"I don't define the Constitution narrowly at all, which I believe is a good thing -- because it makes it possible for me to justify not wanting a national motto like 'America: For Christians Only.'"

That's possibly the most illogical thing you've said so far. You're ignoring the most fitting and logical definition of the wording of the law in order to support your FEELINGS.

Actually, that's exactly what YOU'RE doing. In saying that "America: For Christians Only" is unconstitutional, but "under God" is NOT, you're basing that purely on a feeling that the former is somehow more oppressive than the latter, despite the fact that neither actually mandates worship.

The difference is that a loose interpretation of the Constitution makes it possible to say, quite easily, that the former phrase clearly violates the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, even if it falls within the limits set up by the Constitution, and it's possible that the second one does not.

--------

I'm also justifying my feelings, but I believe I am more justified because my argument is more logical, since it relies on a more literal interpretation of the law and not one that I've twisted to support myself. Your interpretation of the first amendment simply has no logical basis unless we assume it's a fact that religion and government should never touch.

So if murder were legal, and some people wanted murder made illegal because they knew some serial killers that they personally disliked and wanted to hurt, would that mean that we should keep murder legal just to prevent these peoples' "victory?"

And how much have you dodged or simply ignored? My argument may not be perfect, but it's certainly got more of a basis than yours.

"Out of interest, where did I ever state my interpretation of the First Amendment? I don't recall ever interpreting it here for you, and you seem to be making an assumption -- that I don't believe religion has any role in government -- which is completely erroneous."

Your interpretation is implicit. I wasn't assuming that you believe that religion has no role in government. I was only saying that the only logical basis for your argument would be to assume as fact the necessity of a much stronger separation of church and state than that described in the Constitution.

"It constitutes a blatant promotion of a specific religion."

Remind me again: what specific religion does it promote? All of Judeo-Christianity? Even just Christianity by itself isn't specific.

"If a law is flawed -- and was created for impure motives -- then it should be removed from the books."

The fact that we're having this debate shows that the Constitution is obviously flawed and needs further amendment. If the pledge is so morally wrong (but very arguably constitutional), then the Constitution should be changed.

"But, if it was removed now, it would be an attack on Christianity because the only reason there is a problem in the first place is most atheists and some agnostics want religion completely removed from all types of mottos, laws, documents. The fact that it is [supposedly(edit)] unconstitutional is only a disguise of their true motive."

Removing "under god" is not an attack on Christianity. It is a defense from Christianity. "Under god" was specifically put into the pledge for the purpose of:

* The inclusion of God in our pledge therefore would further acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon the moral directions of the Creator. At the same time it would serve to deny the atheistic and materialistic concepts of communism with its attendant subservience of the individual. - H.R. 1693, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954)*

This statement, as well as George Bush Sr.'s serves to prove that the reason "under God was placed into the pledge was to deny atheists our right as equal citizens of the U.S.

Jon Boy's arguments are equally specious. Sorry guys, you're wrong. And it's obvious why you're wrong. You simply want your version to be true.

But I'm smart enough to realize that closed minded people like you aren't willing to look at it from any but the narrowest and self serving viewpoint. Removing "under God" hurts no one.

Is Christianity actually attacking you? With no evidence to support you, that's an incredibly weak and illogical argument.

"Jon Boy's arguments are equally specious."

Do I have any reason to believe that yours aren't specious?

"Sorry guys, you're wrong."

Well, I can't argue with logic like that.

"You simply want your version to be true."

And you don't simply want yours to be true?

"But I'm smart enough to realize that closed minded people like you aren't willing to look at it from any but the narrowest and self serving viewpoint."

Give yourself a pat on the back. You hit the nail right on the head. I'm just narrow-minded and self-serving. I'm not at all interested the integrity of the Constitution. You saw right through me. You're obviously right, because you instantly stigmatize anyone who disagrees with you.

"I guess I'll go away again."

Come back when you can contribute something other than slander and circular arguments.

Does that make sense? Let me summarize.

Separation of church and state = Bad.
"Under God" in Pledge of allegiance = Constitutional.
First amendment = Mostly good, but could use some further amending to clarify. Until then, it's best to stick to the law rather than twist it so that it means what we want it to mean.

I just don't believe that religion and politics CAN be or SHOULD be fully separated, unless you expect politicians to remove religious beliefs from themselves when making political decisions. That's just not possible, and it would persecute those who didn't forsake their beliefs. I think we need a certain degree of separation between church and state, but not to the extent of declaring the pledge, oaths of office, and prayers in school to be illegal.

Don't worry. It seems like we still agree.

Jonboy, the founding fathers made the constitution intentionally vague, and they also intentionally made the amendment process pretty difficult. The two go hand in hand. This is why the document has lasted for 200+ years. Other countries have had to throw out their constitutions and start from scratch.

Take the Texas State constitution. It's been amended hundreds of times. every other election it seems that there is a new amendment on the ballot.

Don't state your OPINIONS as if they're facts please.

And sometimes, it is an enemy. Take the second amendment, for example. A peoples' "right" to bear arms is being called into question by a surprising percentage of Americans.

I blame poor education.

I stand in favour of a peoples' right to bear arms, because I know my history.

I think that people should have the right to bear a firearm, and I also think that the concealed carry license is a good thing.

I did a quick search on google, and came up with the following link:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

quote:

---

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

---

If most criminals aren't buying their guns from reputable law abiding dealers, then outlawing guns will do next to nothing to curb firearm related crimes. Thus, it is reasonable for the average citizen to be able to purchase a firearm for protection.

Now this opinion probably isn't terribly surprising coming from a texan(me), but it's the way I feel about it. Personally, I will probably never own a gun. I don't think I could ever bring myself to shoot another human being, but if I were to buy a gun, I would make damn sure I knew how to use it and that I achieved fair proficiency using it to minimize the capacity for an accident.

I don't think getting rid of guns is the way to go. Instead, let's educate the consumers, and work on getting rid of those illegal dealers.

[edited to correct grammar and capitalization]

[Cont. previous post]

If the people who stand for gun-control laws also stand in favour of a "flexible" interpretation of the Constitution, we have a problem here.

A "flexible" view of the Constitution, without actual amending done, defeats the entire point of the Constitution itself. The Constitution's role is to RESTRICT government, to keep it in it's rightful and important position: to protect the people from each other. A strict interpretation of the Constitution by the government fulfills the government's highest priority: to protect the people from itself.

If a strict interpretation is favoured, weapons should never be needed in civilian hands.

However! If the Constitution is not adhered to, to the letter, the government now no longer protects The People from itself, and they (we) are left defenseless against the most powerful and successful government since Rome.

It is important to see weapons, not as a defense against fellow man (though such is often their use) , but as a failsafe against corruption and a defense against a lawless government.

-Abyss

...you know arms MEANS guns, right?...