NationStates Jolt Archive

Considering that:

-It violates the First Amendment's freedom of religion (what about Buddhists, agnostics, atheists, etc.?) as well as that little phrase:

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

-Was added in the '50s to show that the country was united under god against the Communists therefore it wouldnt be like removing a long-lasting tradition

Would you support leaving 'Under God' in the Constitution? Support your arguments.

ABSOFRICKINGLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!


STAMPING OUT RELIGION ON NATIONAL CURRENCY!

www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm

Well, the pledge of allegiance is a tradition.
It is sung towards the flag at every sporting event, and at countless other gatherings.

Every american knows this song
when this song is sung, it is a very symbolic event, it symbolizes that America is a nation united and united under god

However, you are correct in stating that it violates the first amendment.
This phrase may seem disrespectfull to atheists and buddhists, but it was written a long time ago, when having no religion was unheard of.

This song is a tradition even though it does not include a number of americans and it violates the first amendment.

Destroying traditions, or even changing them is not what I am about
I respect the time when the song was written, and it's monumental symbolism towards america.

Therefore, i would have to say, leave the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

church and state are both abstract concepts that take a degree of faith to beleive in. therefore, you cannot truly seperate them. on the other hand the seperation of hcurch and state was to keep the church from gaining control over the govt. the problem with this is that out nation is not really secular. it says in god we trust on our money, and our nation was founded by diests. all men were created equal. not evolved equal. that implies god which is religion.

Well, the pledge of allegiance is a tradition.
It is sung towards the flag at every sporting event, and at countless other gatherings.

Every american knows this song

First, it's not a song. It's a pledge. Secondly, I doubt that's the case. If you are home-schooled or go to a private school and thus aren't exposed to the pledge, chances are you WON'T know it. I didn't know it until I was a teenager. Incidentally, at what sporting event is the PLEDGE recited?

This phrase may seem disrespectfull to atheists and buddhists, but it was written a long time ago, when having no religion was unheard of.

The fifties? :roll:

Destroying traditions, or even changing them is not what I am about I respect the time when the song was written

The fifties.

Edit: In response to the poll option, "Church and State should be married"... only if it's a same-sex wedding. :wink:

Whatever, i was just trying to make a point

and, you shouldnt talk about sporting event if you have never been to one.

one last thing,

The Dark Lord Chaos Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:34 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

church and state are both abstract concepts that take a degree of faith to beleive in. therefore, you cannot truly seperate them. on the other hand the seperation of hcurch and state was to keep the church from gaining control over the govt. the problem with this is that out nation is not really secular. it says in god we trust on our money, and our nation was founded by diests. all men were created equal. not evolved equal. that implies god which is religion.

what he said

do you know what the pledge of allegiance EVEN IS?

yeah. . . . . . . .
sorry,
i was definately thinking of the National Anthem. . .

WHOOPS!!

yeah. . .
sorry again

Whatever, i was just trying to make a point

That you don't know what the pledge of allegiance is. Point taken.

when having no religion was unheard of.

check your history notes...

I'm going to say one thing that i know will happen. If its removed from the pledge then they'll want In god is out trust removed from money, and the national anthem.

Whatever, i was just trying to make a point

That you don't know what the pledge of allegiance is. Point taken.
Oh I thought his point was that he posted stuff without thinking about it or was just trying to give us all a laugh by pretending to be really dumb and it turns out his point was that he didnt know what the pledge of allegiance is- ah well thanks for clearing up my confusion QahJob.

Here's something else which the public schools don't mention: the Founding Fathers were actually deists, a group which most Christians at the time considered to be heretical because of its belied in God's non-involvement in the world. They even referred to the deity by euphemisms, never really saying "God." So the idea of an American pledge being so openly Christian is, well, un-American. ^_^ *ducks the inevitable flying objects*

I'm going to say one thing that i know will happen. If its removed from the pledge then they'll want In god is out trust removed from money, and the national anthem.
...and this is bad why?

God is only mentioned once in the national anthem and we dont even sing it:

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Wow guys,

I apologized in case you are blind

Last time I checked, it was polite to stop mocking people after they step down and say they were wrong.


Thought you should know, just in case.

Ick, but the Anthem is long! And even singing the first verse gets tremendously tedious (not to mention the fact that Mr. Keys' syntax fubar-ed). I think that if we had to sing the whole thing every time, there would be a lot fewer people attending sundry sporting events :wink:

The Atheists, agnostics and Buddihts dont HAVE to say it, if they want to have a nice pause for a breath when we people who actualy DO believe in it say it, thats fine.
Anyway, the reason the line is IN the pledge is to piss off the Commies, socialists and other assorted evil type governments.

i think the whole debate is pretty much moot anyway, since i know of no place that forces people to recite the pledge of allegiance word for word, and punishes them if they don't. honestly it's just become a creed; the issue of whether the government supports it or not doesn't matter at this point.

and where it does, remember that the Founding Fathers were deists; if you'd like to take "under God" out of the pledge, you'd better edit the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.

so basically, if you want to say it, say it. if you don't want to say it, don't say it. it's that simple.

Why do you even care? So what if it is there or not! Does it really offend you that it includes, "under God"? If it does, your way to easily offended. Life gets people offended sometimes. Deal with it. Anyways, I just think its a power struggle of Chrisians VS atheists and nobody really even gives a shit about the seperation of church and state, at least in the pledge.

Not saying the pledge doesnt make it anymore unconstiutional...

Should a convicted murder not be punished because he or she isnt murdering anyone at the moment.

Anyway, the reason the line is IN the pledge is to piss off the Commies, socialists and other assorted evil type governments.

Yeah, equality and freedom are really evil

First, I'd like to super-size this issue.

Next, I wish to endorse this proposal.

Further, I would like to amend this proposal: to replace "Under God" with some other phrase that more clearly elucidates our true relation to God.

As everyone knows, the phrase "Under God," is a metaphor for His superiority over us.

With the phrase "Under God" we acknowledge that we are fully subject to His will. We quiver with anticipation of doing His will, of abjectly yet fawningly obeying His every command. In essence, God is our "top" and we are His "bottom".

With that in mind, I hope you'll support my initiative to replace "Under God" with "God's Bitches."

Thank you and have a nice day.

Taking off part of the plege of allegiance is not vary patriotic besides god is king he has put us into being he is the one hwo made it all posable so dont kick him out off the pic. you just dont now how bad that is.


A fallower of crist and a child of crist
I just hope you fiegure it out some
day.

-Febutopia

errmmm... it's unconstitutional. how hard is that to understand? patriotism is irrelevant. god is irrelevant. constitutionality is relevant. I can see that the ones who answered no are not the sharpest knives in the drawer..

The Atheists, agnostics and Buddihts dont HAVE to say it, if they want to have a nice pause for a breath when we people who actualy DO believe in it say it, thats fine.
And if christians (and anyone else who wants under god in there) want to say it, they can just sneak it in there between "One nation" and "Indivisible" while the rest of us say it how it was originaly written. Not having it in there doesn't stop you from saying it all you want.

The only difference between these two scenarios is one of them is unconstitutional (can you guess which?)

I believe that the reason we have discussions like this is because the religious right has an agenda to force their views on everyone else. In essence, shoving religion down our throats is not the answer. It actually makes people dislike Christians. Why is it that Buddhists and Jews don't try to recruit and convert? The only two (major) religions that recruit through fear is Christianity and Islam. Quite frankly - these two are not that far apart. If you don't believe the way they do then you are doomed. Christians forced many into converting in the 17 & 18 centuries, while Islam is still doing so. Give it up! Let people believe in what they wish. If they are doomed, that's their business. Let them take the chance - but quit pushing the Rightist agenda on everyone - not everyone believes as you.

if you'd like to take "under God" out of the pledge, you'd better edit the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.That arguement doesn't wash since the pledge was edited to put the phrase "under God" into it. That phrase was not part of Francis Bellamy's original work, it was added over 60 years later thanks to a concerted lobbying effort by the Knights of Columbus, a religious organization.

The pledge is not a law, neither is there any law on the books in any state requiring it to be recited, so, it does not violate the first amendment. Simple.

Taking off part of the plege of allegiance is not vary patriotic besides god is king he has put us into being he is the one hwo made it all posable so dont kick him out off the pic. you just dont now how bad that is.


A fallower of crist and a child of crist
I just hope you fiegure it out some
day.

-Febutopia

Your godking offends my gods, as do your typos.

Guo States -- I agree completely. The problem is that when you put fanaticism into the equation (whether it's religious, anti-religious, political, social, you name it) reason and logic go out the window. The world would be a batter place if everyone could stop, take a deep breath, and think before they start orating (that goes for yours truly as well, of course).

...if you'd like to take "under God" out of the pledge, you'd better edit the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well.

I think you mean "If we want to keep, 'under God,' in the Pledge, we had better amend the Constitution."

Having that phrase in the pledge is a clear endorsement of religion -- anyone who wants to keep it and references the Constitution should bear in mind that the Constitution makes no mention of God. Admittedly, the Declaration of Independence does reference God (I think twice), but bear in mind that the DoI isn't a legal document.

Nor is the phrase authentic -- the Pledge was written and spoken across the nation long before that phrase was added in -- so you traditionalists have sadly lost your point.

The Atheists, agnostics and Buddihts dont HAVE to say it, if they want to have a nice pause for a breath when we people who actualy DO believe in it say it, thats fine.

You're shifting the issue. The government has clearly endorsed a particular branch of religions by inserting the phrase. The issue isn't whether or not people should be forced to say it -- though it is undeniable that they should not be, a concession which is still being fought for in some parts of the country. Schoolchildren in public schools should not be indoctrinated on a daily basis with the knowledge that the nation was established "under God" when the Constitution expressly forbids such a practice. Regardless of whether or not the children are forced to say it, most will on account of peer pressure and faculty influence.

If we truly wish to seperate church and state then 'God' should be taken out. Personally I'm Pagan and I think I have a solution to this whole mess. Replace 'God' with 'Higher Power' and I think you've made everyone happy. Everyone beleives in something greater than they are and even the agnostics can't argue that point. Even if they don't beleive in a being that they cannot see, they can think it refers to the government. I'll think it refers to my dieties and the Christians can think that it refers to their god and the Buddists...you get the idea. I love the US and I wish that when the govt. says 'Freedom of religion' they really meant it but just try putting up a Pentacle or Pentagram somewhere and everyone thinks you sacrifice babies.
I was thinking that 'God' could be replaced with 'Many Gods' or just 'Gods' because many of us do have different dieties but that wouldn't include the ag's would it? Better yet, just take it OUT!

Errmmm.. not everyone believes in a higher power. What about atheists? Why should they be forced honor a god(s)? Anarchists? Why should they be forced to consider the government as a higher power? When is the government supposed to be a higher power? It serves the people not the people serve it (thats how it's supposed to be anyway).

The pledge is not a law, neither is there any law on the books in any state requiring it to be recited, so, it does not violate the first amendment. Simple.

But we are still exposed to it.

Errmmm.. not everyone believes in a higher power. What about atheists? Anarchists?

<in a pompous holier-than-thou voice> athiests and anarchists don't matter because they are unamerican and going to hell.

And anarchy is political ideology, not a religious one...

Even if they don't beleive in a being that they cannot see, they can think it refers to the government.

Read that bit. That's what I meant when I referred to anarchists being offended.

Does my arguement, the most factually correct one in the thread, count for nothing among Zealots for Atheism and Christianity?

Yes, and "In God We Trust" removed from the money.

Where do you think the government gets its laws from?

Without God, there is no such thing as morals. At least there is no absolute sense of morals. You could say murdering is wrong and I could say it's right, and it wouldnt matter. Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

"Hmmm, how can I crap on America?"

http://content.clearchannel.com/Photos/gov_photos/Senators/john_kerry_StefanZaklin.jpg

"Ahhhh, yesssss, we will crap on everyone who belives in God"

Where do you think the government gets its laws from?

Thousands of years of trial and error and philisophical thought.


Without God, there is no such thing as morals. At least there is no absolute sense of morals. You could say murdering is wrong and I could say it's right, and it wouldnt matter. Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

Morality existed before the christian god and will long after the rapture (if it happens) Besides, even WITH god, there is no absolute morals. And which god are we talking about? The christian god? muslim? jewish? hindu? budhist? pagan? etc etc etc etc.

Does my arguement, the most factually correct one in the thread, count for nothing among Zealots for Atheism and Christianity?

I already stated that we are exposed to it. Everyday I have to listen to the words under god recited by my prinicipal over the intercom. We are still being influenced by it even if we dont say it.

Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

Right and wrong. Black and white. Terrible mindset to put yourself in.

"under canada and above mexico"

Where do you think the government gets its laws from?
Logic. Or at least I would hope so. Do you see many laws from the old testemant being passed by congress?
Without God, there is no such thing as morals. At least there is no absolute sense of morals.
There hasn't even been an absolute set of morals within Christianity for all of its duration. Polygamy, for example, was largely accepted Througout most of its history. Morality as a whole is particular to the society you are talking about, different things are accepted as moral in different times and places.
You could say murdering is wrong and I could say it's right, and it wouldnt matter. Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.
However, the responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens. Clearly, allowing murder (and other things such as theft and vandalism) is not something that protects the citizens (quite the opposite), so it shouldn't be allowed. Almost every society in the world has come up with laws against murder. It isn't something exclusive to christianity, it's a requirment for a functioning society.

Does my arguement, the most factually correct one in the thread, count for nothing among Zealots for Atheism and Christianity?

I already stated that we are exposed to it. Everyday I have to listen to the words under god recited by my prinicipal over the intercom. We are still being influenced by it even if we dont say it.

Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

Right and wrong. Black and white. Terrible mindset to put yourself in.
It's still not a law. If you don't like the local policy of your school, protest it.

Where do you think the government gets its laws from?
Logic. Or at least I would hope so. Do you see many laws from the old testemant being passed by congress?
Without God, there is no such thing as morals. At least there is no absolute sense of morals.
There hasn't even been an absolute set of morals within Christianity for all of its duration. Polygamy, for example, was largely accepted Througout most of its history. Morality as a whole is particular to the society you are talking about, different things are accepted as moral in different times and places.
You could say murdering is wrong and I could say it's right, and it wouldnt matter. Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.
However, the responsibility of the government is to protect its citizens. Clearly, allowing murder (and other things such as theft and vandalism) is not something that protects the citizens (quite the opposite), so it shouldn't be allowed. Almost every society in the world has come up with laws against murder. It isn't something exclusive to christianity, it's a requirment for a functioning society.

Where does logic come from?

It's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens? Why should the government protect its citizens?

It's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens? Why should the government protect its citizens?

Because happy pacified citizens are more productive. If they are constantly afraid of harm or violence, it affects the profit margin.

The original pledge of Alligence never included the word God. It wasn't put in there until the U.S. felt under the threat of Communism during the McCarthy Era and the same goes for "in God we trust" on our money.

The original Pledge read: "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."

When the cloud of fear grips a nation, the people tend to look towards religion for refuge and comfort. Such was the case in 1954 when Congress unconstitutionally allowed "under God" to be rewritten into our nation's pledge. Thanks to the widespread fear of Communists provided by McCarthyism, the current pledge reads: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

When people support "under God" being in our pledge, they are supporting the continuation of a direct violation of the Seperation of Church and State promised by our Constitution. When we as Americans finally decide what's going to be in our Constitution, we need to make sure its something that reflects the values and beliefs of ALL Americans and what this country was founded upon. When we have our children say "under God" because its in our pledge, we alienate millions of Americans who do not subscribe to any monotheistic beliefs structures.

Hmmm, how can I crap on America?"

"Ahhhh, yesssss, we will crap on everyone who belives in God"

Looks like someone forgot that America was founded for freedom, or that the original colonists came over here to escape religious persecution.

Where do you think the government gets its laws from?

Without God, there is no such thing as morals. At least there is no absolute sense of morals. You could say murdering is wrong and I could say it's right, and it wouldnt matter. Then again, there would be no such thing as right and wrong.

Now that's just funny. Since when have ideas like "Don't murder people," been exclusively Judeo-Christian? And where were price controls on oil listed in the Bible? What about the National Guard? Vehicle registration fees?

And it's absurd to think that your argument has relevance to this debate -- since when does removing two words from the Pledge of Allegiance restructure the entire American government into an altar of Satan?

There is no seperation of Church and State, first of all.

Second, the pledge is not a law, nor is the pledge required to be spoken by law in any state of the union, therefore, there is no constitutional violation.

The pledge is a motto, a tradition, nothing more. Get over it, Karl.

Why does anyone even care about this?

So big deal the pedge has the words under god in it.
I am a damn atheist and I still recite the thing.

I know muslims, Jews, Buddists and people of a few other faiths and none of them gives a damn about the under god phrase.

My opinion....if you dont like it then dont say that part.

Not saying doesnt make it any more legal... we still have to hear it.

Where does logic come from?
Why does it have to come from somewhere?

It's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens? Why should the government protect its citizens?
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the government is put in place by the citizens, not the other way around.

Keeping that in mind, what do you believe is the point of having a government?

Not saying doesnt make it any more legal... we still have to hear it.
It's perfectly legal because it's not a law, and there is no law requiring you to say it.

It's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens? Why should the government protect its citizens?

You've never heard of the concept of "social contract," have you?

There is no seperation of Church and State, first of all.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx

The Supreme Court has long held that the Establishment Clause is included in the concept of substantive due process established under the 14th Amendment.

Take, for example, the Lemon Test:

1) Actions of the government must have a secular purpose.
2) Actions of the government may not directly advance or inhibit a religion.
3) Religion and government must not become "excessively entangled." (ie: citizens must be able to differentiate between the two)

Church and state were clearly meant to be seperate. Religious freedom can only be assured if the state is not a religion. There is some debate as to whether the Constitution was written with such a direct seperation in mind -- I personally believe that it was -- but that debate is subordinate to the simple fact that the Constitution is a living document which changes with time to better serve the cause of freedom.

What difference is there between a "Church of America" and a Catholic Church which is fully endorsed and supported by Congress? I see none. Freedom of religion is only assured when the government cannot directly become, endorse, or follow any religion.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that no state shall, "...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Ninth Amendment states that, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The great majority of the people of the United States believe that church and state should be seperated -- thus, it stands to reason that the seperation is an essential liberty which is protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.

It's the government's responsibility to protect its citizens? Why should the government protect its citizens?

You've never heard of the concept of "social contract," have you?

It's perfectly legal because it's not a law, and there is no law requiring you to say it.

Which would explain why several states require their public schools to engage in daily pledging ceremonies? Say, Texas, specifically? Or why Congress passed a law in 1954 which officially added the phrase "under God?" Oh, yeah, no laws to be found here.

And especially never mind that Congress made the Pledge official on June 22, 1942, under the United States Code (Title 36).

If the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, then so is our national anthem, our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and many of the monuments and landmarks scattered across this great land, installed by our forefathers to remind us why we came here to begin with. Leaving "Under God" in the Pledge is not state-endorsed religion; it's two words which remind us that America was founded by Christians who were pursecuted for their faith.

To this day, congress prays before meeting. Is this state-endorsed religion? No one is forcing the Buddhist, the Atheist, or the Mormon to recite the pledge. If they don't believe in it, they certainly need not say it. But, among the many freedoms that America offers, freedom from being offended by the slightest remark is has no place. This is the price of religious freedom: You can't win 'em all. If you remove the words, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Deists are offended. If you leave them in, Polytheists, Atheists, Agnostics and Buddhists are offended. Either way, someone's feelings will get trampled on, but the fact is, that was the principle that this country was founded on. If you're gonna get offended by two words, then you're sure as hell gonna be offended living in a country where ALL words are free to be used. Give China a try, instead.

"Oh thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes, and the war's desolation
Bless'd with Vict'ry and Peace
May the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us, a Nation
And conquer we must, when our cause is just
And this be our motto: In God Is Our Trust
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the Land of the Free
And the Home of the Brave"

And if THAT offends you, well, I'm not about to petition that our anthem be changed to "Free To Be You And Me" just to make some fringe group feel better about themselves.

If you remove the words then no one is offended because it doesnt favor any god. Heck, it doesnt even mention a god. Jeez. The US was not founded for religious persecution. You're thinking of something call Plymouth where the Puritans came to Massachusetts, settled, and then started burning people for being 'witches' and such... most of the founding fathers were deists. They supported a wall of separation between church and state. Understand? Comprende?

If you remove the words then no one is offended because it doesnt favor any god. Heck, it doesnt even mention a god. Jeez. The US was not founded for religious persecution. You're thinking of something call Plymouth where the Puritans came to Massachusetts, settled, and then started burning people for being 'witches' and such... most of the founding fathers were deists. They supported a wall of separation between church and state. Understand? Comprende?

I'm sorry for pointing out the same thing that others already have tried to, but the word God was never in the pledge until it was hijacked in the fifties, and America was doing fine back then. So where would be the harm in removing that word from the pledge and returning it to its original state? Surely no patriotic American could find fault with that.

I think the general....focus of the american anth. is summed up best in a Simpsons episode

"Let us sing together: not a call to war like our own anthem...."

To this day, congress prays before meeting. Is this state-endorsed religion?

Congress is allowed to have a chaplain for a few reasons. First, Congressional Representatives are not school children -- they are set in their religion and not vulnerable to indoctrination. Second, no one has ever attempted a serious challenge on the issue that I know of, in Congress or in the courts. Third, the prayers given are not always of the same denominations. I might think more on this one later.

If the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional, then so is our national anthem, our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and many of the monuments and landmarks scattered across this great land, installed by our forefathers to remind us why we came here to begin with. Leaving "Under God" in the Pledge is not state-endorsed religion; it's two words which remind us that America was founded by Christians who were pursecuted for their faith.

There is one mention of God in the Star Spangled Banner. It's buried all the way in the fourth verse -- most people aren't aware that there are even multiple verses, and I've never seen more than the first performed.

Remember, as always, the the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence are not legal documents. They are a part of our history, yes, but we don't require our schoolchildren to recite them on a daily basis.

Finally, the Pledge does not say anything about a nation "founded under God," so I definitely have to bring into question your particular interpretation of it as a historical reminder. Besides that, America wasn't founded by the original colonists. The colonies were under British rule for several generations.

If you're gonna get offended by two words, then you're sure as hell gonna be offended living in a country where ALL words are free to be used.

Removing these two words does not infringe on the rights of the people; it limits the government and protects civil liberties. "God" is still quite a legal word, but the government can't instruct us to believe in Him.

How many times must this be clarified?

The pledge is not a law.

No law requires the pledge to be said.

Therefore, it does not violate the constitution, because it can't, not being a law.

It is a tradition, a motto, nothing more, get over it, Karl.

I guess you missed it last time, I'll say it again:

Care to explain why several states require their public schools to engage in daily pledging ceremonies? Say, Texas, specifically? Or why Congress passed a law in 1954 which officially added the phrase "under God?" Oh, yeah, no laws to be found here.

And especially never mind that Congress made the Pledge official on June 22, 1942, under the United States Code (Title 36).

I guess you missed it last time, I'll say it again:

Care to explain why several states require their public schools to engage in daily pledging ceremonies? Say, Texas, specifically? Or why Congress passed a law in 1954 which officially added the phrase "under God?" Oh, yeah, no laws to be found here.

And especially never mind that Congress made the Pledge official on June 22, 1942, under the United States Code (Title 36).
Texas requiring schools to have "pledge time" is not law, it's regulation.

They did not pass a law changing the pledge, they passed a motion changing the pledge. A motion and a law are two different things.

Considering Congress passed the addition of these words to this "motto", they obviously saw no problem with it in regards to the constitution.

It's a motto, get over it, Karl.

Considering Congress passed the addition of these words to this "motto", they obviously saw no problem with it in regards to the constitution.
Congress can pass all the unconstitutional laws they want. It's up to the courts to decide what laws are constitutional or not, not congress.

It's a motto, get over it, Karl.
I agree wholeheartedly.

Hell i don't care if they remove it anyways. You'll still see it on the paper money because it isn't economical to remove In god is our trust from all the paper money going about......And hell you could insert god after every word in the pledge and they cant do anything about it in schools.

Texas requiring schools to have "pledge time" is not law, it's regulation.

An ultimately pointless distinction which is nicely rendered out of bounds by the Fourteenth Amendment.

They did not pass a law changing the pledge, they passed a motion changing the pledge. A motion and a law are two different things.

Are you quite sure that they specifically passed a "motion?" Typically a motion refers to a procedural action - say, "I move to table this Bill," or, "I move the call."

Also note that a law is generally considered: An act of Congress that has been signed by the president or passed over his veto by Congress.

Clearly, if Congress amends the Pledge, they have officially recognized it, eh? That seems pretty logical to me, even if you ignore everything else.

And again you miss that "tiny" detail about June 22, 1942.

Considering Congress passed the addition of these words to this "motto", they obviously saw no problem with it in regards to the constitution.

Congress does not interpret the Constitution -- the Supreme Court does. The Constitution says so specifically, so you've pretty well lost that particular point.

It's a motto, get over it, Karl.

An officially sanctioned and enforced motto. There's a difference.

For that matter, I'm not socialist. I guess I should start wrapping up all my posts with, "It's secularism, get over it, Louis."

"under canada and above mexico"

Thats great, and truely true. Maybe we SHOULD just add that







Monotonous Malarchy Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:50 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why does anyone even care about this?

So big deal the pedge has the words under god in it.
I am a damn atheist and I still recite the thing.

I know muslims, Jews, Buddists and people of a few other faiths and none of them gives a damn about the under god phrase.

My opinion....if you dont like it then dont say that part.






I, too, have muslim, Buddist, everything friends, and ive talked to them about this, they really dont care. maybe its just the fanatical ones, but seriously, GET THE HELL OVER IT






Comdidia Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2004 1:30 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hell i don't care if they remove it anyways. You'll still see it on the paper money because it isn't economical to remove In god is our trust from all the paper money going about......And hell you could insert god after every word in the pledge and they cant do anything about it in schools.







YES YES YES. Neways, seriously, why does it matter that much. its ONE FRIGGEN WORD! (well, a couple if you count the whole phrase, but thats not the point). If they take it out, ppl will still protest. If they leave it ppl will still protest it, MOVE ON PPL!!!!!!

So because an issue has two or more sides which disagree, we should refuse to consider that issue? If this "one word" doesn't matter, why are so many people so eager to keep it or remove it?

And, as long as I'm at it, here's the law which "doesn't exist:"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/4.html

Pledge of allegiance to the flag; manner of delivery

The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: ''I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'', should be rendered by standing at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag, and render the military salute.

Admittedly, I did incorrectly cite this as being under Title 36 earlier. It would appear that government pulled another reorganization of the code and a few information sources haven't kept with the times.

This isn't a law, this is a listing of a motto. I don't see any provisions for forcing people to say the pledge, or for punishing those who mis-state the pledge. It's not a law. Get over it, Karl.

Get over it, Karl.

It's getting old, Steve.

This isn't a law, this is a listing of a motto.

What part of United States Code doesn't have law written all over it, might I ask? I see that you've coveniently dropped your, "The pledge is not official," stance.

I don't see any provisions for forcing people to say the pledge, or for punishing those who mis-state the pledge.

So by your logic, Congress could pass a resolution saying "Judaism sucks," but because there isn't a penalty involved, it doesn't matter? Or, better yet, why don't they put it in the Pledge? "One nation under God, without Jews." How's that sound? It apparently doesn't matter because, "no one's forced to say it," right?

And while it's not as blatant, doesn't the "under God" line accomplish roughly the same purpose with a few other major religions? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Agnosticism?

You still haven't adequately addressed the common practice of daily pledgings in schools -- in some places, those are all but forced. Schools are mainly regulated at the state level, not federally, and that's why you won't find any federal law regarding pledging in schools. Overzealous teachers frequently cross their bounds and essentially force children to make the pledge. Whether or not the child says the pledge, a room full of at least twenty other children will -- the child's lack of participation is almost moot at that point, with that sort of peer pressure and indoctrination.

And there are, indeed, penalties for misstating the pledge. In the military and in schools, from the top of my head, you will be pointed out and eventually punished by administrators. Many people ridicule those who skip the "under God" phrase. It's a divisive element, if nothing else -- as it has been intended to be since it's insertion during the Red Scare.

Get over it, Karl.

Clearly, the more times you call me a socialist, the more true it should become, I suppose? Oh, why not. Maybe I should switch from Louis XIV to Pius XII, that would be a bit less subtle.

You still haven't adequately addressed the common practice of daily pledgings in schools -- in some places, those are all but forced. Schools are mainly regulated at the state level, not federally, and that's why you won't find any federal law regarding pledging in schools. Overzealous teachers frequently cross their bounds and essentially force children to make the pledge. Whether or not the child says the pledge, a room full of at least twenty other children will -- the child's lack of participation is almost moot at that point, with that sort of peer pressure and indoctrination.
Which brings up a good point - I can remember at least one time when my class was forced to say the pledge in school. Sometihng like this:
Speaker: "And now the pledge [yatayatayata]"
25% of Class (in zombie voices): "i pledge allegiance ...ect"
Teacher: "Unnaceptable, you all have to do it over, and do it right!"
50% of Class (in zombie voices): "i pledge allegiance-"
Teacher: "Still no good! Better!"
90% of Class (now in regular voices): "I pledge allegiance...ect"
Teacher "Much better"

I never backtracked. I said that the pledge is not a law, and it isn't. It is a motto approved by the U.S. Congress, like our National Anthem. You will never be punished for saying or not saying it by law, therefore it does not violate the first amendment.

If you're so conscious about this, then parents who are concerned about it are conscious too. They're perfectly capable of telling their children, "Don't say the pledge." or better yet, "just stay silent while they say "under God." If an unwilling child is ever punished for not saying the pledge, a simple apology would be in order on the part of the faculty member who leveled the punishment, nothing more.

Get over it, Karl.

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.
You were never funny to begin with, does that mean you're going to be quiet now, Karl?

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.
You were never funny to begin with, does that mean you're going to be quiet now, Karl?

Wow, I didn't know that I was the Karl you kept referring to. Perhaps you should inform your other interlocutor.

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.
You were never funny to begin with, does that mean you're going to be quiet now, Karl?

Wow, I didn't know that I was the Karl you kept referring to. Perhaps you should inform your other interlocutor.
Karl is my new word for the various undesirables that make their online home in these forums, Karl.

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.
You were never funny to begin with, does that mean you're going to be quiet now, Karl?

Wow, I didn't know that I was the Karl you kept referring to. Perhaps you should inform your other interlocutor.
Karl is my new word for the various undesirables that make their online home in these forums, Karl.

Making up new definitions for pre-existing words. I see you're taking a page from Red Arrow's playbook. Good luck with that, pookie.

I never backtracked. I said that the pledge is not a law, and it isn't.

You're changing my words around. I said,

I see that you've coveniently dropped your, "The pledge is not official," stance.

So the part where you said...

The pledge is a motto, a tradition, nothing more.

...didn't happen?

Never mind that I've offered up two points regarding the legal status of the Pledge or that I still don't see you really addressing either of those points. Remember that the First Amendment is not the entirety of the Establishment Clause -- it is the foundation, but much of the reasoning behind the Clause is contained in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. What's my point? The Establishment Clause does not apply only to "laws," but to all actions of every level and branch of government.

They're perfectly capable of telling their children, "Don't say the pledge." or better yet, "just stay silent while they say "under God." If an unwilling child is ever punished for not saying the pledge, a simple apology would be in order on the part of the faculty member who leveled the punishment, nothing more.

You still miss an important part of my point. The government has established a clear expectation that all children will all stand, all face the flag, all place their right hand over their heart, and all speak the Pledge in it's entirety. Those who refuse to stand or skip phrases have to take constant conscious action to do so and are quite obviously branded.

And since when has it been the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children aren't religiously indoctrinated by government officials at public school? I always thought that was something of a given, but apparently times are changing.

I especially love the part where you conveniently drop points and hope I don't notice. You still haven't addressed pledging in the military. You still haven't really addressed the obvious Judeo-Christian preference of the altered Pledge.

If an unwilling child is ever punished for not saying the pledge, a simple apology would be in order on the part of the faculty member who leveled the punishment, nothing more.

Again, look at Texas history. It hasn't always been "only" the teachers forcing children to say the Pledge.

Karl is my new word for the various undesirables that make their online home in these forums, Karl.

Ouch, ouch. That just hurts. Oh, the pain. I guess I should go home and cry now because I got so horribly burned by a prominent, accredited member of the Internet community.

A motto can't be official? The National Anthem isn't our official song? nice try, Karl.

The federal Government has no laws on the books which state that children must stand and perform the plede. No state has such laws on the books either. There is no law, so there is no constitutional violation. how many times must we go over this?

You're an unhappy Atheist, we get it, you don't want children influenced by religion. So, start saving, set up a devotedly Atheist school, and start teaching Marx, Engels, and Chomsky.

It isn't parent's job to raise their children? Here I thought it was, silly me and my archaic values, eh?

History, as in it has happened, before. Not now, before. Get over it, Karl.

We're a Judeo-Christian country, get over it. The majority of the people here are Christians and Pseudo-Christians who hold Judeo-Christian values. You're in the minority, and you're not liked. You die hard atheists are nothing but a bunch of unhappy, nasty, mean spirited individuals who just want to impart their misery onto religious people who are obviously more content with the way things are than you. Get over it, Karl.

You die hard atheists are nothing but a bunch of unhappy, nasty, mean spirited individuals who just want to impart their misery onto religious people who are obviously more content with the way things are than you.

Nastiness is in the eye of the beholder. I find Pat Robertson immensely more odious than any atheist I've ever heard of.

How many times must this be clarified?

The pledge is not a law.

No law requires the pledge to be said.

Therefore, it does not violate the constitution, because it can't, not being a law.

It is a tradition, a motto, nothing more, get over it, Karl.

Ahhh my ignorant friend. Good to see you spout off on many areas you barely understand.

The Religious neutrality of the Constitution does not only talk about laws. The Goverment is supposed to be neutral. Period. No statement of suport, no implied support. The fact that schools received funds from the goverment would imply support of the Christian God via the pledge.

Don't even bother talking about tradition because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

The Pledge was written in 1892. Under God was added in 1954. Tradition dicatates that it be removed from the Pledge.

Never mind the fact that Francis Bellamy was an "evil" utopian Socialist. But I guess you knew that already! :roll:

Get over it, Karl.

Rapidly becoming less funny, Shlomo.
You were never funny to begin with, does that mean you're going to be quiet now, Karl?

Wow, I didn't know that I was the Karl you kept referring to. Perhaps you should inform your other interlocutor.
Karl is my new word for the various undesirables that make their online home in these forums, Karl.

What are you 12? :roll:


At least you showed a tinsy bit a creativity with a Marx reference. :roll:

Ahhh my ignorant friend. Good to see you spout off on many areas you barely understand.

The Religious neutrality of the Constitution does not only talk about laws. The Goverment is supposed to be neutral. Period. No statement of suport, no implied support. The fact that schools received funds from the goverment would imply support of the Christian God via the pledge.

Don't even bother talking about tradition because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

The Pledge was written in 1892. Under God was added in 1954. Tradition dicatates that it be removed from the Pledge.

Never mind the fact that Francis Bellamy was an "evil" utopian Socialist. But I guess you knew that already! :roll:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Law. Emphasis, Law. No law = no violation. This portion of the first amendment had only two purposes: To keep a State Church (such as the Church of England) from being formed, and to keep Government from interfering in the affairs of Churches. It is not here to keep people from saying "under God".

No further amendments make any mention of religion.

No, I'm too lazy to start saying the pledge differently. Besides, that would screw up the whole rythm of it all.

Ahhh my ignorant friend. Good to see you spout off on many areas you barely understand.

The Religious neutrality of the Constitution does not only talk about laws. The Goverment is supposed to be neutral. Period. No statement of suport, no implied support. The fact that schools received funds from the goverment would imply support of the Christian God via the pledge.

Don't even bother talking about tradition because you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

The Pledge was written in 1892. Under God was added in 1954. Tradition dicatates that it be removed from the Pledge.

Never mind the fact that Francis Bellamy was an "evil" utopian Socialist. But I guess you knew that already! :roll:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
Law. Emphasis, Law. No law = no violation. This portion of the first amendment had only two purposes: To keep a State Church (such as the Church of England) from being formed, and to keep Government from interfering in the affairs of Churches. It is not here to keep people from saying "under God".

No further amendments make any mention of religion.

Ahh my ignorant friend, I am glad you sorta know how to use a browser.

You found the establishment clause. However, according to the Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment extends this requirement to the States and their school districts. To pass Establishment Clause scrutiny, a governmental action must have "a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion."

In 1943, the Supreame Court ruled (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) that the government may not compel unwilling school children to salute and pledge allegiance to the flag. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official…can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion." The Court concluded that free public education, if faithful to the ideal of secular instruction and political neutrality, will not be partisan or enemy of any class, creed, party, or faction.

Finally as to the claim on no other Religious mention, you overlooked the Religious test clause Article VI, Clause 3:

"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

No, I'm too lazy to start saying the pledge differently. Besides, that would screw up the whole rythm of it all.

I can accept that! :P

No, I'm too lazy to start saying the pledge differently. Besides, that would screw up the whole rythm of it all.

It sounds perfectly fine without "under God." It happens to have been written that way.

A motto can't be official? The National Anthem isn't our official song? nice try, Karl.

When did I say that? Care to point it out? I'm saying that religious indoctrination is unconstitutional -- I've been arguing this whole time that the Pledge and Star Spangled Banner are official, and you've been arguing that they're not so supported. I guess you decided a role reversal would be fun, but I'll pass.

The federal Government has no laws on the books which state that children must stand and perform the plede. No state has such laws on the books either. There is no law, so there is no constitutional violation. how many times must we go over this?

TEXAS. How many times do I have to say it?

And still you fail to see this, so I'll just repaste it into every message until you respond:

You still miss an important part of my point. The government has established a clear expectation that all children will all stand, all face the flag, all place their right hand over their heart, and all speak the Pledge in it's entirety. Those who refuse to stand or skip phrases have to take constant conscious action to do so and are quite obviously branded.

You're an unhappy Atheist, we get it, you don't want children influenced by religion. So, start saving, set up a devotedly Atheist school, and start teaching Marx, Engels, and Chomsky.

Nope, sorry. You don't win a cookie. I'm rather Christian. I just happen to believe in religious freedom for people outside of my faith. I'm also a registered member of the Libertarian Party, so you lose on not one, but two counts. Try asking someone where they stand instead of assuming for once, eh?

And now the Atheists and Agnostics have to start their own school system? Whoa. Apparently you've never heard of civil rights. Or that minor detail that public education is supposed to be equally accessible to people of all creeds.

It isn't parent's job to raise their children? Here I thought it was, silly me and my archaic values, eh?

Hey, you actually managed a pretty smooth attempt at putting words in my mouth. I wasn't as clear as I should have been: Why is it the responsibility of parents to make sure that their children are not indoctrinated daily to believe that either (1) the government operates under the Judeo-Christian God or (2) they are freaks for not thinking so? Why should this take heavy, constant, and conscious action? Isn't it implied -- I should say demanded -- that schools do not preach religion?

History, as in it has happened, before. Not now, before. Get over it, Karl.

History. As in the historic Pledge didn't contain "under God." As in you just lost that point.

We're a Judeo-Christian country, get over it. The majority of the people here are Christians and Pseudo-Christians who hold Judeo-Christian values.

Way to turn your back on the American ethos. I seem to remember that a few people, sometime, somewhere, made a minor stink about freedom. Not important, I guess.

The majority does not rule absolutely. The American system of government sets up rules to protect the rights of the minority -- allowing pure rule of the majority on the basis of "there's more of us" tends to lead to nasty things like the Holocaust or the Japanese internment camps of World War II.

And you might be interested to know that the most recent Census reports show only 52.7 of the people consider themselves Christian. Perhaps the largest group, but hardly the hard and fast majority you seem to picture yourself having the support of.

You die hard atheists are nothing but a bunch of unhappy, nasty, mean spirited individuals who just want to impart their misery onto religious people who are obviously more content with the way things are than you.

That's right. Flame away.

I'm still not sure how recognizing civil liberties inherent to the spirit of the nation somehow turns the whole country into an anti-Christian Satanic altar. Would you care to explain?

Law. Emphasis, Law. No law = no violation. This portion of the first amendment had only two purposes: To keep a State Church (such as the Church of England) from being formed, and to keep Government from interfering in the affairs of Churches. It is not here to keep people from saying "under God".

No further amendments make any mention of religion.

Again, you don't understand the Establishment Clause or the case law behind it. The EC is not the First Amendment. I'd recommend reading my prior posts where I go into that, but I assume you won't, so I'll probably end up pasting some of them into my next post.

I wonder how long your response to this post will be. Three lines? Four? I somehow don't expect that any amount of brevity would allow for a sufficient response in that little space.

The Texas law requires the schools to have "pledge time" it does not punish students or faculty who do not participate.

The Texas law requires the schools to have "pledge time" it does not punish students or faculty who do not participate.

And punishment comes into this debate where?

You stated:

"No state has such laws on the books either. There is no law, so there is no constitutional violation. how many times must we go over this?"

Face it slick. You lost....

The Texas law requires the schools to have "pledge time" it does not punish students or faculty who do not participate.

And punishment comes into this debate where?

You stated:

"No state has such laws on the books either. There is no law, so there is no constitutional violation. how many times must we go over this?"

Face it slick. You lost....
Unless there is a punishment, individuals are not being forced. Schools are institutions of the state, and so can be ordered to do anything the state sees fit. No one is being forced to pledge, so, you lose.

Get over it, Karl.

The Texas law requires the schools to have "pledge time" it does not punish students or faculty who do not participate.

And punishment comes into this debate where?

You stated:

"No state has such laws on the books either. There is no law, so there is no constitutional violation. how many times must we go over this?"

Face it slick. You lost....
Unless there is a punishment, individuals are not being forced. Schools are institutions of the state, and so can be ordered to do anything the state sees fit. No one is being forced to pledge, so, you lose.

Get over it, Karl.

Ahh my ignorant friend. You can try and change your agurments all you want. You can even try to add new spins but the fact is you said there are no laws and you were shown there were.

The question of forcing is not even valid as everybody knows peer presure comes into play with children. The Courts ruling in 1943 says its invalid.

So slick either you don't get it or you just can't admit losing. Hmmm could it be both :roll:

And if the ruling in 1943 had meant to change the pledge, it would have been changed then.

There is no law which states someone will be punished, in school or not, for not saying or reciting wrongly the pledge.

If you weren't reading what you wanted to read and constantly playing semantics games in order to feel good about yourself and your limited mental faculties, you'd realize this was my point and intent throughout the entire thread, which has been ignored by you militant godless scum.

Get over it, Karl.

you militant godless scum.

Get over it, Karl.

Someone's bitchy, Jed.

It has been an interesting debate to read, but I am afraid that all of this "Karl" business just takes away from the interesting read.....

Indeed. Phil keeps being distracting what with all his Karl nonsense.

Apparently, I have "limited mental faculties." I was unaware that I was expected to have an infinite, unlimited mind.

I just have to point out this interesting discrepancy. My last post amounted to three pages in Word. My last paragraph reads:

I wonder how long your response to this post will be. Three lines? Four? I somehow don't expect that any amount of brevity would allow for a sufficient response in that little space.

To which you responded (in total):

The Texas law requires the schools to have "pledge time" it does not punish students or faculty who do not participate.

The Texas law also requires parents to go file paperwork to have their children excused from any part of the Pledge. The original version of the law didn't allow any child to avoid making the Pledge -- it took a few court battles to change that.

Schools are institutions of the state, and so can be ordered to do anything the state sees fit.

Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, all actions of the State governments are subject to the Establishment Clause.

And if the ruling in 1943 had meant to change the pledge, it would have been changed then.

Um. No? The case being ruled on didn't have anything to do with the Pledge; modification of the Pledge was, therefore, outside the Supreme Court's jurisdiction at that point in time.

There is no law which states someone will be punished, in school or not, for not saying or reciting wrongly the pledge.

Alright, why not. Individuals aren't being forced, they're being coerced.

Misstating the Pledge can very well carry penalties -- most schools eventually place it in the Defiance of Personnel or equivalent category of their discipline policies. You also pretty much admitted that the "under God" phrase does indoctrinate children when you said...

...we get it, you don't want children influenced by religion. So, start saving, set up a devotedly Atheist school, and start teaching Marx, Engels, and Chomsky.

...and also throughout the thread, as you've repeatedly embraced and defended the inherently religious nature of the phrase.

And if the ruling in 1943 had meant to change the pledge, it would have been changed then.

There is no law which states someone will be punished, in school or not, for not saying or reciting wrongly the pledge.

If you weren't reading what you wanted to read and constantly playing semantics games in order to feel good about yourself and your limited mental faculties, you'd realize this was my point and intent throughout the entire thread, which has been ignored by you militant godless scum.

Get over it, Karl.

Come now my ignorant friend. You aren't going to pull that trite old symantecs/splitting hairs arguement? Can't you think of something more interesting?

The Supreme Court I am sure will change it's opinions since you know the law better then they do.

It has been fun debating. However, ignorance makes you unworthy and somewhat boring at that.

You go on making up your facts. It is somewhat pathetic that you attempt to annoy people so much. Do you really need the attention? Is your life that pathetic?

However, if it will give you a warm fuzzy.

-turns on the TV-

Look Teletubbies!

Now there is a group that is par for your debating skills and knowledge of things.

So in closing my ignorant friend.

Try to smile every once in awhile!

You might enjoy life more.

Peace!

Indeed. Phil keeps being distracting what with all his Karl nonsense.

I think our ignorant friend is trying to equate us to Karl Marx. It is his simplistic attempt to annoy you. :roll:

In our school they prefer that we say the pledge (but we don't have to) but are required to say the "Purple Hands Pledge" (don't even ask me about it look it up on the internet if you really care) which doesn't make sense to me.

You know what, I don't really care about this, but its not actually stopping anyone from choosing whatever religion they want. I can see how one think it unfair though.

But it's INFLUENCING people to believe in God. If children want to learn about Jesus go to church or a parochial school. Or even their parents.

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

But it's INFLUENCING people to believe in God. If children want to learn about Jesus go to church or a parochial school. Or even their parents.


where in the Pledge does it mention Jesus?? It mentions God, but in NO goverment text is Jesus or even Christ mentioned that i know of. like other have said, if you dont like it dont say it. And if YOU think that by reciting the Pledge and saying the word God is enough to influence someone to become Christian, your pretty naive. My Lord, i wish it was that easy to convert people!!

"here, just say this pledge and you will recieve salvation!" yea right.

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

I also think everyone should stop complaining cuz we have it pretty great here in the U.S. so if you think its so unfair that you have to say Under God once in a while, go over to some 3rd world country and trade lives with someone over there-they'd be glad to say Under God even if they weren't Christian or whatever :!:

....what about Buddhists, agnostics, atheists,....

what about them Buds, ags aths...

what is the big deal???

They dont deserve to be offended; what about their rights and beliefs? It's unconstitutional. Saying, "just dont say it" is like saying we shouldnt convict on murderer because he isnt murdering anyone at the moment.

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

I also think everyone should stop complaining cuz we have it pretty great here in the U.S. so if you think its so unfair that you have to say Under God once in a while, go over to some 3rd world country and trade lives with someone over there-they'd be glad to say Under God even if they weren't Christian or whatever :!:
Exactly, we shoulda left the phrase alone- in the 50s when it was added. We're not talking about breaking this longstanding tradition. We want to get rid of something we changed that was a dumb idea to begin with- like prohibition.

And by the way, even if the US is the happiest place on earth (and I'm not sure it is since the past 2 years or so) That doesn't mean we just just sit by and let terrible things happen to it. We make sure it remains the best- and work to constantly make it better.

I think the phrase Under God should be left alone, if you feel so strongly about not saying it-DON'T :!:

There's an idea :idea: :idea: :idea:

I also think everyone should stop complaining cuz we have it pretty great here in the U.S. so if you think its so unfair that you have to say Under God once in a while, go over to some 3rd world country and trade lives with someone over there-they'd be glad to say Under God even if they weren't Christian or whatever :!:
Exactly, we shoulda left the phrase alone- in the 50s when it was added. We're not talking about breaking this longstanding tradition. We want to get rid of something we changed that was a dumb idea to begin with- like prohibition.

exactly!!! bring back the original Pledge, the one that reflected the unified values of this country rather than the divisive and transparent political posturing of the Cold War.

Even the idea of pledging allegiance to one's country is backwards and sounds like coercion. In Canada we don't pledge allegiance and our country is no less secure than the U.S. is. Time to grow up folks, and get rid of both the pledge and the church-state connections.

As a Communist I take offense to the phrase "to the Republic". Remove it.

As a states-rights activist, i take offense to the phrase "One nation". Remove it.

As a separationist, I take offensve to the phrase "Indivisible". Remove it.

As a racist, I take offense to the phrase "liberty and justice for all." Remove it.

As a Communist I take offense to the phrase "to the Republic". Remove it.

As a states-rights activist, i take offense to the phrase "One nation". Remove it.

As a separationist, I take offensve to the phrase "Indivisible". Remove it.

As a racist, I take offense to the phrase "liberty and justice for all." Remove it.

you'd have a hard time showing those to be unconstitutional. removing 'under god' is consistent with the previous supreme court rulings about government entanglement with religion and the special coercive nature of schools.

no. NOt to the point of marriage of state and religionthough. But you either leave it as is or don't bother with it at all. Those who dislike the word can leave it out or not say the pledge at all. Leave it as is

no. NOt to the point of marriage of state and religionthough. But you either leave it as is or don't bother with it at all. Those who dislike the word can leave it out or not say the pledge at all. Leave it as isIf you said "leave it as is" back when it was changed during the Cold War, I'd be with you. I'd WANT the original version to stay. But it didn't stay; it got changed. I want the original version back.