Pledge of Allegiance: unconstitutional

[Cantacuzene]

Just saw it on CNN, post a link later.

[NuTs62]

Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html)

June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.

"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal.

But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."

[Y2J]

I agree. they should get rid of under god. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. take it off the coins and bills too. I always hated that part of the pledge, about time the country agreed

[CornMonkey]

iiiiiinteresting...

[CluelessSi]

hmmmmm I use to agree to that and questioned the teachers about it... They told me pretty much that I didn't have to say it if I didn't want to...

I realized later that it is just an expression. It is nothing to get overly upset over because it is a kind of figurehead. just a symbol... it is silly to eliminate it...

I was an athiest back then.. but if you think about it, you can't really eliminate any form of religious expressions from our speech and culture! just like sneezing.. and other things... just as morals are based on religious right and wrongs... that can't be ripped out of the government or else there is no government..

just my 2cents...

[hapoo]

:disa: Who gives a crap if it says "under god". Don't people have other stuff to worry about?

[Y2J]

Originally posted by CluelessSi
just as morals are based on religious right and wrongs... that can't be ripped out of the government or else there is no government..

They should be ripped out. the morals the goverment should use should be basic ones. if you cause harm to someone, you go to jail. if what your doing does not hurt anyone but yourself. if it hurts yourself, ie smoking cigarettes, etc, its your body and shouldnt be controlled. we should not have religion in our laws at all

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by hapoo
:disa: Who gives a crap if it says "under god". Don't people have other stuff to worry about?

well, if we don't have anything frivolous to bring up in court, then what good are lawyers? :P

[Speedfreak]

Change it to "one nation, under the influence" Whether it be sex, drugs, or rock and roll! http://www.smilies.nl/muziek/music049.gif

[sbp]

These fscking courts are out of control. This moron judge has his idiotic head up his stank ass so far he can see daylight from his mouth.

[johnnymk]

Just one more sign of the complete and total moral decay of America.

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Just one more sign of the complete and total moral decay of America.

you got that right. What's this country coming too?

[whitak24]

I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision, and I hope that it is held up under appeal.

I am a Christian, and I am also a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. Christianity has always had its fastest growth in an environment where it was not supported by the governing state. Likewise, the most robust states function apart from religion.

This does not mean that there is not a place for moral, christian people in government. It does not mean that the government is trying to abolish all religion.

Rather, it indicates that the pledge of allegiance will no longer push a particular religious belief on everyone who tries to pledge themselves the U.S. flag.

The point of the pledge is to show support of the United States' Flag and, by extension, the nation itself. NOT to God. That's what we have churches for.

People should be able to pledge support of our country, founded upon the secular (anti-religious, even) philosophy of Hobbes and Locke without proclaiming a belief in a "god" who watches over nations. If I want to do that, I can do it in my home or in my church. But it should not be part of official rituals.

[Memo]

This is some mother****ing god damned bull****.


Ok so. I'm not a Christian at all in anyway or even religious so you'd think i'd be offended by it, but no. This decision by the court is repealing part of our CULTURE. This country was founded on these ideals and some little ****er gets offended and wants to go complain? If you don't like it, don't say it! I hope this decision gets repealed.

[JPR]

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

So does this mean that students will no longer be required to learn what we base our independence on? And if it is illegal to pledge our allegiance to a country using the word "God" then declaring independence under the same term should also be deemed illegal.

[hapoo]

if theres anything they should go after its the schools that refuse to teach evolution!

[sbp]

Originally posted by JPR
So does this mean that students will no longer be required to learn what we base our independence on? And if it is illegal to pledge our allegiance to a country using the word "God" then declaring independence under the same term should also be deemed illegal. It could happen. No doubt that would please these dips.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html

Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."

"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.

"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"

The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

No surprise it came out of San Francisco. You know its bad when even liberals like Rep. Richard Gephardt blast this boneheaded move. :dodgy:

[CornMonkey]

evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."

just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...

[hapoo]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."

just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...


With one major exception. Its science, based on evidence. Since when did we stop teaching theories in school??

[soong]

Originally posted by CornMonkey
evolution is, in itself, just a belief as any other religion--a theory at best. it is deemed by many as the "scientist's religion."

just as christianity, islam, judaism, etc. can be taught in public schools solely with a disclaimer as it being just "one of many" beliefs and not "THE belief" i say let teachers teach evolution if they want...

To be honest thats very true...i think they should always include "theory" when teaching evolution....

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by hapoo



With one major exception. Its science, based on evidence. Since when did we stop teaching theories in school??

my bad, i should've been more clear in my post..

the big bang theory is often associated with the broader scope of evolution. that's why i say it should be taught with a disclaimer. when i said 'evolution,' i was including the big bang theory. trying to teach the validity of this is as feasible as trying to teach the validity of any other religion...

now there is absolutely no scientific evidence for a 'something from nothing' theory such as the big bang theory. and as far as i'm on the topic, there's no real substantial evidence for the 'homosapiens formed from amoeba' theory as well. there's evidence for micro-evolution, or adaptation, but none for the latter.

[jase71]

Originally posted by whitak24
I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision, and I hope that it is held up under appeal.

<rest snipped for brevity>



:eek:

I wish I'd written that. Well said, Whitak.

I wouldn't have taken this issue this far, if it were my case. I think it's a little silly, and nit-picking more than a little. There are about a billion more important issues going on in the world right now.

But I agree with the gist of the decision. This is a pledge of allegiance, not to God, but to the United States of America. Pledging your allegiance to one of them does not automatically assume allegiance to the other.

To simplify, let's alter it a little. Who among us would proudly stand up and recite the pledge if it contained the line "one nation, under Satan"? Or "under Vishnu"? Or "under Buddha?"

Would it just be an expression then? Just a figure of speech? Or would it bother you that in order to recite the pledge, you had to admit the existence and authority of a deity you don't believe in?

The Pledge didn't always contain the "under God" phrase. It was added in 1954. By removing it, we'd merely be reverting to the pledge as it was originally written. No great loss of tradition there. If anything, we'd be restoring tradition.

America is a land of religious freedom, or so we hope. Our loyalty to our country does not hinge upon our belief in God, no matter how generically you choose to define Him. And the millions of non-christians in America should not be forced to ponder whether their loyalty is tarnished or second class because they don't believe in the God of the Pledge.

Belief in God is an intensely personal thing, and it may be a driving force behind one's loyalty to the United States. But merely because our loyalty is rooted in Christianity does not mean we should expect or demand that the loyalty of others have the same foundation.

[soong]

here here... i just wish there were more christians like jase and whitak i mean...i'm square dab in the bible belt...and this religious fervor seems to invade ...everything...

[jase71]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

the big bang theory is often associated with the broader scope of evolution. that's why i say it should be taught with a disclaimer. when i said 'evolution,' i was including the big bang theory.

The two are entirely seperate theories, and don't depend on each other. It's entirely possible that one of them is true, and the other is false. Proving or disproving one of them does not prove or disprove the other.

I've never been in a class where they weren't clearly labeled as theories. It's easy to see how they've changed to fit new data over time, so they obviously can't yet be classified as "laws" or "facts".

[hapoo]

Originally posted by jase71

To simplify, let's alter it a little. Who among us would proudly stand up and recite the pledge if it contained the line "one nation, under Satan"? Or "under Vishnu"? Or "under Buddha?"



god Pronunciation Key (gd)
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.


not to nitpick myself but the word "GOD" in the english language is NOT a Christian thing so there a HUGE difference between "under god" and "under Buddha".

[jase71]

Originally posted by hapoo

not to nitpick myself but the word "GOD" in the english language is NOT a Christian thing so there a HUGE difference between "under god" and "under Buddha".

And are all religions based on a single "god"? Or are some based on many gods, or even NO gods?

Merely using the word "god" narrows the scope, and eliminates some religions from inclusion.

Add to this that "god" is usually capitalized to "God", and the implication is obviously that the Judeo-Christian god is the one being referred to. Add to this Eisenhower's quote after the addition of the phrase, and the meaning of "God" is perfectly clear. "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

It's not about being Christian or non-Christian. It's about being inclusive or exclusive. By using the term at all, we exclude any religion that does not fall under the defintion of monotheism.

[DoPeY5007]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html)

June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.
I always skip that part when I say it...




it is about time this is happening

[sbp]

Some dummies skip the whole Pledge of Allegiance. :dodgy:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
These fscking courts are out of control. This moron judge has his idiotic head up his stank ass so far he can see daylight from his mouth.

He is probably a COMMIE. :hihi:

[sbp]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


He is probably a COMMIE. :hihi: I like the way you think. You forgot stinking before Commie though. :heh:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
I like the way you think. You forgot stinking before Commie though. :heh:

Too bad I was being sarcastic! :P

As far as my personal opinions on the matter, I am in almost complete agreement with jase71 and whitak24. For me, the bottom line is, NO ONE should be made to swear any pledge to a religious belief that is not their own.

[mojo]

Originally posted by hapoo
not to nitpick myself but the word "GOD" in the english language is NOT a Christian thing so there a HUGE difference between "under god" and "under Buddha". damn, you beat me to it.

however, saying that part and not meaning it is insincere or going through the motions. i can't see a reason for just not saying that part for the sake of the rest being sincere or whatever.

[mojo]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


Too bad I was being sarcastic! :P

As far as my personal opinions on the matter, I am in almost complete agreement with jase71 and whitak24. For me, the bottom line is, NO ONE should be made to swear any pledge to a religious belief that is not their own. it would be great to hear a kid saying the "under god" part and the next kid over saying "under the goddess" (wiccan) or some variation :hehehmm:

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by UT Memo
This is some mother****ing god damned bull****.


Ok so. I'm not a Christian at all in anyway or even religious so you'd think i'd be offended by it, but no. This decision by the court is repealing part of our CULTURE. This country was founded on these ideals and some little ****er gets offended and wants to go complain? If you don't like it, don't say it! I hope this decision gets repealed.


Kids have been punished at school, and sent home because they didn't wish to say the pledge of the allegiance. Its easy to say, just don't say it, but tell that to all the teachers, who say its mandatory!

I'm Christian, but I guess I'm kinda in the balance as to which side I'm on regarding this decision.

As many have probably pointed out in this thread already, there is seperation between church and state. People have the freedom of religion. I'm not sure about way back when, but today, the government isn't supposed to sponser any religion. IMO, by having anything associating with "under god" or any references to God.. when using the currency.. by using it, we are endorsing the "In God We Trust" that is stated on every currency in the U.S.. Nobody should be stuffing any religion down someone else's throat. Our country is a melting pot of many religions.. Should we allow other religions to create their own currency and have it say "In Buddha We Trust", "In Allah We Trust", etc..?

Children should have the right to choose. Though yeah, it is a shame that we may perhaps have to change our Pledge of Allegiance, to respect people of all faiths, it is one extra step towards equality.


And on another note.. back when I was in elementary through high school, i felt it wasn't fair to some other people that certain songs were sang in choir. Not everyone believed in God, and they shouldn't be asked to sing those songs. It'd be easy to say, they shouldn't sing then. But hey, some teachers penalize people who don't sing. So what choice do they have?


I think this is a good wake up call for many.

[CluelessSi]

Originally posted by Y2J


They should be ripped out. the morals the goverment should use should be basic ones. if you cause harm to someone, you go to jail. if what your doing does not hurt anyone but yourself. if it hurts yourself, ie smoking cigarettes, etc, its your body and shouldnt be controlled. we should not have religion in our laws at all
.... :rolleyes: .... i guess second hand smoke is not an issue...:heh:

[CluelessSi]

Originally posted by whitak24
I wholeheartedly agree with the court's decision, and I hope that it is held up under appeal.

I am a Christian, and I am also a strong supporter of the separation of church and state. Christianity has always had its fastest growth in an environment where it was not supported by the governing state. Likewise, the most robust states function apart from religion.

This does not mean that there is not a place for moral, christian people in government. It does not mean that the government is trying to abolish all religion.

Rather, it indicates that the pledge of allegiance will no longer push a particular religious belief on everyone who tries to pledge themselves the U.S. flag.

The point of the pledge is to show support of the United States' Flag and, by extension, the nation itself. NOT to God. That's what we have churches for.

People should be able to pledge support of our country, founded upon the secular (anti-religious, even) philosophy of Hobbes and Locke without proclaiming a belief in a "god" who watches over nations. If I want to do that, I can do it in my home or in my church. But it should not be part of official rituals.


hmm... i partially disagree with that... I am also a christian.. and in the bible it teaches us the exact obedience in social order. and obediance in the Law is also pleasing to God.
Also it is not nessarily one particular religion... most religions have a enitiy they call god... it is kinda a symbol in this case... it also prevents the nation from being too arrogant i personally think.. to know that there is a need to be united. :shrug:

[LPMiller]

You people need to make up your mind. You ask what's the big deal with having God in there, yet you don't ask what the big deal is by not having God in there.

Let's turn this around a bit. It IS a violation of the constitution, because it is a US sanctioned pledge that supports A god - doesn't matter in the least what God they mean, though we all know what God they meant in '54. How is it patriotic then to repeatedly violate a basic tenant of the constitution?

Not having God in there has nothing to do with the moral fiber of America, any more than having God in there will suddenly make it more likely that kids will grow up christian, get God to like America better. While I personally don't care if it is in there or not, legally, it shouldn't be. EOD.

[CluelessSi]

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.



it is not a big deal i guess to take it out or not it is just if u take out one then why not all... then it gets to be maybe some people are doing it just to get thier name out.. :shrug: anyway I just noticed... church and state... is that not a bit suggesting one particular group of religions.. not every religion has a church... maybe the constitution is prejudice... :eek: the list goes on and on....

[Burzhui]

Originally posted by hapoo
:disa: Who gives a crap if it says "under god". Don't people have other stuff to worry about?

i'm with you on this one

[LPMiller]

it will get overturned anyway.

[molecularfire]

hmm... i partially disagree with that... I am also a christian.. and in the bible it teaches us the exact obedience in social order. and obediance in the Law is also pleasing to God.
Also it is not nessarily one particular religion... most religions have a enitiy they call god... it is kinda a symbol in this case... it also prevents the nation from being too arrogant i personally think.. to know that there is a need to be united.

In that case, why don't we just repeal the separation of church and state thing? Why keep that farce up?

[CluelessSi]

Originally posted by molecularfire


In that case, why don't we just repeal the separation of church and state thing? Why keep that farce up?


hmm as i was wondering before... why do they say "church" and state... very interesting.. the constitution itself is prejudice eh.. or maybe the constitution is un-constitutional :eek: haha err... that doesn't make sense.... =P

[jase71]

Originally posted by CluelessSi



hmm as i was wondering before... why do they say "church" and state... very interesting.. the constitution itself is prejudice eh.. or maybe the constitution is un-constitutional :eek: haha err... that doesn't make sense.... =P

As I recall, the "church and state" phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. It's something that was pulled from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution, when discussing the role of religion in government.

The separation issue is addressed in the Constitution as part of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The meaning of that seems pretty clear to me. Government has no business promoting religion, even in a vague and non-offensive way. Hence Jefferson's "wall" between church and state.

Religion is mentioned in the Constitution. "Church" is not. So the Constitution isn't unconstitutional.

[Grimm]

I would think that the first people that would want seperation of church and state would be the Christians. After centuries of abuse and control by religiously influnced governments, someone finaly said enough! They created a new nation with the freedoms that they wanted for themselves and their decendants. They knew that people had to chose Christianity for themselves, not have it thrust upon them. And they wanted to teach their children their own beliefs, not the ones held by whoever hapened to be in power at the moment. Face it, there are many different forms of Christianity that just don't agree with each other.

There was no "Under God" in the original pledge because they didn't want it there. They wanted to be sure that everyone understood that our government held no divine right to rule... the power was entirey granted, and controlled, by the people. They didn't want any religious influence in the government that would affect people. Our governing body is supposed to be an entirely administrative affair. The president is supposed to be a chief executive, not a role model.

Any time someone tries to add more God to government it is only proof that they do not understand, that they are NOT patriots. That they want to take away some of the freedom of choice and give more control over the people to the government.

The relationship with God is a personal relationship between God and an individual. Please, introduce him to your friends, relatives and neighbors... it's your responsability to do so as a Christian. But don't push him on people who chose not to know him, even He doesn't want that. He wants people to accept him by choice, not by intimidation and pressure from government.

Adding God to government does not promote social morals. It promotes social decay. Character is built by exercising choices. Adding laws that support Christian morals is like wearing a back brace all the time. It might prop up your back, but the muscles are getting weaker and weaker because they are not being used.

This became a great Christian nation not by trying to be a Christian nation, but by being great Christian people living in a free nation.

Ok, I think I am wandering... I'll shut up now...

[CornMonkey]

Originally posted by Grimm
grimm's speech
:neartears
wow, i was moved by that...

[CluelessSi]

Originally posted by jase71


As I recall, the "church and state" phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution. It's something that was pulled from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Constitution, when discussing the role of religion in government.

The separation issue is addressed in the Constitution as part of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The meaning of that seems pretty clear to me. Government has no business promoting religion, even in a vague and non-offensive way. Hence Jefferson's "wall" between church and state.

Religion is mentioned in the Constitution. "Church" is not. So the Constitution isn't unconstitutional.
that is what i thought... i wondered why ppl keep refering to church and state =P hmm i sometimes wonder if religion is a broad enough or too broad a term... yea i like deep useless thinking :P

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by molecularfire


In that case, why don't we just repeal the separation of church and state thing? Why keep that farce up?

if we were to repeal that, would you think that every religion had equal representation? In our country, majority usually wins. With the majority of the population is a certain religion, don't you think that some religions would be left out?

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by CornMonkey

:neartears
wow, i was moved by that...

:stupid: :stupid: couldn't agree more. :)

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html)

June 26, 2002 Posted: 3:04 PM EDT (1904 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the phrase amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The appeals said that when President Eisenhower signed the legislation inserting "under God" after the words "one nation," he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge dismissed his lawsuit, but the 9th Circuit ordered that the case proceed to trial.

"I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

The government had argued that the religious content of "one nation under God" is minimal.

But the appeals court said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
Is this guy athiest? or what? This whole ruling is very upsetting to me................. :( What this is really about is the power of the conceited right to force others to accept their views.
Using some logic, a majority-Islamic school should be able to force the Christian kids to say "...one nation, under Allah...". The founders put what they meant into the constitution in the best words they could, and we should take them as they wrote them, not start this crap about 'original intent'. Just because the founders expressed their personal religious beliefs on numerous occasions does NOT mean that they were endorsing one religion above others or even one word to describe "God". To imply that the founders thought that atheists had no rights is ludicrous, as this would make the founders no better intellectually than the communists who tried to remove religion from society. What kind of moron makes the argument that the founders wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Do you seriously suppose they intended for EVERYONE to have a registered religion in order to NOT have someone else's religion imposed upon them? Is this ruling saying the founders wanted us to control the religious freedoms of our nation the way we do in our prisons, by deciding if a religion is 'real' or not? What horsesh#t. I say leave the damn thing as is..if people are offended by the words ONE NATION UNDER GOD..then DON'T SAY IT. Some say this country is harbored in christianity, It's yet sickening to hear Christians whine about being an oppressed group in our country, as they are the MOST oppresive faction in our nation. If you doubt this, think about what would have happened if ANY presidential candidate had announced on the eve of the elections, that he questioned the existence of God, or was even confused on the subject. Since all studies indicate that atheists are THE MOST mistrusted people in our society, it would be political suicide to admit to not being a 'person of faith'.
It's not politically incorrect to say that atheists are immoral, or even un-American, but don't dare to say that religion is for the weak-minded, who need a mental crutch to lean on to deal with their limited existance. Remember the back-peddling Jesse Ventura had to do when his statement "organized religion is for the weak minded" came out? Even a man like Ventura, who is afraid of little, saw an early end to his political career in the widespread reporting of his viewpoint.When it comes right down to it..the most important principal of this nation is FREEDOM, that includes my person freedom of choosing to believe the guy who took the trouble to start this crap is a total jackass.

[LPMiller]

Uh obby...the founders didn't use Under God, Eisenhower did, for the sole purpose of showing the Commies we were God fearing. It was the founders that came up with that seperations of church and state, and so far, the ideas and concepts they came up with have proven to be bloody brillant.

[mojo]

Originally posted by LPMiller
we all know what God they meant in '54.this is a very interesting point to remember. the thing was written in 1892, and this phrase was added in 1954 after lobbying by the knights of columbus during the cold war to distinguish us from the "Godless communists."


edit: after seeing lpm's response to obby, i guess i coulda just been with stupid :P


another interesting thing, now that i think about it, is that a few of those that signed the constitution and the declaration of independence were actually freemasons, which the catholics traditionally don't get along with.

[CluelessSi]

Originally posted by mojo
this is a very interesting point to remember. the thing was written in 1892, and this phrase was added in 1954 after lobbying by the knights of columbus during the cold war to distinguish us from the "Godless communists."


edit: after seeing lpm's response to obby, i guess i coulda just been with stupid :P


another interesting thing, now that i think about it, is that a few of those that signed the constitution and the declaration of independence were actually freemasons, which the catholics traditionally don't get along with.

the others were catholics or protestants?

[jase71]

Originally posted by CluelessSi


the others were catholics or protestants?

Most of them probably were.

There were also a handful of Deists, like Jefferson, in the bunch...

But the general consensus of them was still that government had no business advocating or supporting religion...

[oblongmelon]

Originally posted by LPMiller
Uh obby...the founders didn't use Under God, Eisenhower did, for the sole purpose of showing the Commies we were God fearing. It was the founders that came up with that seperations of church and state, and so far, the ideas and concepts they came up with have proven to be bloody brillant.
uh..LP..no kidding. When I say founders-I don't believe I said they added the GOD comment to the pledge of allegience..nor did i specify when/what documents or what examples of historical nature-I was making a broad spectrum point regarding years and years of godly/religious type references smathered throughout the history of this country. The simple fact that Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians is a prime example of what I am talking about... Stop nitpicking and look outside the box for crying out loud.OH yeh, and go re-read my post and maybe this time try and understand what it says.

[Showtime]

A thought.
"Under God" part was added in 54 due to communist movement. It served its purpose and did help give the US a sense of identity. Some people consider making kids recite something everyday is brainwashing.
Nowadays not to many schools recite the pledge daily. There are lots of kids who don't even know it(you know who you are :hmm: ). Those who do recite it do so out of habit. I don't remember thinking too much about what the pledge means.
I hate the idea of changing something that is such a part of our country. I also think that immigrants and those who have been here, should make a show of loyalty. Especially in these shaky times. People act like they are not a part of the country. They worry more about heritage than they do about being Americans.
I wish that they wouldn't change the Pledge. Just allow those who didnt want to recite it, not to. It would be good for kids to stand up for what they believe in. It would also be good for kids to be exposed to other beliefs. Not to try and change them, but to make people aware and more understanding.
So far the Supreme court has overturned like 27 of the very liberal San Francisco courts 30 rulings.
I still think we need to hear from these "extremist." All groups should have a voice and any person can make a valid point.
-jel:halo:

[johnnymk]

Thirty years ago if that judge had made that decision, there would have been a public lynching and the matter would have been over and done with... Gotta admire those times.

[jase71]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Thirty years ago if that judge had made that decision, there would have been a public lynching and the matter would have been over and done with... Gotta admire those times.

:eek:

I hope that was sarcasm.

I believe being Constitutional is something that's important all the time, every time. Even when it's unpopular, or against our personal wishes. The Constitution is not subject to popularity. If we apply it only when we feel like it, then it's worthless, and no better than a poll.

If we ignore this, then what next? If we can ignore the 1st Amendment because we don't like part of it, then why not the 2nd? How about the 5th? Hey, the war on terrorism would be a lot easier if we got rid of the 4th! If we ignore one that isn't convenient, who's to say it won't be easy to ignore another one tomorrow?

There's a very straightforward recourse for those who are unhappy. Those who believe God belongs in government, and that the 1st Amendment is wrong, simply need to begin the process to amend the Constitution. They can remove the "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" section.
And then "under God" will be Constitutional again.

Until then, no matter how much some of us might like it, it's NOT Constitutional, and that matters more than whether or not we think it belongs in there. In fact, whether or not it's Constitutional is the ONLY thing that really matters...

[mojo]

all this hubbub about not saying the whole thing just because of one little phrase that could simply be removed. it's all very silly, really.

let's say that we have kids say the whole thing, but not mean it. then we're teaching them to be insincere. between not saying it and meaning it and saying it but not meaning it, i'd much rather they not say it and mean it (as in the whole thing). words don't prove one loyal to a nation, but actions.

and as for striking just the phrase, then what's wrong with that? if the phrase isn't said but the rest is, then it's mission accomplished as far as unity of the nation. if we let the kids pick and choose what they wanna say and not say on their own, then you get some kids not saying "under God," and then others not saying "united states of america."

now of course as far as not saying it at all...i do see something wrong with that...:2far:

[johnnymk]

I would like to believe that the interpretation of the Constitution would be unbiased, but history has proven that to be untrue. When judges make decisions about a matter regarding a Constitutional matter, they can slant them one way or the other. It all depends on
whether the judge is liberal or conservative and where the wind is blowing in America's climate.
It just so happens that not offending anyone is the priority in today's climate. Some people agree with that and others don't.
I would love to examine all of the Executive Orders that Bill Clinton made, many of which totally trashed the intent of the Constitution. By the way, George Bush has not done anything to drop the Executive Orders that Bill Clinton made.
And if you look at the laws regarding Homeland Security, you could easily kiss the rights of American citizens goodbye if they are enforced as originally intended. Many of these laws, in the name of terrorism and security can annul your basic rights as described in the Constitution.
I am going away for the weekend so I can't reply to comments that I just made until Monday.

[mojo]

Originally posted by johnnymk
I am going away for the weekend so I can't reply to comments that I just made until Monday. well for goodness' sake have a good weekend and don't worry about this mumbo jumbo :P

[jase71]

I am going away for the weekend so I can't reply to comments that I just made until Monday.

Have a good weekend, Johnny! Summer's too short... enjoy it while you can.

[topane]

Damn, disappear for a time and miss one of my favorite topics ;)! Nothing really to add except I'm annoyed that we even have to deal with this crap in the judicial system while it should be doing something else. Keep religion out of politics and we'll progress as a society much faster. As for the "under God" in the pledge, it was pushed into the pledge mostly by the efforts of McCarthy (Remember him?). As was "In God we trust" as a national motto and on all our cash. All because we were so paranoid about those damn Ruskies.

[Windsor]

How much money is this case going to cost us, and is it REALLY worth it?

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Windsor
How much money is this case going to cost us, and is it REALLY worth it?


how many children have to be forced to recite a pledge of allegiance with the words "under god" if they don't believe in it? many aren't given a choice.

is it just a few words?

then lets have each and every person who believes this case is nonsense.. lets have all of you be forced to say that you love Hitler, when you don't, perhaps have the pledge say under Allah.. and have you recite it, eventhough you aren't Muslim, and such forth. its just a few words right?

Pledging a person's allegiance to a country shouldn't mean pledging it to God also. If a person wishes to pray or pledge their allegiance to God, let it be seperate, not government endorsed.

[sbp]

Then don't say those words. As Dopey stated, he doesn't say it when the pledge comes to that part. And the pledge is optional in the first place. You might be surprised where its not even said. Now no one can say the pledge at all in those states. :2far:

[Windsor]

Originally posted by NuTs62



how many children have to be forced to recite a pledge of allegiance with the words "under god" if they don't believe in it? many aren't given a choice.

is it just a few words?

then lets have each and every person who believes this case is nonsense.. lets have all of you be forced to say that you love Hitler, when you don't, perhaps have the pledge say under Allah.. and have you recite it, eventhough you aren't Muslim, and such forth. its just a few words right?

Pledging a person's allegiance to a country shouldn't mean pledging it to God also. If a person wishes to pray or pledge their allegiance to God, let it be seperate, not government endorsed.


Well, I think the problem is more that there are kids who are forced to say the pledge in public schools. That seems like a bigger problem, if the kids aren't forced to say the pledge, then doesn't it more or less become a non-issue? If they didn't have to say the pledge, and have the option to just sit down and be quiet while others are reciting the pledge then what's the problem?

Also, saying the pledge with those words doesn't equate to that person loving God or even believing in him. I think its a little different than saying "I love Hilter" or something to that extent.

Like I said, there wouldn't be this big hub-bub if schools didn't force the student to say the pledge.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Windsor



Well, I think the problem is more that there are kids who are forced to say the pledge in public schools. That seems like a bigger problem, if the kids aren't forced to say the pledge, then doesn't it more or less become a non-issue? If they didn't have to say the pledge, and have the option to just sit down and be quiet while others are reciting the pledge then what's the problem?

Also, saying the pledge with those words doesn't equate to that person loving God or even believing in him. I think its a little different than saying "I love Hilter" or something to that extent.

Like I said, there wouldn't be this big hub-bub if schools didn't force the student to say the pledge.

my apologies if anything that i say may seem rude, etc.


If kids are told to sit aside and be quiet while others are saying the pledge, isn't it kind of singling out that child?

Saying the pledge period does not equate to a person pledging their allegiance to our country, does it? So why say it? Cuz we want to unite our country together.

If we can tell our children that its okay to say the pledge, and not mean anything by it when they say "under god", how can we ask them to say it and mean it when they pledge their allegiance to our flag, our country..?

I agree that lots of this wouldn't be an issue if schools wouldn't force children to say it. sbp brought up the point that the Supreme Court ruled it that children cannot be forced. Yet, in some school districts, children are still required to do it. Go figure.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
Then don't say those words. As Dopey stated, he doesn't say it when the pledge comes to that part. And the pledge is optional in the first place.

Or.. how about taking the words out. Then everyone can recite the pledge, with no Constitutional conflicts. Everyone can pledge allegiance to their country and not hold anything back.

Those who wish to add "under God" can do so on their own.

That way, those who wish to add that part can opt-in, and do it on their own, rather than forcing everyone to opt-out if they don't feel it's appropriate. No one's pressured to say anything more than they want, and those who wish to append "under God" are free to do so, without it being "suggested" by the Government.

[sbp]

There are no Constitutional conflicts with the pledge as it is now.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
There are no Constitutional conflicts with the pledge as it is now.

There were no Constitutional conflicts with the pledge as it stood before 1954.

The "under God" phrase is a potential violation of the 1st Amendment's prohibition of the establishment of religion by Government.

The legal scholars and the Supreme Court will probably hash it all over and come to a ruling guaranteed to leave everyone unsatisfied. :P

[sbp]

There is an ideal solution. How about the separation of school and state. Problem solved.

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
There is an ideal solution. How about the separation of school and state. Problem solved.

Problem being, there's not anywhere near the private schools available to take the number of students out there.
Nor are there likely to be, unless you turn education into a for-profit business. And I like that idea even less than paying for public schools.

However, lost in the shuffle in all this is the fact that this ruling doesn't affect private schools. "Under God" can still be used in non-public schools, in churches, and in private.
Free speech is still free speech.

It's only in public, government institutions, like public schools, that it can't be used.

For those who want more religion in their child's education, private schools are the clear choice.

[sbp]

This just in: the national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, has been found unconstitutional! :eek:

[jase71]

This just in! Your money has been declared unconstitutional!

For disposal of this now illegal cash, please send it FedEx to:

SBP
C/O Republican National Committee
Washington, DC.

:P

[xsiled2]

the "separation of church and state" is sort of misleading... its based on the federal level which has no real control in this regaurd over the "state" which in case are the 50. IF say New York decided that it wanted to be purely christian its totally consitutional....

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by xsiled2
the "separation of church and state" is sort of misleading... its based on the federal level which has no real control in this regaurd over the "state" which in case are the 50. IF say New York decided that it wanted to be purely christian its totally consitutional....

sorry xsiled, u're wrong there.. the Federal level takes precedence. quote from slaw in the chatroom: "federal law has eminent domain over all lower levels".

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by jase71


Or.. how about taking the words out. Then everyone can recite the pledge, with no Constitutional conflicts. Everyone can pledge allegiance to their country and not hold anything back.

Those who wish to add "under God" can do so on their own.

That way, those who wish to add that part can opt-in, and do it on their own, rather than forcing everyone to opt-out if they don't feel it's appropriate. No one's pressured to say anything more than they want, and those who wish to append "under God" are free to do so, without it being "suggested" by the Government.

:stupid: I think this would be an adequate solution.

and gotta agree with jase's thing about public schools too.


And sbp, i just sang the Star Spangled Banner to myself.. heh.. =P but anyways, I don't remember any references to God or any religion in particular in it.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by jase71

SBP
C/O Republican National Committee
Washington, DC.

:P

So this is what sbp meant about Reagan being your favorite president! :heh:

Anyway...

1st Amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

So, Congress made a law that added something religious to the Pledge of Allegiance? Yes. So they wrote an unconstitutional law? Yes. So that law should be repealed? Yes. So the courts did the right thing? Yes.

Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:

[sbp]

It comes sadly as no surprise, that on this forum, the decision to add those words is derided, while communism is considered some harmless, lovable thing. Like Eisenhower, the man who fought against Nazi's, didn't know what he was doing? The pledge should be left as is, as being symbolic of America's spirit that enabled communism to be defeated.

[sbp]

Originally posted by NuTs62
And sbp, i just sang the Star Spangled Banner to myself.. heh.. =P but anyways, I don't remember any references to God or any religion in particular in it. Check out the last paragraph amigo: http://www.treefort.org/~rgrogan/web/usa1.htm

Using the misguided thinking this court has shown, even the Declaration of Independence would have been found unconstitutional. http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

[sbp]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
1st Amendment:

So, Congress made a law that added something religious to the Pledge of Allegiance? Yes. So they wrote an unconstitutional law? Yes. So that law should be repealed? Yes. So the courts did the right thing? Yes.

Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug: The 1st Amendment was written to avoid a situation such as the State Church of England. It was not meant to remove any mention of religion from the public square!

If it was unconstitutional, why did it take 48 years for them to reach this conclusion?

This is a good time to clean out that nutty court of appeals. The vast majority of their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. :dodgy:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
It comes sadly as no surprise, that on this forum, the decision to add those words is derided, while communism is considered some harmless, lovable thing. Like Eisenhower, the man who fought against Nazi's, didn't know what he was doing? The pledge should be left as is, as being symbolic of America's spirit that enabled communism to be defeated.

The terms good and evil cannot be used as synonyms for capitalism and communism respectively. Capitalist nations have committed as many atrocities as communist nations. The line between good and evil is grey, and neither side falls definitively with one or the other.

Blindly agreeing with the powers that be while criticizing opposing view points does no one any good. Being well read on one side of the argument but never taking the time to consider the other side makes one as ignorant as those who don't follow either argument. If one wants to be truly objective, he should criticize the argument he agrees with most more than any other.

By the way, I'd hate to see Eisenhower held up as the paradigm of American morals. :eek:



Originally posted by sbp
The 1st Amendment was written to avoid a situation such as the State Church of England. It was not meant to remove any mention of religion from the public square!

How could you or I truly know what it was meant and meant not to do? Sure, the Church of England might have been on the minds of all the people who helped write the Constitution, but the CoE is only an example of a greater problem. The moment the Government takes a side religiously--whether it be tacit support or actually singing a religion's praises--is the moment the Goverment impedes personal freedom of religion.


Originally posted by sbp
If it was unconstitutional, why did it take 48 years for them to reach this conclusion?

First, no one whom the phrase in question effected negatively had the clout to push for a change before. Second, most of the judges in the last 50 years are/were Christian and would have supported the change despite it being unconstitutional.

The question could also be posed: Why did it take over 70 years for the courts to decide that slavery was unconstitutional? Why did we have to write another amendment just to say someone of a different color could enjoy the same inalienable rights as white, Christian Americans?


Originally posted by sbp
This is a good time to clean out that nutty court of appeals. The vast majority of their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. :dodgy:

We'll see. And what would you do if the Supreme Court makes a decision that doesn't agree with conservative, white, Christian America?

[sbp]

Nothing really to add except I'm annoyed that we even have to deal with this crap in the judicial system while it should be doing something else.Agreed. This case should have been dismissed.

This is almost as bad as when Santa Claus was banned in this town. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35102)


Keep religion out of politics and we'll progress as a society much faster.Religious people and religion have every right to be heard on the issues of the day. Yes that means influence policy. Got MLK Jr and civil rights movement? How about ending slavery?

[sbp]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
The terms good and evil cannot be used as synonyms for capitalism and communism respectively. Capitalist nations have committed as many atrocities as communist nations. The line between good and evil is grey, and neither side falls definitively with one or the other.Never was it said by me that Capitalist nations were always right and perfect. Do you think if merciless Communism had won the Cold War, everyone would not be now suffering under its hard boot?


Blindly agreeing with the powers that be while criticizing opposing view points does no one any good. Being well read on one side of the argument but never taking the time to consider the other side makes one as ignorant as those who don't follow either argument. If one wants to be truly objective, he should criticize the argument he agrees with most more than any other.This is not blindly agreeing with the powers that be. This is using the Freedom of speech to debate and discuss. Why should it be okay for critics to state their views and no one else to say anything in disagreement?

It is not okay to criticize those who criticize? That would be quite chilling if it could not be done. :eek:

Agreed. Looking at all sides of the issue and then putting together an argument makes it stronger. I personally find threads where folks disagree to be more invigorating than threads where everyone agrees. But don't tell jase71 that. His head is already too big. http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/wink2.gif


By the way, I'd hate to see Eisenhower held up as the paradigm of American morals. :eek:Clinton was the paradigm of American morals for a sad few. :thumbdown


How could you or I truly know what it was meant and meant not to do? Sure, the Church of England might have been on the minds of all the people who helped write the Constitution, but the CoE is only an example of a greater problem. The moment the Government takes a side religiously--whether it be tacit support or actually singing a religion's praises--is the moment the Goverment impedes personal freedom of religion.Using such thinking, nothing in the Constitution can be relied on. Listening to some, they know precisely what Constitution says and that is why they must force their views onto all no mtter what. Like the 2nd amendment doesn't even give people like you and I the right to own a firearm even though its right in the Constitution itself. :o These fools have no right to make up stuff and impose their will on all just like what happened in this court case and with the 2nd amendment over the past few decades.


First, no one whom the phrase in question effected negatively had the clout to push for a change before. Second, most of the judges in the last 50 years are/were Christian and would have supported the change despite it being unconstitutional.Todays Pledge is constitutional.

People don't have the right not to be offended. Its very strange turn of events when the mention of God is loathed while some of the garbage that goes on today is not. :2far:


The question could also be posed: Why did it take over 70 years for the courts to decide that slavery was unconstitutional? Why did we have to write another amendment just to say someone of a different color could enjoy the same inalienable rights as white, Christian Americans?Sad to say, slavery was constitutional since it was right in the Constitution. When the US became independent from Britain in 1783, all the states had slavery. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, slavery as an institution in the US was dying. The Northern states were all free. Almost all the western states were coming in free. The importation of slaves had been stopped. Slavery in DC had been banned. What sped up slaverys demise was the Civil War where hundreds of thousands of people died.

You do point out something important. If the Constitution is to be amended it is to be done with an amendment not by judical activism. That means for those who wish to get rid of any mention of religion from the public square to by all means try to amend the Constitution.


We'll see. And what would you do if the Supreme Court makes a decision that doesn't agree with conservative, white, Christian America? And what would you do if the Supreme Court makes a decision that rich, liberal, whites who send their kids to private schools don't agree with? That decision gives poor, innercity minorities a chance to escape rotten government run schools and provides for educational choice. Not that the rich liberals care one bit about those people. :dodgy:

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

Todays Pledge is constitutional.

People don't have the right not to be offended. Its very strange turn of events when the mention of God is loathed while some of the garbage that goes on today is not.

Again, it's not about being offended.

It's about being forced to tie your pledge of loyalty to an admission of the existence of a god you may, or may not believe in.

Why should I, a loyal citizen, have to abbreviate my pledge of loyalty merely because it mentions a deity I may not acknowledge?

Is my loyalty less important, less valuable? Am I a second class citizen?
Why, if my country has freedom of religion, does it ask me to admit the existence of a god I do not follow?

If I can merely ignore that part of the Pledge, and not speak it, but my Pledge will still be valid, then why is the phrase in there in the first place? Do we routinely toss unimportant things into pledges of loyalty? What other parts can I skip? After all, we've apparently set the precedent that skipping part of it is ok...



You do point out something important. If the Constitution is to be amended it is to be done with an amendment not by judical activism. That means for those who wish to get rid of any mention of religion from the public square to by all means try to amend the Constitution.


It's already been done for us. The 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." This means, quite simply, that anyone who desires more religion in government needs to overturn the 1st Amendment.

If "under God" doesn't establish that the Judeo-Christian God is the one our country is responsible to, then I don't know what it DOES say. It's a pretty clear establishment that a religion based upon "God" is the correct one. That leaves a LOT of people outside the definition.

At this point, the real question is... is the United States a Christian nation, or not?

If it is, then there's no problem with "under God".

If it's NOT a Christian nation, then the US has no business holding "God" to a higher level of respect than it does the figures of other major religions. "God" deserves no special treatment, nor any special mention over the religious icons of the other religions. To hold God in higher regard than the other religions is a clear establishment of religion.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
Never was it said by me that Capitalist nations were always right and perfect. Do you think if merciless Communism had won the Cold War, everyone would not be now suffering under its hard boot?

But your second sentence implies that Communism is ALWAYS evil and wrong. Cuba is, at this moment, suffering under America's hard boot because Capitalism won the Cold War. And why? Because they wanted to do something that the U.S. takes for granted: having the ability to regulate their own national industries. Sure it stepped on the toes of several large U.S. corporations, but it is Cuba's right to regulater their own economy, right? Apparently not.


Originally posted by sbp
This is not blindly agreeing with the powers that be. This is using the Freedom of speech to debate and discuss. Why should it be okay for critics to state their views and no one else to say anything in disagreement?

It is not okay to criticize those who criticize? That would be quite chilling if it could not be done. :eek:
[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I have to admit, you got me on this one. You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. It just happens that my opinion is always right, btw. ;)



Originally posted by sbp
Clinton was the paradigm of American morals for a sad few. :thumbdown

That is what worries me about Eisenhower... he and Clinton were cut from the same block...


Originally posted by sbp
Using such thinking, nothing in the Constitution can be relied on. Listening to some, they know precisely what Constitution says and that is why they must force their views onto all no mtter what. Like the 2nd amendment doesn't even give people like you and I the right to own a firearm even though its right in the Constitution itself. :o These fools have no right to make up stuff and impose their will on all just like what happened in this court case and with the 2nd amendment over the past few decades.

Right, the Constitution is open for interpretation, but the only ones whose interpretation counts are Justices of the Supreme Court. It is their job to determine what does or doesn't fall in line with the Constitution.


Originally posted by sbp
Todays Pledge is constitutional.

People don't have the right not to be offended. Its very strange turn of events when the mention of God is loathed while some of the garbage that goes on today is not. :2far:

I still don't know how you can see the Pledge of Allegiance as being Constitutional. Sure, if it is used only by private citizens and organizations, then it is Constitutional. But when any Government agency requires it to be said, it becomes unconstitutional. Most government agencies have already made similar changes. You no longer swear to God, you "hereby swear or afirm". That is a very important difference.


Originally posted by sbp
Sad to say, slavery was constitutional since it was right in the Constitution. When the US became independent from Britain in 1783, all the states had slavery. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, slavery as an institution in the US was dying. The Northern states were all free. Almost all the western states were coming in free. The importation of slaves had been stopped. Slavery in DC had been banned. What sped up slaverys demise was the Civil War where hundreds of thousands of people died.

It was "interpreted" to be Constitutional. Also, I'd have to double check the dates, but I believe that the importation of slaves had been banned by the early 1800's.

And don't forget the role the AME and black abolitionists played in the abolition of slavery, as well as the work of great men such as Nat Turner, Denmark Vesey, Gabriel Prosser, and John Brown.


Originally posted by sbp
You do point out something important. If the Constitution is to be amended it is to be done with an amendment not by judical activism. That means for those who wish to get rid of any mention of religion from the public square to by all means try to amend the Constitution.

The court did not create an amendment, they interpreted an amendment's meaning and juxtaposed it against a law that had never been questioned in respects to Constitutionality.


Originally posted by sbp
And what would you do if the Supreme Court makes a decision that rich, liberal, whites who send their kids to private schools don't agree with?

Yeah, I hear you there; I hate rich liberals! All they do is sit around and smoke pot all day talking about how all Republicans are good for is getting the U.S. into wars and ruining our economy...

Anyway, whatever decision they make, I would respect. I wouldn't agree with it, and I wouldn't think that the Constitution agreed with it.


Originally posted by sbp
That decision gives poor, innercity minorities a chance to escape rotten government run schools and provides for educational choice. Not that the rich liberals care one bit about those people. :dodgy:

BTW, are you now talking about the privatization of schools? hmmm, that is a whole 'nother can of worms... The problem with sending poor kid to private schools is that they can never get all of their expenses covered, and their families rarely have the ability to pay the remainder. I can guarantee you that if a majority of the parents gave a damn about what was going on in their children's lives, we wouldn't have the education issues we do today, regardless of prive or public schools.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by sbp
Check out the last paragraph amigo: http://www.treefort.org/~rgrogan/web/usa1.htm

Using the misguided thinking this court has shown, even the Declaration of Independence would have been found unconstitutional. http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

I stand corrected. :) Was never aware of the 2nd verse to it. Just the one people sing at ballparks :P

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by sbp
The 1st Amendment was written to avoid a situation such as the State Church of England. It was not meant to remove any mention of religion from the public square!

If it was unconstitutional, why did it take 48 years for them to reach this conclusion?

This is a good time to clean out that nutty court of appeals. The vast majority of their decisions are overturned by the Supreme Court. :dodgy:


48 years... hmm.. i'd say because nobody brought it up before. The courts cannot rule something unconstitutional until something is brought before them.

[NuTs62]

oh yeah.. sbp brought up something about people like Martin Luther King, Jr... influencing change upon the government. He wasn't advocating the implementation of God into our government. He wanted change of a system in which people, namely African-Americans were treated unfairly, not being able to sit on the same bus as a white man, drink out of the same fountain, and suchforth. I'm sure you have probably heard of the things he has done. He wanted the U.S. to keep its promise of equality.. and what the pledge of the allegiance promises, liberty and justice for all. Did he, or others of color receive "justice"? He didn't make the promises. He wanted the promises to be kept.

[sbp]

Originally posted by NuTs62



48 years... hmm.. i'd say because nobody brought it up before. The courts cannot rule something unconstitutional until something is brought before them. I believe it has been brought up before. And no I ain't looking for links.


oh yeah.. sbp brought up something about people like Martin Luther King, Jr... influencing change upon the government. He wasn't advocating the implementation of God into our government. He wanted change of a system in which people, namely African-Americans were treated unfairly, not being able to sit on the same bus as a white man, drink out of the same fountain, and suchforth. I'm sure you have probably heard of the things he has done. He wanted the U.S. to keep its promise of equality.. and what the pledge of the allegiance promises, liberty and justice for all. Did he, or others of color receive "justice"? He didn't make the promises. He wanted the promises to be kept.Neither is this about implementation of God into our government. And as we all know, Dr King was killed before those promises were met. :(

[topane]

BTW, here's (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf) the actual decision. There's actually some thought put into it...

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by topane
BTW, here's (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf) the actual decision. There's actually some thought put into it...

Thanks, topane... that's a good read. :thumb:

[sbp]

Originally posted by jase71
Problem being, there's not anywhere near the private schools available to take the number of students out there.Government run schools can be privatized.


Nor are there likely to be, unless you turn education into a for-profit business.It doesn't have to be for profit.


However, lost in the shuffle in all this is the fact that this ruling doesn't affect private schools. "Under God" can still be used in non-public schools, in churches, and in private.
Free speech is still free speech.There is a contradiction in what was said. We are suppose to have freedom of speech and religion, yet not in public. People can't say "Under God" or the Pledge now.

Are those words really that offensive? How about the sight of a cross?

If a this guy is truly an atheist he shouldn't care about those words.


It's only in public, government institutions, like public schools, that it can't be used.And that is the heart of the issue: there are a small percentage out there who don't want any mention of religion in public. That is not what the 1st amendment was meant for.

[sbp]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
But your second sentence implies that Communism is ALWAYS evil and wrong. Cuba is, at this moment, suffering under America's hard boot because Capitalism won the Cold War. And why? Because they wanted to do something that the U.S. takes for granted: having the ability to regulate their own national industries. Sure it stepped on the toes of several large U.S. corporations, but it is Cuba's right to regulater their own economy, right? Apparently not.Communism should be thought of something lovely. :disa:

Cuba is suffering due to a Marxist dinosaur by the name of Castro. It has been suffering for decades even before the USSR died. Now we are to believe that if the US begins trading with Cuba the old b@stard will implement economic and political reform. He hasn't done it for Canada, the European countries and everyone else trading with Cuba.

Fact is the Soviets were subsidizing him and keeping the idea of a communism economy alive. In short the sugar daddy ran out after the USSR died now he wants a new one namely Uncle Sam.

Its about the dictator controlling the Cuban people. All this stuff about Capitalism and America is just a smokescreen for the tyrant not to give up his stranglehold on Cuba. He is the problem!


Well, I have to admit, you got me on this one. You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. It just happens that my opinion is always right, btw. ;):P


That is what worries me about Eisenhower... he and Clinton were cut from the same block...They all can't be jase71's favorite president Reagan :blite:


Right, the Constitution is open for interpretation, but the only ones whose interpretation counts are Justices of the Supreme Court. It is their job to determine what does or doesn't fall in line with the Constitution.Who is to stop any court (including the Supreme Court) from "interpreting" and warping anything else? What new things lie undiscovered only waiting to be found by some judges? There has to be a limit on such power!


I still don't know how you can see the Pledge of Allegiance as being Constitutional. Sure, if it is used only by private citizens and organizations, then it is Constitutional. But when any Government agency requires it to be said, it becomes unconstitutional. Most government agencies have already made similar changes. You no longer swear to God, you "hereby swear or afirm". That is a very important difference.The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that school kids could not be forced to say the pledge. So the Pledge is not required to be said. Hell its not even said at all in some schools across this country.


Yeah, I hear you there; I hate rich liberals! All they do is sit around and smoke pot all day talking about how all Republicans are good for is getting the U.S. into wars and ruining our economy...{winks at Leon} ;)


BTW, are you now talking about the privatization of schools? hmmm, that is a whole 'nother can of worms... The problem with sending poor kid to private schools is that they can never get all of their expenses covered, and their families rarely have the ability to pay the remainder.I believe its good that not all expenses are covered. That people should be willing to work for it and not have it all handed to them. Otherwise, as we all have seen many times, people don't appreciate it. If people really want their kids to learn and be successful they'll find a way. And there are private organizations that will help out financially.


I can guarantee you that if a majority of the parents gave a damn about what was going on in their children's lives, we wouldn't have the education issues we do today, regardless of prive or public schools. We agree http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/shocked.gif

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp

There is a contradiction in what was said. We are suppose to have freedom of speech and religion, yet not in public. People can't say "Under God" or the Pledge now.

Are those words really that offensive? How about the sight of a cross?


You have Freedom of speech and religion. You are perfectly free to add "under God" on your own. You are perfectly free to use them in public, in private, or whenever you chose. This ruling in NO way restricts you from using the phrase for your personal benefit.

However, when led by a government employee, such as a public school teacher, or other public official, it is not appropriate to add the phrase.
When acting as a government representative you speak not only on your own behalf, but on behalf of the government. It is NOT the government's role to suggest the god you should follow. It is NOT the government's role to ask you to swear loyalty both to itself, AND to a particular god.


[/B]
And that is the heart of the issue: there are a small percentage out there who don't want any mention of religion in public. That is not what the 1st amendment was meant for. [/B]

It's not the mention of religion in public that's the problem. It's when religion is boosted, promoted, endorsed, or encouraged by the government, and my tax dollars, that it's a problem.

I drive past public displays of Christianity, Judaism, and even the Unitarians (whatever the heck they are) all the time. I have no problem with those.

Religion can be an important part of each individual's life. For some, it's the driving force behind every breath they take.

But when one segment of those religions is picked out by government as being the most correct, I have a problem.

I don't want to see a cross or a nativity scene put up by government. Nor do I want to see a menorah. Nor a Muslim religious icon. I don't want my government to suggest to me which religion is most correct.

I want my government to provide the most possible freedom for me to make that choice for myself. The choice is mine.

Everyone wants more religion in government... but they want their OWN religion in charge. Not someone's else's. Unfortunately, that's not anywhere even close to possible without being unfair and discriminatory.

The only equitable solution is to have government stay OUT of religion, and vice versa... so that each and everyone may make an unbiased religious choice for themself.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
There is a contradiction in what was said. We are suppose to have freedom of speech and religion, yet not in public. People can't say "Under God" or the Pledge now.

The courts made no decision about what could be said it public. It made a decision about what could be said and promoted in a public School. And no, they are not the same thing. ;)



Originally posted by sbp
Who is to stop any court (including the Supreme Court) from "interpreting" and warping anything else? What new things lie undiscovered only waiting to be found by some judges? There has to be a limit on such power!

The Supreme Court does this because it is their job. As for limiting that power, that is what checks and balances are for. The Supreme Court could rule Andrew Jackson's actions to be unconstitutional when he sent the Cherokee packing, but they have no power of enforcement. All he had to do was ignore the court. Hopefully, no one today has the gall to sh1t on the Constitution and the U.S. Judiciary the same way he did.

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by sbp
Government run schools can be privatized.

[b]It doesn't have to be for profit.


Privatized..? So individual families are supposed to shell out money for their children's education? Ok, so eliminate public education. Families that do not have the income to send their children to school will then put them to work. Oh wait, we have child labor laws, so they can't go to work. So children in poverty are screwed. A privatized school system benefits the ones with the money able to afford it. That may seem fair to the people with the money, but our society doesn't benefit if only one or two individuals get smart, but our nation as a whole gets educated.

[johnnymk]

Communism would work if men's hearts were right. But since Man is basically selfish, capitalism offers the better alternative, even with all of the wild swings inherent in it's makeup. There are a wider range of checks and balances in capitalism which contribute to it's appeal.

[sbp]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Privatized..? So individual families are supposed to shell out money for their children's education?Don't people do that already?


So children in poverty are screwed.They are screwed being stuck in a crappy government run school with no hope of escaping at all.


A privatized school system benefits the ones with the money able to afford it. That may seem fair to the people with the money, but our society doesn't benefit if only one or two individuals get smart, but our nation as a whole gets educated. Rich folk kids are already getting educated. Why do you think Clinton and company sent his kid to a private school? And no its not wrong for people to want the best education for their kids.

This is about choice and helping kids have more opportunity.

Its puzzling why people would want government to run education, but if government ran say the newspapers there would be murder.

[sbp]

First let me express disapointment that jase71's post wasn't longer. :/


Originally posted by jase71
Again, it's not about being offended.Ok its about one guy forcing his views onto everyone else and some dumb judges. Its funny how it can be portrayed as the best thing since sliced bread.


It's about being forced to tie your pledge of loyalty to an admission of the existence of a god you may, or may not believe in.No one is forced to say the pledge at all.


Why should I, a loyal citizen, have to abbreviate my pledge of loyalty merely because it mentions a deity I may not acknowledge?

Is my loyalty less important, less valuable? Am I a second class citizen?
Why, if my country has freedom of religion, does it ask me to admit the existence of a god I do not follow?

If I can merely ignore that part of the Pledge, and not speak it, but my Pledge will still be valid, then why is the phrase in there in the first place? Do we routinely toss unimportant things into pledges of loyalty? What other parts can I skip? After all, we've apparently set the precedent that skipping part of it is ok...
How about not saying it at all? Oh yeah someone will feel left out and then sue over that too. :disa:

Why should I, a loyal citizen, be told I can't say the pledge? Its cause showing appreciation to this country is wrong.

You know as well as I do that some people in this country think the pledge is sh1t.

Why even have the pledge at all? Therefore skip any part you want.

Would it surprise you people add parts to it?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020628-34210168.htm
There are still other versions, Mr. Baer says: "Some pro-life advocates follow the words "liberty and justice for all" with "born and unborn," and liberals sometimes say "one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all."


It's already been done for us. The 1st Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." This means, quite simply, that anyone who desires more religion in government needs to overturn the 1st Amendment.

If "under God" doesn't establish that the Judeo-Christian God is the one our country is responsible to, then I don't know what it DOES say. It's a pretty clear establishment that a religion based upon "God" is the correct one. That leaves a LOT of people outside the definition.Its sad to see freedom of religion being used to impose freedom from religion on all. Meanwhile this false doctrine of separation of Church and State continues. Even you have admitted in this very thread its not in the Constitution.

Christianity is not being promoted over Islam. Islam is not being promoted over Judaism.
At this point, the real question is... is the United States a Christian nation, or not?

If it is, then there's no problem with "under God".

If it's NOT a Christian nation, then the US has no business holding "God" to a higher level of respect than it does the figures of other major religions. "God" deserves no special treatment, nor any special mention over the religious icons of the other religions. To hold God in higher regard than the other religions is a clear establishment of religion. This country was heavily influenced by Christianity. Thats why its so disturbing to see Christianity being treated like its the worst thing ever.

Removing these words will cause more damage and more devisiveness than leaving the situation alone. Why can't people like this atheist get it thru his pointy head he can't always get what he wants. :sing:

God in itself is not a religion.

This atheist has already said he will go after the national motto on money. If we ignore this then what next?

By the way, if this atheist doesn't trust in God, then he surely shouldn't spend money that does. Hey, I'll take his! :-)

[sbp]

jase71 is hoping this thread don't ever stop. He's well on his way to the much beloved Rear Admiral Lower Half rank thanks to me :bigmouth:

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by johnnymk
Communism would work if men's hearts were right. But since Man is basically selfish, capitalism offers the better alternative, even with all of the wild swings inherent in it's makeup. There are a wider range of checks and balances in capitalism which contribute to it's appeal.

It is not just a matter of men's hearts. True Communism doesn't work for the same reasons that true Capitalism doesn't work. Both deal too much with absolutes and can't compensate for special circumstances. That is why, even here in the U.S., true Capitalism isn't practiced.

By definition, the U.S. is not a Capitalist Democracy, it is a Socialist Republic... I'd love to see that written on a national seal. :dodgy:

[brainsmile]

Originally posted by oblongmelon


you got that right. What's this country coming too? :stupid:

[jase71]

Originally posted by sbp
First let me express disapointment that jase71's post wasn't longer. :/

Disappointed in my peformance, sbp? I didn't go long enough for ya? There's a different thread for you to discuss that! :P



Ok its about one guy forcing his views onto everyone else and some dumb judges.

I see... so one guy trying to remove a phrase, so no one will have to say it, is "forcing his views onto everyone else".

But Congress passing a law in 1954 to mandate everyone admit the existence of a god each time they pledge loyalty ISN'T? :eek:




No one is forced to say the pledge at all.

How about not saying it at all? Oh yeah someone will feel left out and then sue over that too. :disa:

So that's your solution? If I don't agree that God exists, I can merely not pledge my loyalty to the United States at ALL? Agree with the "under God", or we don't want your loyalty?

That's not "forcing views" at all, is it?

Sounds almost Communist in nature... "Yes, we have free elections. Citizens can vote for anyone they choose. Of course, we only have one party. If citizens don't like it, they are free not to vote."

Yes, we in America have Freedom of Religion. Of course, to pledge loyalty to the US, you have to admit the authority of a God that may not be yours. If you don't like it, you are free not to pledge.

The Russians did it with politics. We, apparently, do it with religion. Freedom to choose... from one choice.

Or how about this... suppose Congress passed a law, allowing all citizens to vote. But only after they signed a paper stating that Bill Clinton was a wonderful, moral guy. Hey, if you don't agree with it, you can just not vote, right? So your vote hinges upon admitting that Clinton was a wonderful person.

But that's essentially the same decision non-christians face with each pledge. If they want to pledge loyalty in the government-suggested manner, they have to admit authority to a god they do not support.



Why should I, a loyal citizen, be told I can't say the pledge? Its cause showing appreciation to this country is wrong.

Read the decision.

No one is stopping you from saying the pledge. No one is stopping you from adding "under God" of your own accord. No one is preventing "under God" from being used in any church, private school, home, or business.

No one is forcing any view on to you. You are NOT required, or even prodded, to say anything you don't agree with. You are not stopped from saying the pledge. You are not being forced to tie your loyalty to the recognition of a religion you may not agree with.



Why even have the pledge at all? Therefore skip any part you want.


Why? Because the pledge sets a good example for children. It allows each citizen to have a way they can vocalize their support for the country. It's a tangible way to affirm our loyalty.

And each citizen should be able to say the pledge, without editing it first, with a whole heart, and a clean conscience.



Would it surprise you people add parts to it?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020628-34210168.htm
There are still other versions, Mr. Baer says: "Some pro-life advocates follow the words "liberty and justice for all" with "born and unborn," and liberals sometimes say "one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all."

Wow... sounds like the perfect solution to me. The pledge can revert to it's original form, without the "under God". Those who wish to add "under God" can do that... just like the people above add in their own parts. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. As long as no one is REQUIRED to accept the additions.

It's ideal, really. Have a nice simple pledge of loyalty to the United States. And then let people add in parts that they feel strengthen the pledge for them personally. Like "under God".



Its sad to see freedom of religion being used to impose freedom from religion on all. Meanwhile this false doctrine of separation of Church and State continues. Even you have admitted in this very thread its not in the Constitution.

False doctrine? Just what does "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" really mean?

The phrase "separation of Church and state" does not exist in the Constitution. But the idea clearly does, in the 1st Amendment.

In fact, it was Jefferson's own words that the phrase came from. And he was referring to the 1st Amendment. In his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, he wrote: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between Church and State."

So... does "separation between Church and State" appear in the Constitution? No. It doesn't have to. It's all there, in the 1st Amendment. As was intended by the framers of the Constitution. I think Thomas Jefferson is a pretty good authority on the topic.




Christianity is not being promoted over Islam. Islam is not being promoted over Judaism.This country was heavily influenced by Christianity.

During the term of John Adams, the 2nd president of the United States, the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli. Take a look closely at article XI. You'll find the line:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.. "

This treaty was ratified on June 7th, 1797. It was signed by John Adams on June 10th, 1797.

This wasn't something done recently, or even a century after the Constitution was written. It's something that was signed into law barely 20 years after the creation of the country, by many of the men we consider our Founding Fathers.

This, along with the words of many of the Founding Fathers in their own writings, seems to suggest that our country is not as strongly based on Christianity as you would suggest...



Thats why its so disturbing to see Christianity being treated like its the worst thing ever.

Worst thing ever? Hardly.

I have no beef against Christianity.

But considering "under God" and "In God We Trust" clearly mention God, a diety that Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and other religions don't recognize, then yes, I'd say Christianity, or at least the Judeo-Christian God, IS being promoted over other religions. I've yet to see Buddha, Vishnu, the Goddess, or other alternative dieties mentioned in our pledges, or on our money. So God isn't getting a little biased press here from our government?



Removing these words will cause more damage and more devisiveness than leaving the situation alone. Why can't people like this atheist get it thru his pointy head he can't always get what he wants. :sing:

Here, I actually kind of agree with you. I wouldn't have brought the situation up. It's a tempest in a teapot.

However, it was the man's right to bring it up, challenge it, and take it to court. And he did. So now we have to deal with it.

That's one of the downsides to a democracy. Sometimes people do things you disagree with. Dictatorship would be so much easier, wouldn't it? :P



God in itself is not a religion.

No, he's merely the diety at the head of three of the world's major religions.

However, the belief in him, proselytizing on His behalf, spreading the word of Him, and endorsing Him as the "correct" god are all parts of religion.

Maybe the Pledge should rotate. On Monday, it's "under God". On Tuesday, it's "under Allah". Wednesday can be "under Buddha". Thursday can be "under the Goddess". Friday can be free-for-all day, where everyone left over can insert their own deity. :rolleyes:




By the way, if this atheist doesn't trust in God, then he surely shouldn't spend money that does. Hey, I'll take his! :-)

I believe he's already giving his money up. Of course, it's lawyers that will be collecting it, and not you, sbp... :P

[topane]

Originally posted by sbp
Meanwhile this false doctrine of separation of Church and State continues. Even you have admitted in this very thread its not in the Constitution.Thomas Jefferson came up with that interpretation. I can think of no better authority. "Right to privacy" isn't in the Constitution either, but we all think we have it.


This country was heavily influenced by Christianity. Thats why its so disturbing to see Christianity being treated like its the worst thing ever.What goes around...


Removing these words will cause more damage and more devisiveness than leaving the situation alone.It wasn't in the original pledge, why did we need it there in 1954? Perhaps more harm was done by inserting those words...


Why can't people like this atheist get it thru his pointy head he can't always get what he wants.Why can't the religious right see that we don't need their sky-god shoved down our throats?


God in itself is not a religion.No, but the proper name "God" refers only to one of the Abrahamic religions, nothing else. Are you going to tell me it's a generic term? I don't think Mr. McCarthy was giving credence to Buddhists, Hindus, or anyone else in the 1950s. It's not "under a god", it's "under God". Proper name. Refers to only one I can think of.


This atheist has already said he will go after the national motto on money. If we ignore this then what next? Maybe teachers will actually be able to teach science in schools instead of listening to the religious right promote a 2,000-year-old myth as science.

One more thing, check out the Supreme Court's Lemon test (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602) which is a three-part test for determining whether or not something violates the establishment clause. Boring, but a good background. It is also what the 9th circuit used to determine the outcome of the case.

[sbp]

Lawless or lawful? (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020701-87064696.htm) by Thomas L. Jipping

The Ninth Circuit strikes again. In the rush to out-patriot the next guy, however, we have to get straight what's really wrong with this decision.

On June 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional "establishment of religion" because it contains the phrase "under God." Michael Newdow, a minister of atheism ordained by the Universal Life Church (which has also ordained dogs, cats and plants), sends his daughter to public elementary school in California. Under state law and school district policy, teachers begin each school day leading the Pledge of Allegiance.

Mr. Newdow does not object to his daughter being compelled to say "one nation under God" because she does not have to say the words. The Supreme Court struck down compulsory pledge recitation 60 years ago. No, as the Ninth Circuit put it, he objects that his daughter must "watch and listen" to the words being said by her classmates. Her freedom not to participate is not enough; Mr. Newdow seeks to deny the freedom of others to participate.

The court agreed with Mr. Newdow that the 1954 statute inserting the words "under God" is itself unconstitutional, ruling that the "mere enactment of the 1954 Act . . . constitutes a religious recitation policy that interferes with Newdow's right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The court further held that the statute "violate the Establishment Clause." Let's be clear about this. The court ruled that the existence of "under God" in the pledge is itself an "establishment of religion."

Mr. Newdow is hardly alone in wanting to rub out any kind of religious reference from every public venue, forum, document, setting, activity or speech of any kind. It's just that he gets a little nuts about it. He has sued President Bush to secularize presidential inaugurations and sued Congress to expunge religious references from official resolutions.

By the Ninth Circuit's so-called logic, "America the Beautiful" cannot be sung in an official setting because each stanza includes "God shed His grace on thee." The daily invocations in Congress and the Supreme Court and the National Day of Prayer are certainly gone. The National Anthem is history, since the fourth stanza closes with "And this be our motto — 'In God is our trust!'" Speaking of trusting God, Mr. Newdow says that wiping out that motto completely is indeed his next goal.

As radical and bizarre as this all sounds, neither Mr. Newdow's arguments nor the Ninth Circuit's decision is surprising. They are the natural and predictable results of ceding complete power to judges. This case pushes buttons and boils the blood, but it is only a symptom. The problem is a judiciary believing, and a society and culture accepting, that our laws mean whatever judges say they mean.

America's founders thought writing the Constitution down would make it more concrete, unchanging and stable. It is a Constitution, law that governs government, after all. That real Constitution, the one we all can read, bars Congress from enacting laws having anything to do with religious establishment. Judges turned this statement into a "high wall of separation between church and state." Judges said "Congress" actually means state and local governments. Judges said "establishment" actually means "endorsement." The Constitution does not say any of those things.

Either judges have the power to make law, amend the Constitution, and rewrite statutes, or they don't. It's time to decide. America's founders believed that our freedom depends on the answer. If judges have that power, then "we the people" don't, and judges run the country and define the culture. If we the people have that power, then judges don't, and we run the country and define the culture.

Liberal criticism of this decision is mystifying. They say the Constitution is a morphing, shape-shifting, flowing-with-the-times document. They believe judges should find unwritten things in a written Constitution, use "evolving standards of decency" to regulate the culture, and to impose policies and values democracy rejects. They believe the Constitution is simply a book of blank checks in the hands of judges, who can write them to anyone in whatever amount they choose. It's a pad of prescription slips judges can use to cure any social, cultural or political defect.

Liberals are the ones who believe judges can do anything. Since they have ceded all the power to judges, embracing the idea that the Constitution is whatever judges say it is, their only criticism of the Ninth Circuit today dwindles to a mere difference of opinion. Hey, the despot is not always benevolent. If the judiciary giveth, it can taketh away. Liberals simply can't have it both ways.

This Ninth Circuit abomination is wrong not because its result is disagreeable but because of how these judges produced that result. As (I hope) parents still teach their children, it's not who wins or loses, but how the game is played that counts. These judges made law, they re-wrote the Constitution, they imposed their own values and opinions on the people. In doing so, they acted without lawful authority and undermined our freedom.

Now you know why the far left opposes Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. He has promised to appoint judges who will interpret but not make law. Those two activities are not the same, and the far left knows it. They huff and puff and strut and fret condemning this decision, but they'll need that same unrestrained judicial power on a different day to deliver other results and impose other values the people reject.

The Ninth Circuit in this case did nothing different than many other judges elsewhere in America do every day of the week. This one just got our attention. It's time to decide.

[jase71]

You didn't get that article from the "liberal media", did you? :P

It's a nice article. But it blames the plaintiff, the judges, and liberals for the situation.

It does not, however, point out why the ruling was incorrect. It gives no reason why the ruling should be overturned by the Supreme Court. It does nothing to indicate why the 9th was wrong. He gives not one single legal reason why the ruling was in error. It doesn't refute the ruling in any way, shape, or form.

I can only assume that the author can find no legal flaw with the ruling. He just doesn't like it, so he'll cast the blame around as much as possible, hoping people will make an emotional judgement, rather than a logical and legal one.

I guess if you can't refute the message, you can at least disparage the messenger.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by jase71
You didn't get that article from the "liberal media", did you? :P

of course not. it's from the washington times, one of the most unbiased media sources i've ever read

(ouch! my tongue just ripped through the side of my cheek :heh: )

Originally posted by jase71
It's a nice article. But it blames the plaintiff, the judges, and liberals for the situation.

It does not, however, point out why the ruling was incorrect. It gives no reason why the ruling should be overturned by the Supreme Court. It does nothing to indicate why the 9th was wrong. He gives not one single legal reason why the ruling was in error. It doesn't refute the ruling in any way, shape, or form.

I can only assume that the author can find no legal flaw with the ruling. He just doesn't like it, so he'll cast the blame around as much as possible, hoping people will make an emotional judgement, rather than a logical and legal one.

I guess if you can't refute the message, you can at least disparage the messenger.
i'm gonna have to disagree with you here. while i disagree with the author of the article, i think he did have a point.

primarily, he was arguing that "activist" decisions that "make new laws" that go "against the will of the people" are bad and undermine democracy and freedom. he classifies this decision as "activist" and therefore contrary to the type of court decisions the founders envisioned.

to come to this conclusion, he has to do a couple things: first, claim a strict "constructionist" view of the constitution (that the founders' "original intent" should be the guiding principle for intrepretation), and second, to argue that the original intent of the establishment clause did not prohibit the official recognition of the Judeo-Christian "God" as a primary protector and diety of the United States.

if his premises are correct, then his conclusion (that this decision struck down a legitimate law enacted by Congress and substituted a "new" constitutional principle of the judges own opinion) is correctly drawn.

however, i would argue that both his premises are faulty. as i have stated earlier, i believe that the establishment clause prohibits the establishment of any kind of religion by the government, not just a "state church". therefore, i dismiss his interpretation of the establishment clause.

in addition, i think his "constructionalist" vs. "activist" paradigm is vastly overstated and is an exaggeration that the far right uses to dismiss legal decisions with which they disagree.

while i will not argue that decisions are never made (by judges of EITHER the far left or the far right) which are merely expressions of the judges' opinion. however, such decisions are a tiny minority.

any legal ruling involves intrepretation of the law. everyone is trying to figure out what the founders intended. it's just that some people believe that the founders wanted the u.s. to continue existing in the 18th century, with corresponding laws and legal practices. others believe that the founders tried to establish a framework in which congress and the judiciary could always make laws that were best for the people at that time.

[jase71]

Originally posted by whitak24


whitak24's insightful commentary snipped for brevity...



Sorry, Whitak.. you took a much more thoughtful and logical analysis of his commentary than I did. I snapped off a too-quick response. sbp's link deserved a more thorough reading than I gave it. My apologies, sbp...

I read it from the perspective of a typical reader trying to be convinced by a well-reasoned argument, rather than from the standpoint of how valid his legal point was. Your reading of it was more germane to the discussion than mine was.

However, his duty, as a columnist, was to not only convince me that it was judicial activism, but to convince me WHY it was judicial activism, as opposed to a proper ruling. Where was the legal flaw in the ruling? Where was the incorrect interpretation? What would the correct interpretation have been? And what was the reasoning for it?

Rather than using the space to set up his own views and interpretations (as you did in your description of contructionism vs. activism), he labored on the personal life of Mr. Newdow, and why we won't be able to sing "America the Beautiful".

You, whitak, while playing devil's advocate and demonstrating his point, were more convincing than he was in his own column.

But I'll try and be a little less rash in my knee-jerks from now on. ;)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by jase71
You, whitak, while playing devil's advocate and demonstrating his point, were more convincing than he was in his own column.

so, you know of any job openings for newspaper opinion writers? i'd way rather do that instead of what i'm doing right now ;)

[jase71]

Originally posted by whitak24

so, you know of any job openings for newspaper opinion writers? i'd way rather do that instead of what i'm doing right now ;)

You 'n me both, whitak... :P

Maybe if you work on a Manifesto, and send it to enough papers, you'll get all the space in print you could possibly want. ;)

[molecularfire]

[b]They are screwed being stuck in a crappy government run school with no hope of escaping at all.

Complete crap. I came from a public school in a crappy neighborhood. The reason why a lot of those students don't get anywhere is because they're spending their time goofing off instead of studying. I went to school full time, worked in a sweat shop part time and have gotten further than a lot of people who went to much better schools. Saying that your parents don't make a lot of money therefore you can't get an education is just a cop out. I've heard it 20 billion times and the few people who I haven't heard it from are the ones who are doing well. :angry:


Rich folk kids are already getting educated. Why do you think Clinton and company sent his kid to a private school? And no its not wrong for people to want the best education for their kids.

Does anyone realize that if they're sending their kids to private schools, they're paying for public education via taxes that they're not using? People who get pissed at rich people should realize that they are paying taxes for services that they will most likely never use.


Its puzzling why people would want government to run education, but if government ran say the newspapers there would be murder.

Because, people don't want to or can't pay for their kids education. People normally like to complain about life being tough and about how they're getting screwed instead of working harder/smarter.

EDIT: Oh... sorry. Completely forgot to say something about the pledge of allegience issue. :blush: Here's a question... how many people here would have a problem if instead of removing the under god phrase, they replaced it with under allah (sp?) and said that if students didn't want to say it, they could just stay seated. Now... how many people here would be ok if we sent your kids to a muslim school and kept the same rules? Rationalize it all you guys want... I got beat up a LOT as a kid in school because I didn't say the "under god" part. :shrug:

[NuTs62]

what? you guys are still here?? :P

eh, it seems that all of us are pretty stubborn and stuck to our issues.. and i think everything has been said or done at least 5 times over.. i guess we'll hafta see how it all plays out eh?

[Windsor]

Originally posted by molecularfire



Rationalize it all you guys want... I got beat up a LOT as a kid in school because I didn't say the "under god" part. :shrug:



That kid's a heathen! GIT 'em!!!!

[hapoo]

Originally posted by molecularfire


EDIT: Oh... sorry. Completely forgot to say something about the pledge of allegience issue. :blush: Here's a question... how many people here would have a problem if instead of removing the under god phrase, they replaced it with under allah (sp?) and said that if students didn't want to say it, they could just stay seated. Now... how many people here would be ok if we sent your kids to a muslim school and kept the same rules? Rationalize it all you guys want... I got beat up a LOT as a kid in school because I didn't say the "under god" part. :shrug:



I wouldn't mind either one :P:P:P:P

you guys keep mentioning allah. Its NOT the same as saying god. "god" is an idea, allah is a name.

[LPMiller]

That's not true at all, Hap.

If you mean god in general, the Christian god does go by God as his name, though Jehovah is a bit more proper.

Other gods may also be referred to as God - think of it as a title as well as a name. Goes a bit beyond an idea.

And all Allah means is in fact, God.

If you mean in this instance, read back. Eisenhower specificly stated it was to show americans had faith in the Almighty, and he wasn't talking some vague concept.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by sbp
Lawless or lawful? (http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20020701-87064696.htm) by Thomas L. Jipping


This guy, obviously didn't read this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf

[sbp]

I Pledge Allegiance -- By Red Skelton
http://home.att.net/~poofcatt/july.html

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy


This guy, obviously didn't read this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423p.pdf
i finally got around to reading the full text of the decision this morning. good stuff. i mean, it is obviously VERY well thought out, especially since they went through each and every establishment clause test and showed that the 1954 amendment to the pledge violated it.

the dissent, on the other hand, is another story. the logic basically seemed to be "america IS a nation under god, so obviously it's ok to say so in the pledge".

i will be interested to see how the supreme court handles the case. obviously, it is quite possible that you could argue with the conclusion that the judges came to concerning the various establishment clause tests (i think it could go either way, although my opinion is that the judges came to the correct conclusions). i just hope that the court deals with the case on this level rather than throwing out the tests all together.

[molecularfire]

Well... whitak24... you've got a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Personally, IMO, it's career suicide for a judge to support this ruling. They'll overturn it. :(

[jase71]

Originally posted by molecularfire
Well... whitak24... you've got a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Personally, IMO, it's career suicide for a judge to support this ruling. They'll overturn it. :(

Considering Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments, they're probably pretty safe. Job security isn't their major concern. :P

At most, they'll be unpopular... The liberals already don't like them after the way they handled the Bush/Gore election. If they uphold this, it just means the conservatives won't like them either.

If 150 million people hate you, does it really matter if the number goes up to 300 million? :P

[whitak24]

Originally posted by molecularfire
Well... whitak24... you've got a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. Personally, IMO, it's career suicide for a judge to support this ruling. They'll overturn it. :(
first, federal appeals judges and supreme court judges don't have to worry about career suicide. they're appointed for life :)

secondly, i think the ruling will most likely be overturned on appeal (although i would disagree with such a ruling, as i have stated in various earlier posts).

what i was saying is that i hope that the supreme court does not discard the "lemon test", the "coercion test", or the "endorsement test", and instead simply rules that the lower court improperly applied the tests, or came to incorrect conclusion when applying the tests, thereby overturning the 9th circuit's decision.

these three "tests" have been established by the supreme court in various cases over the years (see pp 11-15 of the court's ruling for history/explaination) to deal with "establishment clause" cases. basically, if a law fails any one of the tests, then the law is unconstitutional.

the 9th circuit judges ruled that the "under God" portion of the pledge failed ALL THREE tests. so the supreme court can overturn the decision simply by saying that the lower court came to the wrong conclusion -- the "under God" clause actually passes all three tests, meaning that it is constitutional.

(or, the court could rule that the three tests do not apply to this case, and rely on some other precedent to overturn the decision)

however, the court could (conceivably) use this case as an opportunity to get rid of one, two, or all three of the tests, and set a new (more permissive) standard for what is allowed under the establishment clause.

for those of us who would like to see freedom of religion maintained in this country, such a ruling would be a drastic setback, because the Lemon test has helped keep the government from getting too involved in religion over the past three decades.

[jase71]

Originally posted by whitak24


however, the court could (conceivably) use this case as an opportunity to get rid of one, two, or all three of the tests, and set a new (more permissive) standard for what is allowed under the establishment clause.

Oh, thanks for THAT little tidbit, whitak... :(

I'd been sitting here wondering how they might massage the tests or the details of the case to give them the result they want, if they decide to overturn it.

I hadn't even considered that they could toss them out entirely, and come up with a new standard. Obviously, it's within their power. I just hadn't even thought of it.

That makes this much more up in the air than I thought it was going to be...

[molecularfire]

Considering Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments, they're probably pretty safe. Job security isn't their major concern.

No, but their political careers and the political careers of their friends/supporters could be. Despite our system of checks and balances, I find it difficult to believe that anyone can be free from pressure. Especially on something as big as this. I know... I won't be winning any optimist of the year awards.

oh, and BTW: thanks for the thought that they could overturn those 3 tests. I've never thought of that. That would suck. :( :D

[whitak24]

Originally posted by jase71


Oh, thanks for THAT little tidbit, whitak... :(

I'd been sitting here wondering how they might massage the tests or the details of the case to give them the result they want, if they decide to overturn it.

I hadn't even considered that they could toss them out entirely, and come up with a new standard. Obviously, it's within their power. I just hadn't even thought of it.

That makes this much more up in the air than I thought it was going to be...
hey, what can i say. i'm just a messenger of good news :P

i don't think they'll throw out the tests, because i think there are still enough moderate and liberal justices on the court who feel the tests are valuable.

however, the danger is twofold: first, there are people on the court who (in my opinion) are just itching to get rid of the pesky, constraining lemon test. second, if they look at this case and decide that the judges of the ninth circuit "grossly misused" the lemon test or any of the other tests, they may decide that they do not like how the test is being applied and throw it out (to prevent anyone else from similarly misapplying it).

hopefully, that won't be the case.....but we'll see

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by whitak24
the dissent, on the other hand, is another story. the logic basically seemed to be "america IS a nation under god, so obviously it's ok to say so in the pledge".

:stupid: hehe, that was pretty sad, wasn't it? :heh:


On the other hand, I don't think the Supreme court will overturn this decision. It is obviously justified, logical, and correct.

[topane]

Originally posted by Ladogaboy
On the other hand, I don't think the Supreme court will overturn this decision. It is obviously justified, logical, and correct. When did logic ever come into play regarding religious feelings?

[topane]

Here's (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020702_wolff.html) a good article to take a look at.


The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last week regarding the Pledge of Allegiance has brought out some of the worst that America has to offer. The response of the public, the media, and our elected representatives has been an embarrassment of knee-jerk reactions, majoritarian triumphalism, and cheap expressions of hollow patriotism. Not only is it disappointing, it is inaccurate.

The decision itself bears little relationship to the radical manifesto that the press has reported. The decision did not forbid anyone from privately reciting the current pledge, "under God" included, and it reaffirmed the right of schools to lead children in the secular version of our pledge -- a version that predated the "under God" edition by over fifty years. The Ninth Circuit may have been correct in its decision, or it may have been wrong, but the insults to that court's integrity and reputation that have followed the decision are entirely unwarranted.

What the Case Was, and Was Not, About

The Ninth Circuit did not rule that "the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional," despite the endless media reports to that effect. Rather, the Court's decision is only about the inclusion of the words "under God".

Under the Court's decision, every school in America remains free to lead our children in reciting a Pledge of Allegiance that reads: "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 fact, that is how the pledge read for over fifty years, until President Eisenhower signed a special law that added the words "under God" in 1954.

Moreover, the Court's decision is only about including the words "under God" in the Pledge when public officials lead children in reciting it. Every private citizen is free to express religious and patriotic views however he wishes. This is a case about religious freedom - or, more precisely, the freedom not to be religious. It has nothing to do with constitutional limits on patriotism or free speech.

The Court's decision is perfectly clear about all this. The media has shamefully misreported this case...
There's more to the article on the site.

[jase71]

Thanks, topane.

That summarizes the situation very well....

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by jase71
Thanks, topane.

That summarizes the situation very well....

:stupid: :cheers:

[whitak24]

Originally posted by topane
Here's (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020702_wolff.html) a good article to take a look at.


There's more to the article on the site.
excellent article, topane.

thanks for sharing it :thumbup:

[NuTs62]

JEFFERSON CITY, Missouri (AP) -- The Pledge of Allegiance must be recited every week in Missouri's public schools under a bill signed into law Wednesday, a week after a panel of federal judges ruled the pledge unconstitutional.

State lawmakers had passed the bill before the ruling was issued, and Gov. Bob Holden said it didn't affect his decision to sign.

"This is a symbolic gesture that we as a state believe in the Pledge of Allegiance and its values and that we hold those values dear to our heart," Holden said. "I think that court decision will be overturned."

In their June 26 decision, three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the pledge phrase "one nation under God" amounted to a government endorsement of religion, violating the separation of church and state. That ruling, which applies to nine Western states and not Missouri, has been stayed until other members of the court have a chance to weigh in.

Under the Missouri law, effective August 28, public schools must ensure the pledge is recited weekly in a scheduled class of every student, but students cannot be required to participate.

Holden brushed aside suggestions that children who don't participate would be ostracized.

"I think the point here is that this is a way for them to all understand what it means to be an American," he said.

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ted House, said the legislation was prompted partly by his concern that many Missouri schools were moving away from reciting the pledge.

"These are state schools, they receive public money and I think the Legislature should set the public policy of indicating that public schools will offer the Pledge of Allegiance to students," House said.

In Illinois on Wednesday, Gov. George Ryan signed into law a requirement that public high schools lead students in the pledge every day. State law already mandated that elementary schools set aside time for the pledge. Neither law requires that students participate in the pledge or punishes them if they refuse.

----------------------
Linkage (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/03/missouri.pledge.ap/index.html)

Notice it says not every state. And this article also disturbs me. The pledge, for me at least, doesn't make me understand what it is to be an American. Or does it? Make a pledge to something you don't believe in, say it because its the law, because people tell you to.. Be a conformist, don't stand up for yourself.. let the government influence your beliefs. So is that what it is to be an American? I think some kids will get ostricized (sp?). Ah whatever, I thought I retired from this thread already.

[poiselle]

Welcome to post September 11th patriotism. I never once thought about my country or appreciated it, but now that we were attacked everybody wave a flag and it will be okay. Politicians know they have a great fluff issue that will distract people from issues about their character and policy so they are all going to run with it. This is going to get dragged out until election time since why would anyone be against saying the pledge? All red-blooded Americans have 9 flags on their cars, are God fearing Christians and play taps while bringing down the 6'X8' flag flying in their front yard.

[molecularfire]

The article Nuts posted

Ok... I don't think the govt. is getting that there are two issues here. The first is whether people should recite the pledge at all. The second is which pledge it should be pre or post 1954 change. Actually, nevermind... I think they do get it. If they force it to be one topic, it gives the post 1954 pledge more support. :(

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by poiselle
Welcome to post September 11th patriotism. I never once thought about my country or appreciated it, but now that we were attacked everybody wave a flag and it will be okay. Politicians know they have a great fluff issue that will distract people from issues about their character and policy so they are all going to run with it. This is going to get dragged out until election time since why would anyone be against saying the pledge? All red-blooded Americans have 9 flags on their cars, are God fearing Christians and play taps while bringing down the 6'X8' flag flying in their front yard.

yeah.. so is that what we call American..? just wave a flag when our country gets hit hard before everyone raises their flags to show support? Much of that so-called patriotism has more or less disappeared in many parts of the country.. people are back to being their old rude selves..

I believe Sept 11th was a wake up call.. but people are just falling back asleep.

[poiselle]

I completely agree. I don't feel any different about my country after Sept 11th. I loved my country before that and I still love my country. I don't need to wrap myself in a flag to prove where my loyalty lies. Where my parents live you are a communist if you did not have a flag flying in your front yard though. People are slowly slipping quietly back into their normal way of life though. The flags will start to fade and they will not be taken down with as much frequency and soon they will not be out at all. Until the next tragedy and then I guess I will get smart and invest in a flag company.

[xsiled2]

funny how all you twist your own ideas after one a--hole used some bulls--t to get his 15 minz of fame. also funny that is "offended" daughter IS CHRISTIAN.
--

this isnt an atheist country

this is not a muslum country

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by xsiled2
funny how all you twist your own ideas after one a--hole used some bulls--t to get his 15 minz of fame. also funny that is "offended" daughter IS CHRISTIAN.
--

this isnt an atheist country

this is not a muslum country

i'm Christian, and I agree with the decision to remove "under god" from the pledge, for public funded institution purposes. This isn't a Christian country. This is a country made up of a vast array of religions, and those who do not believe as well. That was the reason that I once thought this nation was so great. That everyone had the freedom of religion, belief, etc. Thats what sets our country apart. Or rather, it did set us apart, if what you're implying is that this is a "Christian" country.

And please englighten the crowd how "all you twist your own ideas"..?

[topane]

Originally posted by xsiled2
this isnt an atheist country

this is not a muslum country This is not a Hindu country

This is not a Buddhist country

This is not a Christian country

This is not a Jewish country

[molecularfire]

What about agnostics? Can we have the country then? :P

[jase71]

Originally posted by molecularfire
What about agnostics? Can we have the country then? :P

Perfect! We should leave it up to the agnostics.

Then we can change "under God" to "under God-knows-what"!

:P

[molecularfire]

ROFLMRO. :heh: :heh: :heh: