all you’ve done is ridicule and insult. Continuing to claim you have shown any flaw except your own knowledge of logic shows a real steadfast adherence to your own dogma. No one has asked you to prove anything except the assertions you made that God is a made up concept. That all who believe are delusional and that logic and reason support anything you’ve said. That you keep dwelling on real proof shows a lack of what real faith is as well. You seem to be under the impression that faith needs to be proven to your satisfaction to be valid. Let me be clear your acceptance is completely meaningless to anyone except you. The difference between you and me is I can live and treat respectfully those who make the choice not to embrace my faith. Pity you can not say the same.

The pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with religion. In its original form the reference to God wasn’t even included. The original pledge was as follows”

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

Over time it was modified. The words “under God” didn’t even make it in until 1954 I believe. While not a big issue to me you greatly misrepresent what the pledge is when you call it simply a pledge to a flag. Trying to draw comparisons to Nazi Germany is either ignorant on history or an attempt to flame an emotional response. Something you complain the religious right does. Either way it’s not relevant to any discussion of religion or God.

I’m still waiting for that great revelation of flaws you keep talking about. If you think you’ve already accomplished it then that word you use so much “delusional” is a perfect fit for you.

(Clay) Anonymous - At least I have something to stand on besides the accumulated myths and superstitions of our less than intellectual ancestors(ignorantly stupid, as a matter of fact), that have been dogmatized, institutionalized and then mounded into a colossal pile of drek that you then have the temerity to call "ultimate Truth".

As a clarification of a couple of points in history, the unconstitutional inclusion of god advertisements on our money first occurred as a propaganda ploy against the South during the civil war. The first appearance of the absurd slogan was on the 1862 two cent piece. In another propaganda ploy in 1954, the Right-wing Joe McCarthy Congress, authorized its inclusion on paper money, with it fist appearing with the next minor design change in 1957.

As to the reference to Nazi Germany being the only other nation to mandate a pledge to a flag, how else could any other analogy be possible if in fact they were the only other nation to do so?

Littel what exactly do you have to stand on? That based on human reason and logic one can not prove God to your satisfaction. I conceded that point long ago. You are standing on less than I am since you maintain yours is the only logical, rational view. You can’t even prove your accusations of the intellect of our ancestors let alone that religion is an accumulation of myth and superstition. You can’t even rely on your tired excuse of negative proof. You are making a positive assertion that to be valid requires proof. You seem to think your beliefs are the “ultimate truth”. Unlike you I have considered the argument of the other side and find it lacking. If you were so sure of your position you wouldn’t need to use insult and ridicule to try and bully. You would make a dispassionate argument based on reason and logic. Since you can’t you use the only thing you can do ridicule, insult and make emotionally charged outbursts.

I don’t recall defending having references to God on money. I knew what you referring to when you mentioned it. I’m not sure why you want to argue something I agree with you on. The reference shouldn’t be there and I don’t see any conflict with my faith on that. You might want to save that one for fundamentalist Christians.

Ok what exactly is the point of the comparison on the pledge? Why do you focus only on the first six words and ignore the rest. Like I said it is more than a simple pledge to a flag. Like most of your posts you misrepresent to try and make some convoluted point. If you were complaining about God being mentioned I agree it shouldn’t be there. For that matter how many kids really even pay attention when saying the pledge? Considering the pledge has been around since 1892 I don’t see what point you are trying to make other than an irrelevant conclusion that somehow it makes the US like Nazi Germany. That or you are simply trying to move away from the fact that you are standing on opinion and faith and nothing more.