Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

Anyone concerned with this phrase (and other's like it) is on one extreme or the other when it comes to the religious spectrum. For the vast majority of us, the sane ones, it doesn't matter at all. The phrase isn't threatening, offensive, etc. unless we allow it to be.

I suppose JIA's all for it, but I'm not going to be the idiot who tries to argue otherwise, because it's really a non-issue.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion.

Why is the word respecting in quotes?

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Anyone concerned with this phrase (and other's like it) is on one extreme or the other when it comes to the religious spectrum. For the vast majority of us, the sane ones, it doesn't matter at all. The phrase isn't threatening, offensive, etc. unless we allow it to be.

I suppose JIA's all for it, but I'm not going to be the idiot who tries to argue otherwise, because it's really a non-issue.

Congress and Michael Newdow have a problem with the phrase "under God" because they feel that it violates the "establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution. But there is no such animal. The phrase "establishment of religion" is not a stand alone phrase that can be used to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not because it is a dependent phrase. It is dependent on the phrase that precedes it for proper contextual interpretation and understanding.

why the blue text? its annoying

Reading this thread reminded me of a time while I was a Girl Scout leader. One of our sister troops had a little girl who's father didnt want her participating in the Girl Scout Law because it says..

On my honor
I will try to
serve God,
and my country,
to help people
at all times,
and to live
by the Girl Scout Law.



He felt this was 'unconstitutional'.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why is the word respecting in quotes?

For emphasis. But actually the quotes should be on the phrase "make no law."

Originally posted by Shelbert Lemon
Reading this thread reminded me of a time while I was a Girl Scout leader. One of our sister troops had a little girl who's father didnt want her participating in the Girl Scout Law because it says..

On my honor
I will try to
serve God,
and my country,
to help people
at all times,
and to live
by the Girl Scout Law.



He felt this was 'unconstitutional'.

Why? How?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congress and Michael Newdow have a problem with the phrase "under God" because they feel that it violates the "establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution. But there is no such animal. The phrase "establishment of religion" is not a stand alone phrase that can be used to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not because it is a dependent phrase. It is dependent on the phrase that precedes it for proper contextual interpretation and understanding.

Right. Like I said, I'm pretty apathetic about it, though I'm not surprised you "countered" with your opinion anyway.

Well, yeah, it's probably unconstitutional. But even worse the idea of it is extreme bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, yeah, it's probably unconstitutional. But even worse the idea of it is extreme bullshit.

How? Why? Can you explain why you feel this way?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How? Why? Can you explain why you feel this way?

Yeah. You make little children repeat a pledge to your country every day...a pledge they probably don't understand at all. You hammer that believe in their head from an early age, it's just idiotic. A free country that thinks it is the greatest in the world doesn't need to do it. If it is actually the greatest you will realize without being indoctrinated and brought (forced) to pledge allegiance before you even know what allegiance is.

Free, my ass.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congress and Michael Newdow have a problem with the phrase "under God" because they feel that it violates the "establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution. But there is no such animal. The phrase "establishment of religion" is not a stand alone phrase that can be used to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not because it is a dependent phrase. It is dependent on the phrase that precedes it for proper contextual interpretation and understanding.

Precidence is used in order to interpret the constitution. While the strict seperation of church and state is not explicitly written out in the letter of the constitution, it has been adopted by the supreme court as being the way that the ammendment is interpreted. This is how the judical system works as a check and balance on the other systems of government in a democracy.

I feel the way Digi does about the issue as well, but that is the plain and simple answer to why "seperation of church and state" is upheld by your constitution

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why? How? He didnt want his daughter saying she was going to serve God.

That is certainly his constitutional right... though the 'God' part of that Law... is whatever 'God' you believe in...

His case, he didnt believe there is a God and didnt want his daughter saying she would serve something that didnt exist.





As far as the Pledge goes...


Originally posted by Bardock42
A free country that thinks it is the greatest in the world doesn't need to do it. If it is actually the greatest you will realize without being indoctrinated and brought (forced) to pledge allegiance before you even know what allegiance is.

I have to agree with you here.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

Because you're mixing religion directly in with Government.

Would you not get your panties in a bunch if the Pledge was suddenly changed to "One Nation under Allah, who's one true prophet is Mohammad"? Yeah, I think you would; you'd also be crying about "Freedom of Religion".

"~Save Earth.. Its the only planet with chocolate!~"

The phrase doesn't bother me

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

It all depends on what is meant by the word God. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not talking about the bible god. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me. In America we have the right to view the word God in any way we wish too. The word God can even be viewed from an Atheistic point of view as meaning the laws of nature or science.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by the word God. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not talking about the bible god. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me. In America we have the right to view the word God in any way we wish too. The word God can even be viewed from an Atheistic point of view as meaning the laws of nature or science.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion clause (althoug there is no such animal).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by the word God. If I say the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not talking about the bible god. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me. In America we have the right to view the word God in any way we wish too. The word God can even be viewed from an Atheistic point of view as meaning the laws of nature or science.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion (not nature or whatever someone wants it to mean) clause, although there is no such animal.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Congress and Michael Newdow have a problem with the phrase "under God" because they feel that it violates the "establishment of religion" clause in the Constitution. But there is no such animal. The phrase "establishment of religion" is not a stand alone phrase that can be used to decide whether something is unconstitutional or not because it is a dependent phrase. It is dependent on the phrase that precedes it for proper contextual interpretation and understanding.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals thinks otherwise. It has declared the daily recitation of the Pledge to be unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "under God." It believes that the phrase violates the establishment of religion clause (althoug there is no such animal).

Ya, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is very liberal, and has made many controversial judgments.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
(althoug there is no such animal). But if there was it would have evolved.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is very liberal, and has made many controversial judgments.

So then it has misapplied the First Amendment?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then it has misapplied the First Amendment?



Along with other things.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Very true, and the word God does not establish any religion. However, if Atheism became a religion, then there might be a case for religious discrimination.

So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?



Fun how the legal system works ain't it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fun how the legal system works ain't it.

(yup!)

I am going to Law School.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So then the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal--in their effort to protect one person's right--has actually violated someone else's (i.e. freedom of speech/religion)?



You would have to ask a lawyer.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not in favor of the Pledge of Allegiance mentioning God or not I am simply asking what you feel about this controversial subject. I am indifferent on the issue. I find that hard to believe since you have said that the Constitution mentions the Christian god but that is neither hear or there. Just when I took my oath you can omit that part out so it is not required.

Originally posted by inimalist
Precidence is used in order to interpret the constitution. While the strict seperation of church and state is not explicitly written out in the letter of the constitution, it has been adopted by the supreme court as being the way that the ammendment is interpreted. This is how the judical system works as a check and balance on the other systems of government in a democracy.

I feel the way Digi does about the issue as well, but that is the plain and simple answer to why "seperation of church and state" is upheld by your constitution

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

Congress had no part in applying religion to the Pledge. That was Eisenhower's doing. "Under God" was added by Eisenhower after Congress had already approved the fourth or fifth version of it, which made no mention of god. Later, it was the Supreme Court that upheld the seperation of church and state by decreeing that it was a violation of a child's rights to make the pledge recitation mandatory.

Besides, all the pledge started out as was propoganda aimed at children.

Originally posted by Devil King
Congress had no part in applying religion to the Pledge. That was Eisenhower's doing. "Under God" was added by Eisenhower after Congress had already approved the fourth or fifth version of it, which made no mention of god. Later, it was the Supreme Court that upheld the seperation of church and state by decreeing that it was a violation of a child's rights to make the pledge recitation mandatory.

Besides, all the pledge started out as was propoganda aimed at children.

We just need to convert all the children to Buddhism. Then we will not have a problem.

The phrase does not bother me at all. It's a simple tradition, it is not harmful, and it does not threaten my life, comfort, or beleifs.


However, I understand why it bothers others, and I don't think someone should be compelled to say something they don't want to say. I don't understand why it's okay for the Pledge of Allegiance to be pushed with the "God" Phrase in Public School, but then it's wrong for a Muslim student to pray to Allah in class, or to bring the Quran to school.


I just find that very hypocritical. Whenever a Christian is restricted to what he or she can do in public school, it becomes national outrage, but when a Muslim wants to practice in school, no one cares.



If Christianity, in any form, can be pushed or exist in Public Schools, then every other religion should have the same freedoms.


I hate that. It's rediculous how Christianity gets a free bee in a non-religious establishment, like Public Schools, but religions such as Islam and Wicca become taboo. That's hypocrisy

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Originally posted by Alliance
Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear. Or thrown out altogether.

Originally posted by Alliance
Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Then everyone should say "under Gods".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then everyone should say "under Gods".

That implies that there are multiple.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That implies that there are multiple.

Ya, and it would piss off any fundy next to you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, and it would piss off any fundy next to you.

Nah, Hindu fundies would get a blast out of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, Hindu fundies would get a blast out of it.

Is there such a thing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is there such a thing?

Well....probably?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is there such a thing?

All religions have fundies.

Most cerintainly. There is a large Hindu fundamentalist movement, just not so much in the US.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then everyone should say "under Gods".

It still implies there are gods.

The pledge should be returned to the historic "One Nation Indivisable"

and the National motto returned to "E Pluribis, Unum"

And its no wonder that the nation is falling apart. These to phrases are needed more now than ever. Too bad we've forgotten about them and have replaced them with the politically motivated, non-representative, mythological statement about "god."

God loves you Alliance, even if no one else does 131

Originally posted by Alliance
Most cerintainly. There is a large Hindu fundamentalist movement, just not so much in the US.


It still implies there are gods.

The pledge should be returned to the historic "One Nation Indivisable"

and the National motto returned to "E Pluribis, Unum"

And its no wonder that the nation is falling apart. These to phrases are needed more now than ever. Too bad we've forgotten about them and have replaced them with the politically motivated, non-representative, mythological statement about "god."

I wouldn't care one way or the other. Words are just words. It all depends on what people do with them.

"These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded." -Dwight Eisenhower when he had "under god" added to the pledge in 1954.

131wank

It's awesome that's an issue, when every year, close to 1/3rd of 18 year olds do not finish high school.

Originally posted by Alliance


The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

Those damn Knights of Columbus!

I feel it was merely a gimmick to seperate us from the godless commies back in the 50's.

Edit: Also it doesn't specify which god it was recognizing, which is most likely for the benefit of allowing the people to associate their own god with the nation, which means that it isn't favoring a specific religion. The only people it would be unconstitutional to are atheists.

Originally posted by Impediment
"These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded." -Dwight Eisenhower when he had "under god" added to the pledge in 1954.

131wank

How is that superior to "one nation indivisable?" Especially when that specific "under God" phrase was in itself divisive?

tsk tsk

Originally posted by fini
tsk tsk

I could just see you wagging your finger.

*nuh uh gurlfriend*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Words are just words. It all depends on what people do with them.

That would be exactly his point.

Originally posted by Devil King
That would be exactly his point.

Should I disagree with him because of who he is?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Should I disagree with him because of who he is? Well, yeah...to be honest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, yeah...to be honest.

I did hesitate, but...

Originally posted by Alliance
Adding the phrase "under God" estabishes religion by claiming there is one god.

The pledge should be retruned to its ORGINAL and HISTORIC text and not some bastardized cold war legisislation of fear.

(Excuse my parsing) Establishing a religion is not unconstitutional (in the strictest interpretation of the Constitution), but making a law that respects an establishment of religion would be unconstitutional. Besides, what is wrong with establishing a religion?

No law can be made establishing a religion, therefore a religion cannot be established by law, therefore cannot be established by the state.

Besides, I think the national religion should be Islam. It provides the best opportunities for this nation to move forward. I'm sure you don't object.

Originally posted by Alliance
No law can be made establishing a religion, therefore a religion cannot be established by law, therefore cannot be established by the state.

Besides, I think the national religion should be Islam. It provides the best opportunities for this nation to move forward. I'm sure you don't object.

No law can be made respecting an establishment of religion is a more accurate rendering of the First Amendment.

Why are you sure that I don't object?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you feel that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment? How or why do you feel this way? The First Amendment does not say that religious terminology cannot exist in the Pledge of Allegiance it simply states that Congress shall not make any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. So, based on that criterion how does the Pledge of Allegiance violate the First Amendment clause, and thus the Constitution?

The Pledge of Allegiance is not a law that has been made by Congress or is it?

As Robin Williams pointed out -

One nation under Canada, above Mexico.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No law can be made respecting an establishment of religion is a more accurate rendering of the First Amendment.

Why are you sure that I don't object?

So, basically that means that the government can't respect Christianity.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, basically that means that the government can't respect Christianity.

Neither can they hate it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither can they hate it.



Hate it? Why not?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hate it? Why not?

The First Amendment prevents them (freedom of religion).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The First Amendment prevents them (freedom of religion).

Does freedom of religion also include freedom from religion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Does freedom of religion also include freedom from religion?

If the individual so wishes, yes.

Originally posted by Devil King
If the individual so wishes, yes.

But I wanted an answer from JIA.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither can they hate it.

How does the government hate religion? Oh wait...they don't.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither can they hate it.

They can hate it all they want, nothing says that they can't.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
They can hate it all they want, nothing says that they can't.

By the same token, nothing says that they can.

And this conversational exchange is exactly why the constitutional authors said the government and religion had no buisness being involved with one another.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
By the same token, nothing says that they can.

The constitution also does not explicitly give you the right to have children.

Originally posted by Alliance
The constitution also does not explicitly give you the right to have children.

Neither does it prohibit me.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither does it prohibit me.

You are now arguing about nothing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither does it prohibit me.

Exactly Shakya's point.

You have a double standard. Therfore one of your arguments is invalid.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Neither does it prohibit me. Nore does it deny me the right to cover myself in whip cream and slap you with a wet noodle.

It should say the same.If the o ld presidents saw how america is now they would turn in there grave.So I suggust we leave it alone.jm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It should say the same.If the o ld presidents saw how america is now they would turn in there grave.So I suggust we leave it alone.jm
ADarksideJedi, read a little about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It should say the same.If the o ld presidents saw how america is now they would turn in there grave.So I suggust we leave it alone.jm

What do you know about the presidents? Who cares? Maybe the pledge should have stayed how it was written instead of being bastardized by the religious right for a political game?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
ADarksideJedi, read a little about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

One nation under God.






http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Nicely poetic.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nicely poetic.

...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all






http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587086.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=586713&pagenumber=7#post14512113

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510871 (click here if you can handle the Truth)

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510888

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t587049.html

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510387#post14510387

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=14510685#post14510685

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510714

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=587086&pagenumber=1#post14510772

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah. You make little children repeat a pledge to your country every day...a pledge they probably don't understand at all. You hammer that believe in their head from an early age, it's just idiotic. A free country that thinks it is the greatest in the world doesn't need to do it. If it is actually the greatest you will realize without being indoctrinated and brought (forced) to pledge allegiance before you even know what allegiance is.

Free, my ass.

I don't see anyone complaining about school teachers and textbooks hammering the lie of evolutionary theory into children's heads from an early age, or it being idiotic.

Why not be fair in your condemnation or criticism?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't see anyone complaining about school teachers and textbooks hammering the lie of evolutionary theory into children's heads from an early age, or it being idiotic.

Why not be fair in your condemnation or criticism?

To learn "the lie of evolutionary theory" you have to be home schooled.

Very simply, it's called "Separation of Church and State."

I remember the good times, when Shakya and I used to talk touched

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don't see anyone complaining about school teachers and textbooks hammering the lie of evolutionary theory into children's heads from an early age, or it being idiotic.

Why not be fair in your condemnation or criticism?

Well I said that six years ago, but I'd say that evolution is a fact and an important part of a full education that any child deserves and any society needs.

While the pledge of allegiance is used to indoctrinate people to the status quo and teaches not to question authority or think critically. And is also a bit silly. Like, when North Korea does something like that we are like "those crazies, of course they'd have their children chant this ridiculous nationalistic bs".

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Very simply, it's called "Separation of Church and State." But then, how will Jesus collect his tax?

Jesus charges interest.

1 Eukanobians 13:37 - "And ye shall giveth me my due, lest I stab a *****."

Oh, the JESUS tax. Isn't he supposed to be happy with only all our love, trust, loyalty, and immortal souls?

No, he wants your hard-earned money too. But the one thing he does give is his conditional love and saves you from a Hell made by his father.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
No, he wants your hard-earned money too. But the one thing he does give is his conditional love and saves you from a Hell made by his father.

Jesus was pore.

Which is odd, because carpenters can make some good cash.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Jesus was pore. That explains his black head.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Which is odd, because carpenters can make some good cash.

Are we talking real or fantasy? Sometimes I can't tell with you.

@Lord Lucien What do you mean?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are we talking real or fantasy? Sometimes I can't tell with you.

@Lord Lucien What do you mean?

That's the beauty of the internet.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
That's the beauty of the internet.

I'm not getting it.

Exactly.

And carpenters in a union typically get good pay. My best friend was a journeyman and he made insane cash until he had to stop due to health

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Exactly.

And carpenters in a union typically get good pay. My best friend was a journeyman and he made insane cash until he had to stop due to health

Ok, ok. That just gave me an idea. I wonder if Jesus was trying to form a union, but didn't know what it was called?

"Congregation" sounds close enough. Jesus was the Jimmy Hoffa of Antiquity.

America is a Christian nation.