NationStates Jolt Archive

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)
By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...


The founding fathers had nothing at all to do with that phrase - it came from the people in the '50s who were scared of those "damned pinko atheist commies."

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...

See my thread entitled "Theocracy" for an article that totally backs you up.

The founding fathers had nothing at all to do with that phrase - it came from the people in the '50s who were scared of those "damned pinko atheist commies."

Aye...you're right, my bad.

Still, last time I checked the Cold War was over.

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...
I am and you should add a poll.

You know, I never have said the "under god" part of the pledge. I have always said "Under Bob"... as Bob rules. :D

You know, I never have said the "under god" part of the pledge. I have always said "Under Bob"... as Bob rules. :D

Why, WHY did you have to give me such a screwy mental image? "Under Bob"... You know what that sounds like!?

*head explodes*

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...
There is really a lot of wrongness in your post. Firstly, the FF's had nothing to do with it, as was already pointed. Secondly, Church and State are not seperate, which is why religious people can be elected to office, why our money says in God we Trust, and why you swear on the Bible. You can acknowledge a higher power without forcing it on people.

Why, WHY did you have to give me such a screwy mental image? "Under Bob"... You know what that sounds like!?

*head explodes*

(Slaps Potaria)

Get your mind out of the gutter...

(Slaps Potaria)

Get your mind out of the gutter...

But I like the gutter!

When I say the pledge of allegiance, when I take the military oath, I'm not pledging my life to some clothe or corrupted government, or in the defense of some greedy hypocritical voting population.

When I say the pledge of allegiance, I am pledging my life to an ideal, freedom, liberty and justice. Even if such things can never truly exist, I will still lay down my life for these three words.

There is really a lot of wrongness in your post. Firstly, the FF's had nothing to do with it, as was already pointed. Secondly, Church and State are not seperate, which is why religious people can be elected to office, why our money says in God we Trust, and why you swear on the Bible. You can acknowledge a higher power without forcing it on people.

The church and state are NOT seperate, true

but they're supposed to be

Freedom of religion, my ass. When the protestant Christian church runs the government from behind the scenes and dictates policy which then becomes law, how is that not imposing relgion on us? Any law about morality based on the fact that "the bible says it's wrong"...

There is really a lot of wrongness in your post. Firstly, the FF's had nothing to do with it, as was already pointed. Secondly, Church and State are not seperate, which is why religious people can be elected to office, why our money says in God we Trust, and why you swear on the Bible. You can acknowledge a higher power without forcing it on people.

Last time I checked it was separate in that Church policy had no effect on the US government and vice versa. They can go preaching to the wind all they want with my blessing as it is their right, but the Bible has no place in a courtroom, and I think it has been removed as of late.

You added a poll, yay!
*gets drunk*
Yarrgh!!

The church and state are NOT seperate, true

but they're supposed to be

Freedom of religion, my ass. When the protestant Christian church runs the government from behind the scenes and dictates policy which then becomes law, how is that not imposing relgion on us? Any law about morality based on the fact that "the bible says it's wrong"...
They're not supposed to be. The church isn't supposed to dictate the state, and vice versa. You can mesh them, but one isn't supposed to be above the other. So the only reason murder is illegal is because the Bible says it's wrong? All law is distilled from morality.

Last time I checked it was separate in that Church policy had no effect on the US government and vice versa. They can go preaching to the wind all they want with my blessing as it is their right, but the Bible has no place in a courtroom, and I think it has been removed as of late.
They're seperate in that the government can't set up a state religion. That's the extent of it. They can't make everyone be one religion. Whether or not you believe the Bible has a place in the court, the fact remains it's still there in many states, although you generally have the option to not swear on it. Just as you have the option not to say the pledge. Or use paper money.

The church and state are NOT seperate, true

but they're supposed to be

Freedom of religion, my ass. When the protestant Christian church runs the government from behind the scenes and dictates policy which then becomes law, how is that not imposing relgion on us? Any law about morality based on the fact that "the bible says it's wrong"...

Pisses ya' off don't it.

Don't worry, there will come a time when reason is restored, even if we need to do it ourselves.

I don't see what the big deal about it is in the first place, are people REQUIRED to say it in some places?

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...


Should we have "under God"? No. Should it rank up there with North Korea's nucular weapons? No.

I don't see what the big deal about it is in the first place, are people REQUIRED to say it in some places?

I got in trouble three times for refusing to say "under god" during the pledge of allegiance back in public school. Other kids I knew were taken to the Principal's office because they refused to say it ever again.

I just have to add my little bit in here.

Now this is only what I have heard from some very liberal, biased sources but I nonetheless enjoy their information. Apparently, the pledge was popularized by a cereal jingle in the '50s. So that shows you how petty the entire thing is.

And "Under Bob" does sound just a little bit gross.

-Pearson

Should we have "under God"? No. Should it rank up there with North Korea's nucular weapons? No.

(Prepares to fend off hijacker)

To tell you the truth, I am Christian and I am tired of people trying to use this to attempt and legislate their particular version of Christianity on other people.

I got in trouble three times for refusing to say "under god" during the pledge of allegiance back in public school. Other kids I knew were taken to the Principal's office because they refused to say it ever again.

That's ridiculous! The most we were required to do was stand...

(Prepares to fend off hijacker)


What?

Excuse me if I just missed a good joke.

To tell you the truth, I am Christian and I am tired of people trying to use this to attempt and legislate their particular version of Christianity on other people.

Same here. I'm Catholic, and all we're getting is bad vibes from these people.

I just have to add my little bit in here.

Now this is only what I have heard from some very liberal, biased sources but I nonetheless enjoy their information. Apparently, the pledge was popularized by a cereal jingle in the '50s. So that shows you how petty the entire thing is.

And "Under Bob" does sound just a little bit gross.

-Pearson

Perhaps the more geographically correct "Under Canada" would work better. I'd say that in the Pledge.

Same here. I'm Catholic, and all we're getting is bad vibes from these people.

At the risk of a slight hijack - how did you feel about certain parts of the church hierarchy attempting to tell Catholics who to/not to vote for?

(Prepares to fend off hijacker)


Ohhhhh...

I get it now.

But you can subsititute North Korea for abortion or nuclear option or death penalty or war in Iraq...

At the risk of a slight hijack - how did you feel about certain parts of the church hierarchy attempting to tell Catholics who to/not to vote for?

They can piss off...

Ohhhhh...

I get it now.

But you can subsititute North Korea for abortion or nuclear option or death penalty or war in Iraq...

No...

That's ridiculous! The most we were required to do was stand...

Me and my friend, Michael, decided to sit through it once. We didn't even dare try it again after what happened. Fucking fascists.

And I'm not even gonna say what happened when I refused to sing "Go Tell It On The Mountain" in Music class. I can never forgive that room of people for what they did.

Me and my friend, Michael, decided to sit through it once. We didn't even dare try it again after what happened. Fucking fascists.

And I'm not even gonna say what happened when I refused to sing "Go Tell It On The Mountain" in Music class. I can never forgive that room of people for what they did.

I take it you grew up in the Bible Belt?

To tell you the truth, I am Christian and I am tired of people trying to use this to attempt and legislate their particular version of Christianity on other people.

I appreciate this. Most christians I know are very cool and are very loyal friends and I have always tried to return the favor. It is always a small minority in a group to kill it for the rest of the people.

Me and my friend, Michael, decided to sit through it once. We didn't even dare try it again after what happened. Fucking fascists.

And I'm not even gonna say what happened when I refused to sing "Go Tell It On The Mountain" in Music class. I can never forgive that room of people for what they did.

I am rather curious as to what happened. I remember getting a detention for not reciting the pledge as well. That is why I replaced part of the pledge for my own version.

I am rather curious as to what happened. I remember getting a detention for not reciting the pledge as well. That is why I replaced part of the pledge for my own version.
Er...they aren't allowed to do that.

They're seperate in that the government can't set up a state religion. That's the extent of it. They can't make everyone be one religion. Whether or not you believe the Bible has a place in the court, the fact remains it's still there in many states, although you generally have the option to not swear on it. Just as you have the option not to say the pledge. Or use paper money.

The First Amendment means far more than you would ascribe to it.

Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

You might be unaware that in most cases involving establishment of religion many of the major religious organizations in the US -- including most major Christian sects -- have been on the side of a separation of Church and State. Under separation of Church and State, religion flourishes.

The First Amendment means far more than you would ascribe to it.

Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

You might be unaware that in most cases involving establishment of religion many of the major religious organizations in the US -- including most major Christian sects -- have been on the side of a separation of Church and State. Under separation of Church and State, religion flourishes.

Crap...I knew it, this is a country run by a bunch of hypocrites...

Er...they aren't allowed to do that.

They aren't. But they do.

I was also punished as a youth for refusing to lead the class in recital of the full Pledge including the "under God" phrase.

I had friends who were punished for not saying the oath -- including those for whom saying the oath against their religion.

None of this was legal. But it was the prevailing attitude.

I take it you grew up in the Bible Belt?

Houston, Texas. Can't get much more Bible-riffic than the satellite towns of Houston. You know what? I'll tell you what happened in Music class.

We were learning the usual things, you know, musical notation, bars, that sort of thing. Then came the song period. We did a few miscellaneous songs, and they started this new song. The music started playing, and we started clapping our hands to the beat. Then the words came. I stopped clapping.

Kids began to stare at me, and the teacher told me to keep with the "program". I said that I wasn't going to do anything, because it was religious, and I'd never been to church. Also, I said that I didn't want to be forced into something I didn't like in the first place. The entire class GASPED. There were about seven rabid, zealot Christian kids who said "OH MY GOD, YOU DON'T GO TO CHURCH!?", then they started heckling and screaming at me. Being the indecisive bitch she was, the teacher didn't do shit about it. I had to defend myself and make the entire class look like a bunch of inbred gomers (which is pretty much what they were). After I had finished insulting everyone (hey, they started it. they had it coming), we started the song over, and everybody went along. I stood in my place with my arms crossed, with one hell of a big grin on my face. Now, there were about three kids who didn't try to piss on me, and we remained friends. As for everyone else, though, they received rather poor treatment from me. And rightfully so.

I am rather curious as to what happened. I remember getting a detention for not reciting the pledge as well. That is why I replaced part of the pledge for my own version.

Well, Michael and I were kept after class, where our teacher threatened us if we ever did that again. Imagine. Teachers threatening kids because they're free thinkers.

Well, Michael and I were kept after class, where our teacher threatened us if we ever did that again. Imagine. Teachers threatening kids because they're free thinkers.

That is public school for you. I caught my fair share of crap for free thinking. Some of it I can understand where I was wrong. Some was just because it was countering thier thoughts. I am so happy I am out of public schools.

The problem is that it was against the rules, as well as the law, for my teacher to do that. She almost got fired.

The problem is that it was against the rules, as well as the law, for my teacher to do that. She almost got fired.

Well, it is good to know some justice was done.

Well, it is good to know some justice was done.

Yeah. And I was told that I didn't have to say the pledge anymore, but I did it anyway. And I always had a huge, sarcastic grin on my face, which made my teacher feel very uneasy.

The problem is that it was against the rules, as well as the law, for my teacher to do that. She almost got fired.

Good! Glad to hear you're still free-thinkin' too!

The church and state are NOT seperate, true

but they're supposed to be

Freedom of religion, my ass. When the protestant Christian church runs the government from behind the scenes and dictates policy which then becomes law, how is that not imposing relgion on us? Any law about morality based on the fact that "the bible says it's wrong"...

I think just give it up. Statistics are against you. If you don't believe me, look at the crime rate, teen pregnancy rate, and things along that line and see how much they've increaced "per capita" over the years. Yea separation of church and state!

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...If you don't say the pledge, then you shouldn't care if it's in there or not since you don't say the whole thing anyway...

If you don't say the pledge, then you shouldn't care if it's in there or not since you don't say the whole thing anyway...

Our point is that the phrase shouldn't be there in the first place.

I think just give it up. Statistics are against you. If you don't believe me, look at the crime rate, teen pregnancy rate, and things along that line and see how much they've increaced "per capita" over the years. Yea separation of church and state!
Oh do prove this ... all the stats I have seen show a decrece in certian crim and teen pregnancy "per capita" :) so yes GO seperation of church and state!

Likfrog, without seperation of church and state, you'd have a theocracy.

You want America to be like Iran or Egypt?

Who else is completly frickin' tired of this phrase? I am! Not because it offends me, no, I'm not that PC. I'm just tired of those Bible-thumpers using it to justify thier arguments against all that is not Christian in our nation.

If only our founding fathers knew what grief they have caused us by creating that simple phrase...

When we separated Church and State, we should have abolished that statement from the pledge, so we really would have a separation. Now, we look like hypocrites, we separate Church and State, then leave a blatently religious statement in the pledge, giving us a legal nightmare and giving the extremists ammo.

(sigh)

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...Please show me where it states separation of Church and State in the constitution...

and I don't mean a footnote mentioning a document that touches upon it... I mean Printed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights itself.

With all these recent polls conducted about religious matters I am thoroughly impressed at the amount of atheists. It's by all means far above the average populace. Even where I live, Santa Cruz Ca, there is very few atheists. Just wanted to point it out. Sorry if not extremely relevant to current theme.

Please show me where it states separation of Church and State in the constitution...

and I don't mean a footnote mentioning a document that touches upon it... I mean Printed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights itself.

The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not literally appear in the Constitution. It is a shorthand for the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is a phrase used by the Founding Fathers and by the US Supreme Court since 1878.

Those who would limit a particular part of the Constitution to the specific words in order to further their agenda on a single issue are misguided. Such a view of the Constitution is contrary to its intent, is contrary to its own express provisions, is contrary to constitutional law since the inception of our Republic, and is determental to a broad spectrum of fundamental rights.

Our point is that the phrase shouldn't be there in the first place.
But if you don't even say the pledge, why care about four words? I mean if you do say it and put your heart and soul into the pledge... then ok, that's different, but if you don't say it or won't then why fight to change something that doesn't touch you because you voluntarily stay away from it?

They can piss off...

:fluffle:

I like you. =)

With all these recent polls conducted about religious matters I am thoroughly impressed at the amount of atheists. It's by all means far above the average populace. Even where I live, Santa Cruz Ca, there is very few atheists. Just wanted to point it out. Sorry if not extremely relevant to current theme.

Is this an indication that you think anyone who answered "Aye" must be atheist?

Is this an indication that you think anyone who answered "Aye" must be atheist?
No, by no means Dem, I know many theists do indeed agree it should be removed but have you seen the poll of those who beleive in God? The majority voted no and that is not cincurrent with the U.S.A.

concurrent*

The phrase "separation of Church and State" does not literally appear in the Constitution. It is a shorthand for the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is a phrase used by the Founding Fathers and by the US Supreme Court since 1878.

Those who would limit a particular part of the Constitution to the specific words in order to further their agenda on a single issue are misguided. Such a view of the Constitution is contrary to its intent, is contrary to its own express provisions, is contrary to constitutional law since the inception of our Republic, and is determental to a broad spectrum of fundamental rights.Wong, it's one person's interpretation of the definition of that Amendment. the actual and historical backing of that Amendment was to prevent the Government from becoming a religion unto itself.

Wong, it's one person's interpretation of the definition of that Amendment. the actual and historical backing of that Amendment was to prevent the Government from becoming a religion unto itself.

Wrong.

That is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Amendment for over 140 years.

It was also a label used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

You are "one person" with an interpretation of the First Amendment that is contrary to history, established law, and the express language of the Amendment itself.

I have heard stories from close friends in the States about Pledge horror stories. I'm damn-sure glad I was born up here in Cannuckistan.

And a rising crime rate has nothing to do with a lowering of enforced religion, no matter how the trend goes.

Go Cat-Tribe!

I'm tired..can you tell?

well god talks to me all the time and tells me how he wants me to hate other nations and love my own for it is the chosen one. and his voice always comes from above, so we are obviously one nation under god

I think back and look back at all the great things this Nation has done... and you know what... most of it was when there was a pride for this country. a love that made this Nation great.

All that changed when the pledge became optional. suddenly showing unity, showing pride for your country became a sin. there is no sweeping sense of National Pride. and there is also no longer any great deeds that this country has done.

We were proud to have the first man on the moon. we were proud of our country. People rose up and put a stop to a man who tried to instill his ideals upon a people who were not our citizens. when another country called for help, we proudly went forth.

now days, it's nothing but bickering and finger-pointing... martyership and lawsuits. what does this country have to be proud of now.

sure we are doing great things in Iraq. but instead of seeing the good, no we focus only on the bad. we blame and conspire against ourselves because there is no unity. no sense of pride. Any show of pride becomes a rallying cry for Nazism for others.

America's greatest enemy is not terrorists... but the fragmenting of it's people.

in the words of Benjamin Franklin... "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Wrong.

That is the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Amendment for over 140 years.

It was also a label used by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

You are "one person" with an interpretation of the First Amendment that is contrary to history, established law, and the express language of the Amendment itself.again... show me the print... if it was
used by everyone" then why wasn't it written as such... why wasn't it amended? There were additions and changes added to the Bill of Rights... why wasn't this added?

why is it only mentioned in a footnote as a letter written in private to a minister of a small church and not placed as a historical document?

because it was one man's opinion and only used by lawyers who then became the "surpreme court" but it still remains only a popular opinion and not solidified as law.

I think back and look back at all the great things this Nation has done... and you know what... most of it was when there was a pride for this country. a love that made this Nation great.

All that changed when the pledge became optional. suddenly showing unity, showing pride for your country became a sin. there is no sweeping sense of National Pride. and there is also no longer any great deeds that this country has done.

We were proud to have the first man on the moon. we were proud of our country. People rose up and put a stop to a man who tried to instill his ideals upon a people who were not our citizens. when another country called for help, we proudly went forth.

now days, it's nothing but bickering and finger-pointing... martyership and lawsuits. what does this country have to be proud of now.

sure we are doing great things in Iraq. but instead of seeing the good, no we focus only on the bad. we blame and conspire against ourselves because there is no unity. no sense of pride. Any show of pride becomes a rallying cry for Nazism for others.

America's greatest enemy is not terrorists... but the fragmenting of it's people.

in the words of Benjamin Franklin... "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

how did making it optional make saying it a sin?

and we all know forced pride is the best kind :p

Blah blah...enforcing pride? Making unity, uniculturalism, and intolerance cumpolsory? What the fuck ever. You, sir, are a revisioner of history and either optomistic to the point of denial or ignorant of the facts. Ameria did not get into World War II until the Japanese attacked a MILITARY BASE on a TERRITORY that killed ZERO US Civvies, and was then bastardized into a terrorist attack on American Soil (TM). The Government knew of the Nazis and the eradication of the Jews, Negroes, Gypsies and Homosexuals, but withheld that information even from the troops that liberated those camps.

Go read a book that was written by someone with real patriotism, and not just frothy-mouthed nationalism.

I'm a patriotic Canadian and I approve this message.

how did making it optional make saying it a sin?

and we all know forced pride is the best kind :p


When was the pledge ever NOT optional? The government cannot force its private citizens to make pledges and oaths--that's a violation of freedom of speech and thought right there.

again... show me the print... if it was
used by everyone" then why wasn't it written as such... why wasn't it amended? There were additions and changes added to the Bill of Rights... why wasn't this added?

why is it only mentioned in a footnote as a letter written in private to a minister of a small church and not placed as a historical document?

because it was one man's opinion and only used by lawyers who then became the "surpreme court" but it still remains only a popular opinion and not solidified as law.

Show you the print in what?

When were the Bill of Rights amended? That is a bizarre claim.

the "Supreme Court" is expressly established by the Constitution -- Article III -- and expressly empowered to interpret the Constitution. That was the express intent of the Founding Fathers.

The concept of seperation of Church and State is solidified in law -- both in the First Amendment itself and in over 140 years of Supreme Court decisions -- which are, by definition, law. If you wish me to provide you links to some of those cases, I will do so.

Show you the print in what?

When were the Bill of Rights amended? That is a bizarre claim.

the "Supreme Court" is expressly established by the Constitution -- Article III -- and expressly empowered to interpret the Constitution. That was the express intent of the Founding Fathers.

The concept of seperation of Church and State is solidified in law -- both in the First Amendment itself and in over 140 years of Supreme Court decisions -- which are, by definition, law. If you wish me to provide you links to some of those cases, I will do so.

This is a person with NO understanding of the Constitution or the Constitutional process, Cat. He or she is only uing a parrotted slogan from a right-wing zealot to push her/his views on everyone else.

When was the pledge ever NOT optional? The government cannot force its private citizens to make pledges and oaths--that's a violation of freedom of speech and thought right there.

Actually, flag salutes and the Pledge were mandatory in many states prior to 1943, when the Supreme Court held that unconstitutional in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Under the West Virginia statute at issue in Barnette, students who refused to salute the flag or say the Pledge could be expelled, with their absence from school prosecutable as delinquency. Additionally, the parents could be prosecuted and faced a fine up to $50 (in 1943) and up to 30 days in jail.

I think back and look back at all the great things this Nation has done... and you know what... most of it was when there was a pride for this country. a love that made this Nation great.

All that changed when the pledge became optional. suddenly showing unity, showing pride for your country became a sin. there is no sweeping sense of National Pride. and there is also no longer any great deeds that this country has done.

We were proud to have the first man on the moon. we were proud of our country. People rose up and put a stop to a man who tried to instill his ideals upon a people who were not our citizens. when another country called for help, we proudly went forth.

now days, it's nothing but bickering and finger-pointing... martyership and lawsuits. what does this country have to be proud of now.

sure we are doing great things in Iraq. but instead of seeing the good, no we focus only on the bad. we blame and conspire against ourselves because there is no unity. no sense of pride. Any show of pride becomes a rallying cry for Nazism for others.

America's greatest enemy is not terrorists... but the fragmenting of it's people.

in the words of Benjamin Franklin... "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

These are noble sentiments. Was there a point relevant to this discussion?

Actually, flag salutes and the Pledge were mandatory in many states prior to 1943, when the Supreme Court held that unconstitutional in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Under the West Virginia statute at issue in Barnette, students who refused to salute the flag or say the Pledge could be expelled, with their absence from school prosecutable as delinquency. Additionally, the parents could be prosecuted and faced a fine up to $50 (in 1943) and up to 30 days in jail.


Learn something new everyday. I keep hanging around the C-T I'm going to end up with an honorary law degree.

Really, get over it. Don't say it if you feel the need not to, that's your decision, but there are worse things in life than this.

Learn something new everyday. I keep hanging around the C-T I'm going to end up with an honorary law degree.

The horror, the horror! :D

The horror, the horror! :D

Just what the world needs. . . another doctor who thinks he understands the law.

Please show me where it states separation of Church and State in the constitution...

and I don't mean a footnote mentioning a document that touches upon it... I mean Printed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights itself.

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

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
the full first Amendment
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now this is my argument.

Basically, the Government cannot show favor to any one religion. But isn't the constant browbeating of God and the Christian Symbols also a form of Favoritsm... a darker form, but still focusing on one religion.

Removing prayers from schools, removing God from all forms of legal Documents, isn't that infringing on my right to worship just as refusing Muslims their time for prayer or to wear their traditional garbs infringing on their right to worship?

now, to show true non favoritsm, why not include the other religions into it. amend the Pledge to read, One Nation Under (insert Diety) and for Athiests/Agnostics, "One Nation United Together, indivisable."

Instead of removing religion, why not embrace it? give everyone the right to worship. Give Muslims their prayer time, give Christians their prayers also.

Place the 10 Commandmants on the steps of the Federal Building... as long as they leave room for whatever symbol other religions want to place there isn't that true Freedom to worship without the Government favoring anyone?

You can have Government and Religion... just as long as all are embraced.

And for the Athiest/Agnostic... I keep reading posts saying that Athiesm isn't a religion. yet, they feel offended when these symbols are shoved into their faces... but the prohibition of such symbols are also offensive to the Religious. The real argument is what would the Athiests agree to?

By shutting everyone's right to Worship the Diety of their choice, doesn't that also infring on their freedom of Speech as well as freedom of expression?

By the way, I don't say the pledge...because I don't feel like pledging my aligiance to a piece of cloth...
I've read others of your posts and I really, honestly don't think you're that stupid that you think the Pledge of Allegience is to "a piece of cloth," ARE you??? :confused:

the full first Amendment


Now this is my argument.

Basically, the Government cannot show favor to any one religion. But isn't the constant browbeating of God and the Christian Symbols also a form of Favoritsm... a darker form, but still focusing on one religion.

Removing prayers from schools, removing God from all forms of legal Documents, isn't that infringing on my right to worship just as refusing Muslims their time for prayer or to wear their traditional garbs infringing on their right to worship?

now, to show true non favoritsm, why not include the other religions into it. amend the Pledge to read, One Nation Under (insert Diety) and for Athiests/Agnostics, "One Nation United Together, indivisable."

Instead of removing religion, why not embrace it? give everyone the right to worship. Give Muslims their prayer time, give Christians their prayers also.

Place the 10 Commandmants on the steps of the Federal Building... as long as they leave room for whatever symbol other religions want to place there isn't that true Freedom to worship without the Government favoring anyone?

You can have Government and Religion... just as long as all are embraced.

And for the Athiest/Agnostic... I keep reading posts saying that Athiesm isn't a religion. yet, they feel offended when these symbols are shoved into their faces... but the prohibition of such symbols are also offensive to the Religious. The real argument is what would the Athiests agree to?

By shutting everyone's right to Worship the Diety of their choice, doesn't that also infring on their freedom of Speech as well as freedom of expression?

The beauty of the First Amendment is that you are free to worship as you choose whenever you choose.

Government cannot favor any religion over any other religion or religion over nonreligion. No establishment of religion. Period.

Not requiring official prayer in schools is not denying anyone the right to pray if they wish.

Placing with equal emphasis a religious symbol for every type of religion is impossible as a practical matter and still an establishment of religion. Even with the "Ten Commandments," there are different versions -- Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant -- with deeply held distinctions.

You are free to practice and promote your religion however you wish -- but you cannot use the power of government to do so. That is what the Establishment Clause prohibits.

Although a free speech case, this sentiment is appropriate: W. Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

And this bears repeating: Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

The founding fathers had nothing at all to do with that phrase - it came from the people in the '50s who were scared of those "damned pinko atheist commies."
It was added by President Dwight David Eisenhower.

I've read others of your posts and I really, honestly don't think you're that stupid that you think the Pledge of Allegience is to "a piece of cloth," ARE you??? :confused:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. . . . .

It is not for nothing that when they changed the pledge of allegiance they put the religious reference between "one nation" and "indivisible."

This whole oath thing in US school always reminds me of the Hitler Youth. Sorry, but that's the way I see it, it's brainwashing. I've not seen that anywhere else so far. Why would a child make an oath to a flag? That's insane. If a soldier does it before he enters regular service? Ok. A cop swearing to protect and to serve after police academy? Yeah, sure. A doctor swearing not to do harm? Yep.

But a child pledging allegiance to a flag (which is an extremly bizarre thing to begin with, it's a piece of cloth, nothing more)?

Ow...


Besides... I wonder what makes the US think they're a nation under god. That implies that god created them and holds its hands over them. That's pretty arrogant. It's like this "god bless America", it's ridiculous. Why would god bless one country. It's nuts.

Also

"One nation"?

Ask a Texan and he'll disagree.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. . . . .



... and to the republic for which it stands.



:rolleyes:

ouch

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. . . . .
"... and to the Republic for which it stands." Duh.

... and to the republic for which it stands.



:rolleyes:

ouch


AND implies both. You are indeed pledging allegiance to the flag as well as to the Republic. <shrugs>

AND implies both. You are indeed pledging allegiance to the flag as well as to the Republic. <shrugs>
[ hands Pracus several more hairs to split. ]

[ hands Pracus several more hairs to split. ]

Ummm, it just seems obvious to me. Granted, I'm really just pushing the arguement because its entertaining at this point. You can call it hair-splitting if you like, I realize that its not very comfortable to have basic grammar prove you wrong. . . . ;)

Ummm, it just seems obvious to me. Granted, I'm really just pushing the arguement because its entertaining at this point. You can call it hair-splitting if you like, I realize that its not very comfortable to have basic grammar prove you wrong. . . . ;)
Very funny. Ha. Ha. It is to laugh. Verily, my body is wracked with hysterical laughter.

Very funny. Ha. Ha. It is to laugh. Verily, my body is wracked with hysterical laughter.

Is that from a movie?

Is that from a movie?
It's from a cartoon. Appropriate, don't you think? :D

Last time I checked, pledging allegiance to the flag was voluntary, not mandatory. While strongly encouraged by peer pressure or strong, overbearing authority figures, the Pledge is not compulsory. (Unfortunately, many grade-schoolers don't know this and get into the habit of saying the words without knowing what they mean.)

Why should there even be one single Pledge? Why, when people are dedicating themselves to freedom, democracy, and liberty do they do so with the exact same words everyone else is using?

If a part of the Pledge offends you or doesn't meet with your personal philosphy, don't say it. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head. Better yet, write your own pledge. Even if you don't repeat it in droning unison with the rest of the room, you can take satisfaction in the fact that your words are your own.

~Illyria

(If anyone is curious as to my perspective, I am a high school senior in the United States. I do not say the Pledge with the rest of my class--partly because I don't need such a ceremony to affirm my relationship with my nation and partly because that same ceremony smacks to me of indoctrination.)

It's from a cartoon. Appropriate, don't you think? :D


Works for me.

Last time I checked, pledging allegiance to the flag was voluntary, not mandatory. While strongly encouraged by peer pressure or strong, overbearing authority figures, the Pledge is not compulsory. (Unfortunately, many grade-schoolers don't know this and get into the habit of saying the words without knowing what they mean.)

Why should there even be one single Pledge? Why, when people are dedicating themselves to freedom, democracy, and liberty do they do so with the exact same words everyone else is using?

If a part of the Pledge offends you or doesn't meet with your personal philosphy, don't say it. It's not like anyone has a gun to your head. Better yet, write your own pledge. Even if you don't repeat it in droning unison with the rest of the room, you can take satisfaction in the fact that your words are your own.

~Illyria

(If anyone is curious as to my perspective, I am a high school senior in the United States. I do not say the Pledge with the rest of my class--partly because I don't need such a ceremony to affirm my relationship with my nation and partly because that same ceremony smacks to me of indoctrination.)

Brilliant!

Why is it such a big deal to say the pledge? its not like your selling your soul its just a way of expressing love for your country

Why is it such a big deal to say the pledge? its not like your selling your soul its just a way of expressing love for your country
It is a pledge ... when they added god into it and make it required you are forcing me to pledge to an entity that I do not believe in

Why is it such a big deal to say the pledge? its not like your selling your soul its just a way of expressing love for your country

Why is it such a big deal if people don't want to say the pledge? Isnt' freedom of expression one of the rights of this nation?

Further, you will note that the pledge itself isn't what it being contested here, but the phrase "Under God".

It is a pledge ... when they added god into it and make it required you are forcing me to pledge to an entity that I do not believe inI've never heard of anyone forced to say 'Under God' those in my class (elementary school) who asked the teacher, the teacher mearly responded, "if it's against your religion, don't say those particual words and no one should pick on those who choose not to say those words."

It is a pledge ... when they added god into it and make it required you are forcing me to pledge to an entity that I do not believe in
its not required which is good but why does it hurt to say god, the government doesnt force religion on you, and besides many of the founding fathers believed in god

its not required which is good but why does it hurt to say god, the government doesnt force religion on you, and besides many of the founding fathers believed in god
It hurts me as much as making you or anyone else pledge a belief they dont personaly have faith in

its not required which is good but why does it hurt to say god, the government doesnt force religion on you, and besides many of the founding fathers believed in god

The pledge the represents our commitment to our nation offically has the words under god in it. If that isn't the government forcing religion on people, I don't know is.

And most of the founding fathers were Deists and would've been shocked at the way Christians have tried to force their beliefs onto the government they so carefully created.

I've never heard of anyone forced to say 'Under God' those in my class (elementary school) who asked the teacher, the teacher mearly responded, "if it's against your religion, don't say those particual words and no one should pick on those who choose not to say those words."
Thats why I said IF

The beauty of the First Amendment is that you are free to worship as you choose whenever you choose.

Government cannot favor any religion over any other religion or religion over nonreligion. No establishment of religion. Period.

Not requiring official prayer in schools is not denying anyone the right to pray if they wish.but now allowing time for prayer infringes on the Muslims which, correct me if I'm wrong, require prayers at certain times of the day. Can't see holding up a class for that?

Placing with equal emphasis a religious symbol for every type of religion is impossible as a practical matter and still an establishment of religion. Even with the "Ten Commandments," there are different versions -- Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant -- with deeply held distinctions. but to ban them all... that borders on Censorship as well as infringing one's right to worship. why not display them all. limit the size to small statues, and keep them the same. won't that give the people confidence in the government that they are truly trying to be equal? So display all three 10 commandmants. also some sayings from the Muslim's book. as well as some blessings from the Wicca's.

You are free to practice and promote your religion however you wish -- but you cannot use the power of government to do so. That is what the Establishment Clause prohibits.agreed.

Although a free speech case, this sentiment is appropriate: W. Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 U.S. 624 (1943):
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

And this bears repeating: Everson v. Board of Education (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/330/1.html ), 330 U.S. 1 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164. but, by removing all forms of religion, the Government is encouraging Athiesm or a lack of religion. granted it cannot say, go to church, but by removing the symbols, it is, by action, encouraging a state of mind where Religion is non-exsistant. thus influencing a non-religion viewpoint among their employees and the citizenry in general.

I'm not calling for Prayers in the morning... nor the Cafeteria to serve only Kosher foods... But an end to Intolerance towards religion in General.

Houston, Texas. Can't get much more Bible-riffic than the satellite towns of Houston. You know what? I'll tell you what happened in Music class.

We were learning the usual things, you know, musical notation, bars, that sort of thing. Then came the song period. We did a few miscellaneous songs, and they started this new song. The music started playing, and we started clapping our hands to the beat. Then the words came. I stopped clapping.

Kids began to stare at me, and the teacher told me to keep with the "program". I said that I wasn't going to do anything, because it was religious, and I'd never been to church. Also, I said that I didn't want to be forced into something I didn't like in the first place. The entire class GASPED. There were about seven rabid, zealot Christian kids who said "OH MY GOD, YOU DON'T GO TO CHURCH!?", then they started heckling and screaming at me. Being the indecisive bitch she was, the teacher didn't do shit about it. I had to defend myself and make the entire class look like a bunch of inbred gomers (which is pretty much what they were). After I had finished insulting everyone (hey, they started it. they had it coming), we started the song over, and everybody went along. I stood in my place with my arms crossed, with one hell of a big grin on my face. Now, there were about three kids who didn't try to piss on me, and we remained friends. As for everyone else, though, they received rather poor treatment from me. And rightfully so.


It's people like that give us a bad name.

Thats why I said IFSorry, don't see the if... Must've missed it...

Thougth it sounded weird.

Sorry, don't see the if... Must've missed it...

Thougth it sounded weird.
No worries alls good

Why is it such a big deal if people don't want to say the pledge? Isnt' freedom of expression one of the rights of this nation?

Further, you will note that the pledge itself isn't what it being contested here, but the phrase "Under God".and if the ones wanting it removed don't say the pledge anyway... what harm is it doing.

now if they said they say the pledge everyday, but don't say Under God, or replace it with their diety... again, what's the harm of having it there.

Perhaps the term Under God should not be taken as a Christian reference but a general Religious one. so for Muslims, they can say Under Allah (or the appropriate phrase) Christians say Under God, Athiest/Agnostics can skip it altogether.

At the risk of a slight hijack - how did you feel about certain parts of the church hierarchy attempting to tell Catholics who to/not to vote for?
Even though I am a fairly devout Roman Catholic, I do not like the church’s policy of it being a sin to allow others to sin. I think people were given the freedom by God to not follow his laws and I refuse to force them upon others for I think that is what God would prefere.

I also agree with Dempublicents1, I dislike one religion forcing its beliefs upon another religion.
Kids began to stare at me, and the teacher told me to keep with the "program". I said that I wasn't going to do anything, because it was religious, and I'd never been to church. Also, I said that I didn't want to be forced into something I didn't like in the first place. The entire class GASPED. There were about seven rabid, zealot Christian kids who said "OH MY GOD, YOU DON'T GO TO CHURCH!?", then they started heckling and screaming at me. Being the indecisive bitch she was, the teacher didn't do shit about it. I had to defend myself and make the entire class look like a bunch of inbred gomers (which is pretty much what they were). After I had finished insulting everyone (hey, they started it. they had it coming), we started the song over, and everybody went along. I stood in my place with my arms crossed, with one hell of a big grin on my face. Now, there were about three kids who didn't try to piss on me, and we remained friends. As for everyone else, though, they received rather poor treatment from me. And rightfully so.
I feel for ya man. I may be Catholic, but I am very much for religious freedom.

but now allowing time for prayer infringes on the Muslims which, correct me if I'm wrong, require prayers at certain times of the day. Can't see holding up a class for that?

Neutral laws, regulations, and activities may be inconvenient for some religions but that does not necessarily violate the First Amendment. So long as the law is genuinely neutral and serves a legitimate purpose it is valid. If an exemption can be made without providing a preference to a particular religion, so be it.

but to ban them all... that borders on Censorship as well as infringing one's right to worship. why not display them all. limit the size to small statues, and keep them the same. won't that give the people confidence in the government that they are truly trying to be equal? So display all three 10 commandmants. also some sayings from the Muslim's book. as well as some blessings from the Wicca's.

There are thousands of different religious sects in the United States. Some estimates put it at tens of thousands. You cannot "display them all."

More importantly, you cannot prefer religion over non-religion.

It is not censorship to say that you cannot use public funds, public property, the power of government, etc., to express your religion. You can do so as a private citizen. Your church can do so any private or non-government entity can do so. You can be as public in your worship as you wish. But you cannot use the power of government. That is the First Amendment.


but, by removing all forms of religion, the Government is encouraging Athiesm or a lack of religion. granted it cannot say, go to church, but by removing the symbols, it is, by action, encouraging a state of mind where Religion is non-exsistant. thus influencing a non-religion viewpoint among their employees and the citizenry in general.

I'm not calling for Prayers in the morning... nor the Cafeteria to serve only Kosher foods... But an end to Intolerance towards religion in General.

Empirically, this is simply untrue. As James Madison and other Founders predicted, religion has flourished in the United States because of, not in spite of, the seperation of Church and State.

Although people such as yourself wish to intermingle Church and State and muddy the water, Americans generally understand that government stays out of religion and vice versa. The absence of government support for religion is not support for non-religion. To the contrary, it is staying out of the matter.

and if the ones wanting it removed don't say the pledge anyway... what harm is it doing.

now if they said they say the pledge everyday, but don't say Under God, or replace it with their diety... again, what's the harm of having it there.

Perhaps the term Under God should not be taken as a Christian reference but a general Religious one. so for Muslims, they can say Under Allah (or the appropriate phrase) Christians say Under God, Athiest/Agnostics can skip it altogether.


You've yet to explain to me exactly how removing it all together hurts religious people? How is your worship or belief in God affected by "under God" not being an official part the pledge of allegiance? If your faith is so easily affected by outside sources, maybe you need to reexamine what you believe.

Do you not also see the irony in having different official pledges for different people? You are putting so much emphasis on "under God" that you are forgetting the next word which is arguably the most important--indivisable. You're focus on forcing god to be in a pledge that originally had no reference to him and on making everyone have a different version is, in fact, dividing the nation.

To me this whole argument is just exemplary of how Christians (and I'm afraid that I do have to say Christians because I simply haven't seen Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, etc. arguing over this. . . .only fundy Christians) seem to think that they have a right to have any religion involved in government.

Secondly, Church and State are not seperate, which is why religious people can be elected to office, why our money says in God we Trust, and why you swear on the Bible. You can acknowledge a higher power without forcing it on people.
So there are practicing priests in the US Senate now?

That phrase was added to money in the 1950s, wasn't it?

Three Presidents have not sworn on a Bible.

You've yet to explain to me exactly how removing it all together hurts religious people? How is your worship or belief in God affected by "under God" not being an official part the pledge of allegiance? If your faith is so easily affected by outside sources, maybe you need to reexamine what you believe.

Some people can't see the difference between "lack of endorsement" and "restriction."

Some people can't see the difference between "lack of endorsement" and "restriction."


which is so frustrating and annoying