NationStates Jolt Archive

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

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

I can't say I have much issue with this; separation of Church and State issues aside, I've always had issues with the pledge - children are all-but forced to repeat a pledge they almost certainly don't understand, for no real reason other than the comfort of their elders. And yes, I'd argue school kids are 'forced' to say it, or face ridicule and such. People that age don't want to do anything to stand out or be different.

Beyond that, people seem to conveniently forgot the Pledge, as originally written, didn't even HAVE Under God in it, and that it was added for petty 'BEAT THE COMMIES' reasons.

Link/ Source?

Good. It is a silly practise, not to mention a religiously indoctrinating one.

Beyond that, people seem to conveniently forgot the Pledge, as originally written, didn't even HAVE Under God in it, and that it was added for petty 'BEAT THE COMMIES' reasons.

What was the pledge as originally written?

Link/ Source?

Oops, sorry. Forgot the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html

Oops, sorry. Forgot the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html


Thank you.

Here, have a fluffle. :fluffle:

What was the pledge as originally written?

Exactly the same, excluding 'Under God'

According to Wikipedia:

"In 1954, after a campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus, Senator Homer Ferguson of Michigan sponsored a bill to amend the pledge to include the words under God, to distinguish the U.S. from the officially atheist Soviet Union."

1892 to 1923:
"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."

1923 to 1954:
"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."

1954 to Present:
"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."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance

1923 to 1954:
"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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance

Let's just go back to this one. It's not offensive to those who believe in God, and it doesn't force someone who doesn't to invoke God as a deity.

finally!

could never understand how a secular nation could hod this up.
unfortunately, it's still common practise all over the US..

@iffrean: it's "i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states, and the republic for which it stands. one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
now cut out "under god" and you got the riginal stuff.

p.s. they once tried to switch it back to the originla fter the cold war ended and the reason was gone, but they failed. :rolleyes:

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_allegiance
does anyone else find this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg) disturbing?

Good. It is a silly practise, not to mention a religiously indoctrinating one.

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country, personally I think it's gonna go to the Supreme Court and get fixed back to the way it should be, with the under God in it.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

There's no problem there, the ruling sounds like it just applies to not being able to force students to say the pledge.

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

err, how is saying the pledge without "under god" a hate-America thing?

honestly, i wouldn't say that it was my NATIOn that gave me everything. but okay.

even if it were that way, i think everyone still has the right chose whom or what s/he wants to "love". you know, my parents e.g. gave me most of what i got, and i am thankful for that, but still i think i have the right to not love them if i chose that for whatever reason.

I'm going to make a movement to change the pledge yet again:

2005 and on:
"I pledge Allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God(1), indisivisble, with liberty and justice for all(2).

(1) - 'God' is a registered trademark of Jesus Corp. and can refer to your preferred deity. Not valid for Wicca or other Pagan religions.

(2) - 'All' refers to 'white Christian males'"

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

Man I feel so left out now that I know our country has been snubbing me by not giving me a christmas present for years now. :(

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country, personally I think it's gonna go to the Supreme Court and get fixed back to the way it should be, with the under God in it.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

because "God bless America" hasn't been officially endorsed by the government, to my knowledge.

:sniper:

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

If my (hypothetical) child were forced to say it, I'd have a problem with it, too. And I'm a Christian who most definitely believes in God. I personally believe, however, that my government forcing someone to acknowledge a deity in whom s/he doesn't believe is tragic, especially when the someone is a child.

What was the pledge as originally written?

history of the pledge (http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm)

"Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897)."

"His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]"

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

It is BECAUSE of my love for the principles on which this country was founded that I have issue with making children repeat a pledge they don't understand for no reason other than the possible comfort of their parents.

This country is, above all else, about freedom - including the freedom to hate this country, if one so chooses.

plus, what good is a forced "love"? either you're honestly and truely grateful, and then you can say the pledge by your own will, or you are not, but what good is it to force you to say it then? what reason is there to make somebody say tahnk you if they don't mean it?!

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country,

A pointless affirmation, that's actually paradoxically reminiscent of Communism.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

I do find those silly, too. A secular nation invoking superstition.

If my (hypothetical) child were forced to say it, I'd have a problem with it, too. And I'm a Christian who most definitely believes in God. I personally believe, however, that my government forcing someone to acknowledge a deity in whom s/he doesn't believe is tragic, especially when the someone is a child.

Very true, I'm all for God and all, but to force someone to say/believe it is another story. Though to demand a new pledge is a far stretch to me.

does anyone else find this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg) disturbing?

It's just an obvious example of the evils of nationalism.

does anyone else find this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg) disturbing?
Holy crap. :eek:

Very true, I'm all for God and all, but to force someone to say/believe it is another story. Though to demand a new pledge is a far stretch to me.

whoever needs a "new" pledge. just take "under God" out of it so that it's the same as it was pre 1954 or whatever.

A pointless affirmation, that's actually paradoxically reminiscent of Communism.



I do find those silly, too. A secular nation invoking superstition.
I agree. I think the Pledge is creepy. And all that loose god talk too.

if i remember right, the 9th circus courts ruling got thrown out by the supreme court, because newman didnt have the authority to sue the school system, because he was not the childs guardian (divorced), and was not himself offended by the school requirement as it did not apply to him.

i think in that this case may also eventually be thrown out on procedural grounds, as the parents ought to sue the school system themselves, rather then through a proxy.




I also would argue that kids are not forced to say the pedge, in highschools plenty of kids do not do it, in middle school kids do it in a mocking manner, and in elementry school kids DO say it. However there are plenty of kids in elementry schools that do not recite the pledge and have not had undue pressure put on them to say it. When i was in elementry school i never said the pledge because it was (imo) a waste of time. a teacher asked my why i didnt, and i told her, and that was that. no other pressure from kids, no other pressure from teachers, no other pressure from anything/body. Thus i do not think that there is a "coercive requirement" to say the pledge

does anyone else find this picture (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg) disturbing?

Teacher must be a total moron to have kids do that in class. Either that or he's a Nazi. :mad:

Well since you dont like the word GOD or what it represents or whichever nations feels that it belongs to the ultimate supreme being, and with our puny and merley 65,000 years of everlution we feel we have the the brain power to question everything and anything, the mere thought makes me vomit....... :headbang:

if i remember right, the 9th circus courts ruling got thrown out by the supreme court, because newman didnt have the authority to sue the school system, because he was not the childs guardian (divorced), and was not himself offended by the school requirement as it did not apply to him.

i think in that this case may also eventually be thrown out on procedural grounds, as the parents ought to sue the school system themselves, rather then through a proxy.

I also would argue that kids are not forced to say the pedge, in highschools plenty of kids do not do it, in middle school kids do it in a mocking manner, and in elementry school kids DO say it. However there are plenty of kids in elementry schools that do not recite the pledge and have not had undue pressure put on them to say it. When i was in elementry school i never said the pledge because it was (imo) a waste of time. a teacher asked my why i didnt, and i told her, and that was that. no other pressure from kids, no other pressure from teachers, no other pressure from anything/body. Thus i do not think that there is a "coercive requirement" to say the pledge

I'm not sure what the status of this case is. I may have only been remanded down to the 9th circuit for the time being.

And whether you are forced to say it depends on the school system. If I remember correctly, schools can compell students to recite the pledge, correct?

This decision will be reversed with out a sweat.

Man I feel so left out now that I know our country has been snubbing me by not giving me a christmas present for years now. :(

how about your parents a place to put their house, a place to get the christmas tree from, and a job to buy you presents?


It is BECAUSE of my love for the principles on which this country was founded that I have issue with making children repeat a pledge they don't understand for no reason other than the possible comfort of their parents.

This country is, above all else, about freedom - including the freedom to hate this country, if one so chooses.
agreed....this country IS about freedom, and the children have the freedom to not say it, or to say a modified version of it.

plus, what good is a forced "love"? either you're honestly and truely grateful, and then you can say the pledge by your own will, or you are not, but what good is it to force you to say it then? what reason is there to make somebody say tahnk you if they don't mean it?!

The point everybody is missing, is that while there is a time for the pledge to be said, there is no "coercive requirement" to affirm a god, because there is no "coercive requirement" to say the pledge in the first place. If you dont support it, dont say it simple as that. If the parents dont support it, then they can tell their children not to say it.

Ultimatly has anybody asked the children if it offended them?

how about your parents a place to put their house, a place to get the christmas tree from, and a job to buy you presents?



agreed....this country IS about freedom, and the children have the freedom to not say it, or to say a modified version of it.



The point everybody is missing, is that while there is a time for the pledge to be said, there is no "coercive requirement" to affirm a god, because there is no "coercive requirement" to say the pledge in the first place. If you dont support it, dont say it simple as that. If the parents dont support it, then they can tell their children not to say it.

Ultimatly has anybody asked the children if it offended them?


the government doesn't have to promote religion coercively for the 1st amendment to be violated.

Well since you dont like the word GOD or what it represents or whichever nations feels that it belongs to the ultimate supreme being, and with our puny and merley 65,000 years of everlution we feel we have the the brain power to question everything and anything, the mere thought makes me vomit....... :headbang:

OK, after sifting through your poor spelling and even worse grammar, I have come to the conclusion that you've an upset stomach.

The decision will be reversed on a technicality to make sure the pledge stays while not saying whether it is constitutionnal or not.

Which I find utter bollocks as I don't see the reason why the pledge is uttered in the first place at school.

Gah, I wish they would just go back to the original pledge before they stuck "under god" in there.

Actually yes there are places where you will get a lot of hell from teachers and fellow students if you dont say the pledge - this is usually in the bible belt.

Gah, I wish they would just go back to the original pledge before they stuck "under god" in there.

Actually yes there are places where you will get a lot of hell from teachers and fellow students if you dont say the pledge - this is usually in the bible belt.

I stand correctly from one earlier post I made, the court has ruled that students cannot be compelled to stay the pledge (with encoded punishments if they dont) but you're right, in some areas there is great pressure to say it, and great ridicule if you don't.

I'm sure that If I had said the pledge and skipped "under God" in high school. people would have jumped on me in no time.

-snip-
there is no "coercive requirement" to say the pledge in the first place.
-snip-

i hate to say this, but you're wrong. though it is different in many (most?) schools, there also are qute a lot of shools out there who will positively MAKE every kid say the pledge. some even require every student to put their hand to their heart while doing so.
i work for an exchange student organisation and we were having some trouble with a school 3 years ago when one of our exchange students from germany went there and the required her t do that (saying plus hand) and when she refused, they made her stay 2 hours longer every day she din't do it.

now think agin..

because "God bless America" hasn't been officially endorsed by the government, to my knowledge.

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?

Teacher must be a total moron to have kids do that in class. Either that or he's a Nazi. :mad:

To be fair, this is why it was done:

"Before World War II, the Pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart during the phrase "I pledge allegiance". The arm was then extended toward the Flag at the phrase "to the Flag", and it remained outstretched during the rest of the pledge, with the palm facing upward, as if to lift the flag. An earlier version, the Bellamy salute, began with the right hand in a military salute, not over the heart. Both of these salutes differed from the Roman salute, where the palm was toward the ground. However, during the war the outstretched arm became identified with Nazism and Fascism, and the custom was changed: today the Pledge is said from beginning to end with the hand over the heart."

The one shown in the picture is the 'Bellamy salute'.

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?
I don't think that should be on our money, either.

The picture of students saluting the flag was taken before WWII, when the hand-out salute was just another kind of salute, like hand over the heart or hand to the brow. It didn't mean "Sig Heil!" any more than a raised fist meant "Black Power!" and it's deceptive to present it as anything other than a salute of the flag. If you take offence to hand over the heart, you can take offence at students in the 20s saluting the flag with the hand-out. If not, you shouldn't.


EDIT: Pah. 4 minutes too slow.

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?
You do know that this is a lie, don't you?

There has been a long stretch of time where it wasn't found on the US mint.
Link (http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml)

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?

Yeah basically. it wasn't always on our money. It was put on the first coin i think in the early 1900s, and was put on bills around the same time "under God" was put in the pledge I believe.

i don't think that handling money saying "in god we trust" forces the one handling it to believe in god, or trust in it, or whatever. if you were to pay with money having "communism is great" on it, that wouldn't make the statemnt any more true, or have you believe in communism, or anything.

but stil, yes, i'd be all for taking the "in god we trust" off the money. because even though it doesn't force anybody to believe anything, it may make those who disagree with it unconfortable, and as trusting in god is not a mandatory thing in a secular state, i feel like it should be seen to it that nobody has to feel unconfortable when handling their money..

just think how you'd like it if you were to use "communism is great" money.

I don't think that should be on our money, either.

Yeah, but are you willing to sue the government to change it?. There are a lot of things the government does that I don't agree with. Should they all be changed? No, they shouldn't. I don't have the authority to change things for 300 million people. If this is really so offensive, why have I ONLY heard about these cases happening in California? Have they happened elsewhere? If they have, and you think that constitutes a majority of America, please tell me. I don't like being uninformed when I debate :) .

Yeah, but are you willing to sue the government to change it?. There are a lot of things the government does that I don't agree with. Should they all be changed? No, they shouldn't. I don't have the authority to change things for 300 million people. If this is really so offensive, why have I ONLY heard about these cases happening in California? Have they happened elsewhere? If they have, and you think that constitutes a majority of America, please tell me. I don't like being uninformed when I debate :) .

majority rule doesn't apply if its a constitutional violation.

i don't think that handling money saying "in god we trust" forces the one handling it to believe in god, or trust in it, or whatever. if you were to pay with money having "communism is great" on it, that wouldn't make the statemnt any more true, or have you believe in communism, or anything.

but stil, yes, i'd be all for taking the "in god we trust" off the money. because even though it doesn't force anybody to believe anything, it may make those who disagree with it unconfortable, and as trusting in god is not a mandatory thing in a secular state, i feel like it should be seen to it that nobody has to feel unconfortable when handling their money..

just think how you'd like it if you were to use "communism is great" money.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't dwell on it. I think we have MUCH bigger things to worry about than money with "In God We Trust" on it or saying "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?

1. Not even close to true. Look it up for yourself.

2. There is a difference between a phrase on our currency and a phrase designed specifically to indoctrinate children.

3. Technically, the "In God We Trust" is a violation of the First Amendment.

4. Why is it those that wish for less separation of Church and State are never satisfied? Rather than be happy that the rules are bent and the wall is allowed to be breached for a motto on our currency, you must use that as an argument for an even larger breach of the wall of separation. Apparently, we must have all or nothing for you people. Well, we don't want the camel in the tent, so, if you make us, we will keep out his nose.

majority rule doesn't apply if its a constitutional violation.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.

. Well, we don't want the camel in the tent, so, if you make us, we will keep out his nose.

Huh? :confused:

Well since you dont like the word GOD or what it represents or whichever nations feels that it belongs to the ultimate supreme being, and with our puny and merley 65,000 years of everlution we feel we have the the brain power to question everything and anything, the mere thought makes me vomit....... :headbang:
Please stop banging your head. Nobody can understand what you're saying when you do.

What most conservative "Christians" don't understand is the division between church and state is in the BIBLE. Among many other Bible quotes on this subject is "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is Gods". You cannot find anywhere in the NT where either Jesus or Paul asked for the combination of church and state. Secondly, Jesus talked directly against Public Prayer. When you pray go to a closet and pray in secret. Those who pray in public have received their award. Reference: Matt 6:5-8

It always amazes me that those who demand strict following of the BIBLE seldom know what it says. So fundamentalists--Do you follow the Bible or your own desires?

1. Not even close to true. Look it up for yourself.

2. There is a difference between a phrase on our currency and a phrase designed specifically to indoctrinate children.

3. Technically, the "In God We Trust" is a violation of the First Amendment.

4. Why is it those that wish for less separation of Church and State are never satisfied? Rather than be happy that the rules are bent and the wall is allowed to be breached for a motto on our currency, you must use that as an argument for an even larger breach of the wall of separation. Apparently, we must have all or nothing for you people. Well, we don't want the camel in the tent, so, if you make us, we will keep out his nose.

You people? Hold on, I think you've got me all wrong. I'm not advocating some theocracy church-government. That's stupid, and it never works. I was simply pointing it out as an example, not trying to blatantly offend you. Honestly, I wouldn't be upset if it was taken off the currency. Again, it's just an example.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.

You can pray, as long as its privately, either by yourself or in groups. What you can't do is start leading public prayer sessions during lunch or in class, etc.

People who believe otherwise are misinformed, either because they just don't know, or groups like the AFA have a bad habit about lying about such things in order to promote their own agenda.

Yeah, but are you willing to sue the government to change it?. There are a lot of things the government does that I don't agree with. Should they all be changed? No, they shouldn't. I don't have the authority to change things for 300 million people. If this is really so offensive, why have I ONLY heard about these cases happening in California? Have they happened elsewhere? If they have, and you think that constitutes a majority of America, please tell me. I don't like being uninformed when I debate :) .

Meh.

1. This cases are not only in California. This issue has been litigated elsewhere.

2. Your appeal to popularity is fallacious.

3. We have courts precisely to make decisions to protect rights from majoritarian arguments like you make.

I direct you to the wisdom of the Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943) (ironically, a case holding that the Pledge cannot be mandatory):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?
Yes.

4. Why is it those that wish for less separation of Church and State are never satisfied? Rather than be happy that the rules are bent and the wall is allowed to be breached for a motto on our currency, you must use that as an argument for an even larger breach of the wall of separation.
Why is it that those that persecute the religious and demand this supposed seperation of Church and State are never satisfied, and will use any avenue to stamp out religion and those that practice it? Reminds of those good old religious persecuters, the Nazis.

Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray.

who tf is keeping you from praying for yourself in school?
i sinceely hope that you're not complaining to not be allowed to pray loudly and openly in school. cuz that doesn't ahve to do anything with acceptance of religion or whatever. it's about disturbing people or not. see, i'm not saying that i feel infringed on my rights as concerning the 1st amendment becaus ei can't sing in class all teh time, either, you know..

You do know that "In God We Trust" is printed on every single piece of currency the US Mint has ever produced right? Are you in favor of scrapping that too because using that money forces you to trust in God?
Get rid of that, too, and the 10 Commandments in courts and other government buildings. I don't want to see art effaced, so court/gov building murals featuring biblical imagery can stay, I guess, but they shouldn't have been put there in the first place. And, hey, I'm ecumenical -- I'm leery of that weird masonic symbol on the dollar, too.

It always amazes me that those who demand strict following of the BIBLE seldom know what it says. So fundamentalists--Do you follow the Bible or your own desires?

I hope you're not speaking to me. I'm certainly NOT a fundamentalist. And I also don't support any literal strict following of the Bible either.

who tf is keeping you from praying for yourself in school?
i sinceely hope that you're not complaining to not be allowed to pray loudly and openly in school. cuz that doesn't ahve to do anything with acceptance of religion or whatever. it's about disturbing people or not. see, i'm not saying that i feel infringed on my rights as concerning the 1st amendment becaus ei can't sing in class all teh time, either, you know..

I meant in an organized group. My school wouldn't allow it.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.

Bullshit.

Subject to neutral rules and regulations required to keep order, public schools legally cannot and do not prevent you from praying.

Before you get your knickers in a bunch over "neutral rules and regulations," that is the law set forth by Justice Scalia. Religious freedoms do not necessarily exempt you from neutral rules and regulations that apply to everyone else.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.

As far as I know students in public school are allowed to openly pray by self or in formed groups and I know such groups exist in the school I teach at. (Teachers as well, the thing is teachers are not allowed to LEAD prayers.) If you are being denied this right, I would suggest you sue your school and I'm sure the ACLU would be happy to help as they have in similar cases in the past. (Yes the ACLU has gone to bat to allow voluntary prayer in school)

Antre_Travarious']Why is it that those that persecute the religious and demand this supposed seperation of Church and State are never satisfied, and will use any avenue to stamp out religion and those that practice it? Reminds of those good old religious persecuters, the Nazis.

There is a major difference between seperation of church and state and "stamping out religion"

for example, i dont see anyone going around saying that we should start banning this religion or that one (and if it is anyone, its the same people who don't want seperation and want those godless religions to go away)

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.
First, the courts have never ruled that you can't pray in school. The ruling is that the school can't organize prayer. Second, Jesus said NOT to pray in public. Third, If you wish to organize a private prayer group that doesn't disrupt anything the school does, you are allowed to do that.

Bullshit.

Subject to neutral rules and regulations required to keep order, public schools legally cannot and do not prevent you from praying.

Before you get your knickers in a bunch over "neutral rules and regulations," that is the law set forth by Justice Scalia. Religious freedoms do not necessarily exempt you from neutral rules and regulations that apply to everyone else.

See above response about organized groups. The school wouldn't let a group be formed. A few people tried and got refused by the board.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.
Does the school have an actual rule that prohibit you from praying or does it merely does not allow time in it's daily schedule for such things as prayer?

Furthermore, do you have strict ordination on time and/or manner for praying? If you have to pray exactly at 12:00 facing east, then the school is required to accomodate you in most of the places I've heard. If your prayer is not hinging on a specific time or manner, then the school has no such obligation as to lend you a class to pray.

Antre_Travarious']Why is it that those that persecute the religious and demand this supposed seperation of Church and State are never satisfied, and will use any avenue to stamp out religion and those that practice it? Reminds of those good old religious persecuters, the Nazis.

Nice invocation of Godwin's Law.

Regardless, I am not trying to stamp out religion. Are you saying that you have no religion unless it is officially sponsored?

As our Founders predicted, the wall of separation of Church and State is good for both Church and State. Religion flourishes in the US because of the First Amendment -- not in spite of it.

See above response about organized groups. The school wouldn't let a group be formed. A few people tried and got refused by the board.

before passing judgement, where and how were they planning on praying. Again, if it was publicly, then their denial is understood. If not, then the school system doesn't know what it's talking about.

See above response about organized groups. The school wouldn't let a group be formed. A few people tried and got refused by the board.
But you can bet there would be no problem granting permission for some kind of GLBTR or other outside of the mainstream group.

See above response about organized groups. The school wouldn't let a group be formed. A few people tried and got refused by the board.

What group?

Why was it refused?

Any evidence?

You may well have a legal case .... but I bet there are things you aren't telling us.

But you can bet there would be no problem granting permission for some kind of GLBTR or other outside of the mainstream group.

on the contrary, GLBT groups are often denied, rather forcefully, from being allowed to form groups in schools.

how about your parents a place to put their house, a place to get the christmas tree from, and a job to buy you presents?
Looks like someone here can't quite fathom sarcasm now can they.

Get rid of that, too, and the 10 Commandments in courts and other government buildings. I don't want to see art effaced, so court/gov building murals featuring biblical imagery can stay, I guess, but they shouldn't have been put there in the first place. And, hey, I'm ecumenical -- I'm leery of that weird masonic symbol on the dollar, too.

I'm really all for separation of church and state. The 10 commandments DON'T belong in a courthouse or other government buildings. I have no problem with keeping them separate, it just seems that people go to tremendous lengths for the smallest things sometimes. I mean, as a kid, were you ever SERIOUSLY affected by having to say "under God" in the pledge? Did it scar you for life or indoctrinate you to believe in Him? Because if it really did indoctrinate you, you wouldn't be arguing right now, would you? I'm just trying to find out where everybody stands on things. Plus, I just like to argue :D .

You people? Hold on, I think you've got me all wrong. I'm not advocating some theocracy church-government. That's stupid, and it never works. I was simply pointing it out as an example, not trying to blatantly offend you. Honestly, I wouldn't be upset if it was taken off the currency. Again, it's just an example.

What you tried to argue was that "under God" should be kept in the Pledge because "In God We Trust" is on our currency.

One of my several points was that you are essentially saying "well, you allow violation of the First Amendment #1, so you also have to allow violation of the First Amendment #2."

That is obviously fallacious.

What group?

Why was it refused?

Any evidence?

You may well have a legal case .... but I bet there are things you aren't telling us.

Actually, I don't know. I wasn't in on the ground floor, and as a senior, I didn't think I really needed to bother making a huge deal out of it, so I let it go. THe organizers were loose friends. Just the kind of people you talk to at school a lot but don't really "hang out" with.

Nice invocation of Godwin's Law.

Regardless, I am not trying to stamp out religion. Are you saying that you have no religion unless it is officially sponsored?

As our Founders predicted, the wall of separation of Church and State is good for both Church and State. Religion flourishes in the US because of the First Amendment -- not in spite of it.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I don't understand these people who have to have even the most personal parts of their lives officially ok'd by the government. Smacks of something...

What bothers me is that almost none of the people who want god references all over school, government, money ( :eek: wasn't there a whole episode in the life of Christ about that -- moneychangers in the temple??) seem willing to give equal time to any other religions.

What you tried to argue was that "under God" should be kept in the Pledge because "In God We Trust" is on our currency.

One of my several points was that you are essentially saying "well, you allow violation of the First Amendment #1, so you also have to allow violation of the First Amendment #2."

That is obviously fallacious.

No, I was questioning the lack of obvious outrage for that like there is for the pledge. I wasn't really arguing that EITHER needs to be accepted. It just seems like people sometimes say "we'll allow violation #2 if you strike down violation #1."

Belief in God shouldn't be able to survive a k-12 education, but unfortunately, thanks to people who indoctrinate kids from the earliest age possible, it does. It is kind of screwy to see full grown adult talking to an invisible man in the sky, but to see a large group of people in a classroom that is supposed to give students a secular education acknowledge it's existence is frightening.

No, I was questioning the lack of obvious outrage for that like there is for the pledge. I wasn't really arguing that EITHER needs to be accepted. It just seems like people sometimes say "we'll allow violation #2 if you strike down violation #1."
Just because it's not on the news, doesn't mean people are not against it.

Just because it's not on the news, doesn't mean people are not against it.

Ok, this is true. I guess you got me on that one. Maybe there are just as many people with problems with the currency.

"In God WE Trust" was NOT the original motto of the US. The original motto was "E Pluribus Unum" Which is Latin for "From Many--One" Isn't that more what the US is all about? We started out and continue to be a people made up of many nationalities, religions, cultures, but somehow we become ONE.

Actually, I don't know. I wasn't in on the ground floor, and as a senior, I didn't think I really needed to bother making a huge deal out of it, so I let it go. THe organizers were loose friends. Just the kind of people you talk to at school a lot but don't really "hang out" with.

So in other words, your argument was essentialy fictional.

You don't know what happened, but you'd base a constitutional argument on it. :headbang:

Belief in God shouldn't be able to survive a k-12 education, but unfortunately, thanks to people who indoctrinate kids from the earliest age possible, it does. It is kind of screwy to see full grown adult talking to an invisible man in the sky, but to see a large group of people in a classroom that is supposed to give students a secular education acknowledge it's existence is frightening.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But if that's what you think, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to try to convert you or anything like that.

"In God WE Trust" was NOT the original motto of the US. The original motto was "E Pluribus Unum" Which is Latin for "From Many--One" Isn't that more what the US is all about? We started out and continue to be a people made up of many nationalities, religions, cultures, but somehow we become ONE.
It's really much better. I'd even go so far as to say that the ONE can be interpreted in many different ways, including some sort of fire-breathing Godlike creature who formed us all in the depths of an Arkansas mining hole.

"In God WE Trust" was NOT the original motto of the US. The original motto was "E Pluribus Unum" Which is Latin for "From Many--One" Isn't that more what the US is all about? We started out and continue to be a people made up of many nationalities, religions, cultures, but somehow we become ONE.

I never said it was a motto, I just said it was on the currency.
E Pluribus Unum... that's funny because we seem to be becoming increasingly divided...

I'm really all for separation of church and state. The 10 commandments DON'T belong in a courthouse or other government buildings. I have no problem with keeping them separate, it just seems that people go to tremendous lengths for the smallest things sometimes. I mean, as a kid, were you ever SERIOUSLY affected by having to say "under God" in the pledge? Did it scar you for life or indoctrinate you to believe in Him? Because if it really did indoctrinate you, you wouldn't be arguing right now, would you? I'm just trying to find out where everybody stands on things. Plus, I just like to argue :D .
Well, then you and I will get along very well. :D :D

But seriously, I agree it's a small issue compared to others. Voting-issue-wise, it's way down on my list. But I think it's good to debate it vigorously anyway, because these things really aren't about politics or government. They're about cultural attitude and how we treat each other and whether certain people are going to think that having political power gives them the right to impose their lifestyles on others. It's small, but important, so we keep it simmering.

Antre_Travarious']Why is it that those that persecute the religious and demand this supposed seperation of Church and State are never satisfied, and will use any avenue to stamp out religion and those that practice it? Reminds of those good old religious persecuters, the Nazis.

Why is it that many overly-religious people immediately shout "persecution!" simply because less-religious and non-religious people alike want to re-affirm the very-logical wall between church and state that is being slowly eroded away by those who have no trouble forcing their religious beliefs and morality on those who may not share them?

Belief in God shouldn't be able to survive a k-12 education, but unfortunately, thanks to people who indoctrinate kids from the earliest age possible, it does. It is kind of screwy to see full grown adult talking to an invisible man in the sky, but to see a large group of people in a classroom that is supposed to give students a secular education acknowledge it's existence is frightening.

And most strong atheism generally doesn't survive real life experience. Tell me about the God you don't believe in, cause chances are I don't believe in him either. Most of us stopped viewing God as a invisible man in the sky a long time ago, but our language has not caught up to it for the most part. (Although I personally like the expresion Spirit of Life and Love).

How about this for a comprimise. Open up the pledge, we are a nation founded on religious freedom why not have our pledge reflect that. Everyone I know has something they value above all else why not just name that in the pledge, "One nation under God," or "One nation under Gods," or "One nation under Reason." or "One nation under Love," or "One nation under Justice." This creates a way we can each acknowledge that we are loyal to our nation but not above all and acknowledge that thing we are loyal to even more.

So in other words, your argument was essentialy fictional.

You don't know what happened, but you'd base a constitutional argument on it. :headbang:

It was not essentially fictional. I don't have all the details, and as I admitted, I don't know. I didn't make things up to satisfy some false argument. Maybe there was something that I don't know about that legitimately killed it, but, if there was, I would assume it would be made known so this doesn't happen.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But if that's what you think, you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to try to convert you or anything like that.

Why would you feel sorry for me?
I feel sorry for you =)

Well, then you and I will get along very well. :D :D

But seriously, I agree it's a small issue compared to others. Voting-issue-wise, it's way down on my list. But I think it's good to debate it vigorously anyway, because these things really aren't about politics or government. They're about cultural attitude and how we treat each other and whether certain people are going to think that having political power gives them the right to impose their lifestyles on others. It's small, but important, so we keep it simmering.

DAMN.... that's such a good point I can't argue with it...

majority rule doesn't apply if its a constitutional violation.

You have to prove a constitutional violation. In this case, saying under god does not constitute a prayer because god (notice a lower case g) could mean anything from Zeus to Allah and to God!

I for one have no problem with saying this and I do believe that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will either:

A) Toss it out of court on a technicality

or

b) keep it the way it is.

Only Congress can remove the phrase Under god and when the 9th Circuit ruled on this the last time, Both houses of Congress RE-AFFIRMED the phrase under god in the pledge of alliegence.

I'll say this now! If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional, watch for a Constitutional Amendmend to be introduced and passed.

How about this for a comprimise. Open up the pledge, we are a nation founded on religious freedom why not have our pledge reflect that. Everyone I know has something they value above all else why not just name that in the pledge, "One nation under God," or "One nation under Gods," or "One nation under Reason." or "One nation under Love," or "One nation under Justice." This creates a way we can each acknowledge that we are loyal to our nation but not above all and acknowledge that thing we are loyal to even more.

Hmm.... that sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise... which of course means it will never be implemented. But I like that idea.

One nation under mythology?

I never said it was a motto, I just said it was on the currency.
E Pluribus Unum... that's funny because we seem to be becoming increasingly divided...
That's the god's honest truth -- if you'll pardon the expression.

Granted, this is true, but consider this. I am a devout Roman Catholic. I pray quite often, and I'm very open about it. Now, public schools won't allow me to freely and openly pray. This infringes on my 1st amendment right to freely exercise my religion. Should I sue the school too? That's also a constitutional violation, and I think that MORE people would be happy if they were allowed to openly pray, either alone or in organized groups, in school than would be happy if "under God" was stricken from the pledge.

Here here Myrcia. Well said! Well said indeed.

This reminds me of a story I heard awhile back. Muslims complained that they couldn't do their prayers in school because prayer was taken out. However, some schools sat up a special room for them to pray. Christian parents sued on the grounds that if they are allowed to pray in school then Christians should be allowed to pray in school.

Haven't heard much more on the case since then.

One nation under mythology?

If that's what floats your boat, go for it.

You have to prove a constitutional violation. In this case, saying under god does not constitute a prayer because god (notice a lower case g) could mean anything from Zeus to Allah and to God!

However, it does discriminate against religion that don't have any specific deity, or have many deities. So it is a constitutionnal violation because it endorses some religions over others.

"One nation under diety, mythology - and or lack of - of your choice."

something like that should please all.

You have to prove a constitutional violation. In this case, saying under god does not constitute a prayer because god (notice a lower case g) could mean anything from Zeus to Allah and to God!

I for one have no problem with saying this and I do believe that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will either:

A) Toss it out of court on a technicality

or

b) keep it the way it is.

Only Congress can remove the phrase Under god and when the 9th Circuit ruled on this the last time, Both houses of Congress RE-AFFIRMED the phrase under god in the pledge of alliegence.

I'll say this now! If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional, watch for a Constitutional Amendmend to be introduced and passed.

What planet are you from again?

1. The Pledge uses an uppercase "G" for "God."

2. Regardless, it is an establishment of religion.

3. SCOTUS can declare the law adding "under God" unconstitutional. No act of Congress is required.

4. Are you serious about a Constitutional Amendment? You are that desperate?

Hmm.... that sounds like a pretty reasonable compromise... which of course means it will never be implemented. But I like that idea.


Woo-hoo... Got one. :) Now only about 250 million more to go.

I'll say this now! If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional, watch for a Constitutional Amendmend to be introduced and passed.

God, I hope not! The last thing we need is a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the existence of God. We'll be well on the way to requiring all citizens to be Christians.

However, it does discriminate against religion that don't have any specific deity, or have many deities. So it is a constitutionnal violation because it endorses some religions over others.

Yeah, but god with no capital G basically indicates anything that you venerate above everything else. Even those religions without a specific deity have an ideal they strive for, that could be considered a 'god' to them, or for polytheistic religions, a lot of people worship 1 god more fervently than they do the others OR they could use 'god' to refer to the entire pantheon.

Here here Myrcia. Well said! Well said indeed.

This reminds me of a story I heard awhile back. Muslims complained that they couldn't do their prayers in school because prayer was taken out. However, some schools sat up a special room for them to pray. Christian parents sued on the grounds that if they are allowed to pray in school then Christians should be allowed to pray in school.

Haven't heard much more on the case since then.

This is fictional.

Christians are allowed to pray in school -- and you damn well know it!!!

Personally, I always thought it was stupid to pledge allegiance to a flag. To a nation, sure. But a flag is a peice of cloth.

Woo-hoo... Got one. :) Now only about 250 million more to go.

Yeah, good luck with that. Now, unfortuanately, I must deprive you all of the pleasure of arguing with me. Hopefully Corneliu can take my place ;) . I have an Organic Chem to go to.

"In God We Trust" is the official motto of the US. It replaced "From Many One" That's why it's on all the money. Ironic that Jesus was looking at money when he said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" Now if we try to follow the words of Jesus and remove it, The "literal translation" "follow the Bible to the period" type people will protest. The very people that should KNOW what God said about separation of church and state will abandon the Bible to save a slogan.

Yeah, but god with no capital G basically indicates anything that you venerate above everything else. Even those religions without a specific deity have an ideal they strive for, that could be considered a 'god' to them, or for polytheistic religions, a lot of people worship 1 god more fervently than they do the others OR they could use 'god' to refer to the entire pantheon.
What about animism?
Or buddism?

A great many religions don't have the concept of god, whether singular or multiple. So, in effect, you discriminate against religion that prefer to believe in a cosmic sort of Karma instead of a spritual being called god.

However, it does discriminate against religion that don't have any specific deity, or have many deities. So it is a constitutionnal violation because it endorses some religions over others.

Actually, even then it really isn't a constitutional violation. Not really since god could mean (to those with more) the most powerful of them or whatever one you actually believe in. Many multi-god cultures have people that believe in at least one of those gods and that is the one they usually pray too.

The only people who would probably get more offended are athiests but then again, it does take more faith to believe in nothing than it does to believe in something.

Anyway, odds are this will get tossed out of court. If not, look for a constitutional amendment to be passed.

I wonder what the next big religion is going to be...

DAMN.... that's such a good point I can't argue with it...
CHECKMATE!!! AAAHAHAHA!! I WIN!

I'll let you sleep on it and have another shot at me. ;)

What planet are you from again?

Yours

1. The Pledge uses an uppercase "G" for "God."

Then lower the letter g. That way your covered.

2. Regardless, it is an establishment of religion.

*buzzer* wrong

3. SCOTUS can declare the law adding "under God" unconstitutional. No act of Congress is required.

Problem here is that it was Congress that inserted it in there. Your right about what you are saying however, there is a massive movement to keep Under god in there. I don't even think the judiciary would be that stupid to risk the judiciary on it.

Why do you think they didn't rule on it the first time?

4. Are you serious about a Constitutional Amendment? You are that desperate?

Actually, it isn't my idea on this one. There's already a movement to save the Pledge in its current form.

Personally, I always thought it was stupid to pledge allegiance to a flag. To a nation, sure. But a flag is a peice of cloth.
The idea is that we pledge to the ideals that the flag represents--NOT the people who run the government. Most other nations pledge loyalty to the leader or to the government representatives.

The only people who would probably get more offended are athiests but then again, it does take more faith to believe in nothing than it does to believe in something.

Actuall, it takes no faith at all to believe in nothing. You could argue that a belief in absence takes faith. However, I still don't really see how that is relevant. Making public school students proclaim their love for god is an establishment of religion.

*snip*

Your Constitutional analysis is a bit weak. Read the cases on the Pledge.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/newdowus91405opn.pdf

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FE05EEE79C2A97B688256BE3007FEE32/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 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.'

Actuall, it takes no faith at all to believe in nothing. You could argue that a belief in absence takes faith. However, I still don't really see how that is relevant. Making public school students proclaim their love for god is an establishment of religion.

But that is just it. It isn't proclaiming love for God so therefor, it isn't an establishment of Religion!

http://www.poofcat.com/july.html

I personally think that the man who brought forth the case wasted a whole lot of his money over something definately not worth the money spent. This is such a trivial case, it's almost laughable were it not so sad due to how much attention it's getting. I can't see children being traumatically scared over saying "under God", regardless of their beliefs or backgrounds.

But.

I do agree that the government shouldn't impose one religion (or lack thereof) over another. If he really felt that money well spent in the ruling, then hats off to 'im. Make sure all have their beliefs equally honored by preventing the lifting up of a particuar. However, the roles should be just as imposed if/when the tables turn. Just make sure the government doesn't poke its nose in our personal beliefs, or our choice to follow its own laws.

But that is just it. It isn't proclaiming love for God so therefor, it isn't an establishment of Religion!

http://www.poofcat.com/july.html

Making a student acknowledge the existence of God is an establishment of religion.

*snip*

Apparently someone here doesn't realize that Precendent can be overturned. Granted it doesn't happen often but it does occur.

In the case of the Pledge of Allegience, the words under god is the only thing at stake. There is no precedent on this issue regarding the Pledge and Under God in it.

The Supreme Court threw out the case earlier on a technicality. Frankly, I don't think they want to rule on this case because it'll cause an uproar. If they do decide in favor of it, great. If not, there will be such an uproar and not just among the bible belt, but the US Senate and House will be tossed into an uproar too.

Tell me that you don't think there will be a move to make it constitutional to say the pledge with Under God in it.

I'm glad. And ever try to be an atheist kid not saying the Pledge of Allegience? I did. It wasn't easy. "What? You don't believe in GOD?" came to me often. Just try and use reason on underage fundamentalist ultranationalists when you're only a kid surrounded by them. Just try.

And frankly yes it is creepy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/1892_Pledge_of_Allegiance2.jpg

But I have a feeling this will get overturned or overruled or whatever. People are afraid we'll breed terrorists by not having kids 'affirm their loyalty to their country' every day. As if saying the pledge meant a damn thing. I said it, and I don't believe in God, and frankly there are times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA) when I don't really believe in my country, either (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_orange).

But that is just it. It isn't proclaiming love for God so therefor, it isn't an establishment of Religion!

http://www.poofcat.com/july.html
The government forcing me to proclaim that my nation is a "nation under god" sounds like as clear cut an establishment as is imaginable.

The government forcing me to proclaim that my nation is a "nation under god" sounds like as clear cut an establishment as is imaginable.

No one forced me to say under God in school though I know in other parts of the country, that isn't always the case.

I think that this will be overturned because GW will have two people on the court. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean much to "conservatives". That's really ironic isn't it. You would think "conservatives" would want to conserve the rights in the constitution. But as you can see, Rights mean nothing when you think your people are in power.

Apparently someone here doesn't realize that Precendent can be overturned. Granted it doesn't happen often but it does occur.

In the case of the Pledge of Allegience, the words under god is the only thing at stake. There is no precedent on this issue regarding the Pledge and Under God in it.

The Supreme Court threw out the case earlier on a technicality. Frankly, I don't think they want to rule on this case because it'll cause an uproar. If they do decide in favor of it, great. If not, there will be such an uproar and not just among the bible belt, but the US Senate and House will be tossed into an uproar too.

Tell me that you don't think there will be a move to make it constitutional to say the pledge with Under God in it.
Considering he's a lawyer and you aren't, I'd say he knows quite well that precedent can be overruled. It is, however, extremely rare.

There will be. It will die out much like the flag burning amendment did. It would be a disgrace to the document to say "Amendment 28: God shall be allowed in the Pledge. Fuck you supreme court"

Are we sure God wants to be associated in the pledge? For where The United States is today? We have so many individual rights that we don't have any individual rights? Take God off the money! I'm sure God never wanted to be there either. God bless America? I'll keep saying it & praying that God does, those of you who don't want God...believe me you don't have to have God!

Considering he's a lawyer and you aren't, I'd say he knows quite well that precedent can be overruled. It is, however, extremely rare.

Your right. It is extremely rare that precendent gets overturned.

There will be. It will die out much like the flag burning amendment did. It would be a disgrace to the document to say "Amendment 28: God shall be allowed in the Pledge. Fuck you supreme court"

Actually, I don't think this one will die out. The people themselves will push for it.

I think that this will be overturned because GW will have two people on the court. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean much to "conservatives". That's really ironic isn't it. You would think "conservatives" would want to conserve the rights in the constitution. But as you can see, Rights mean nothing when you think your people are in power.

Now, when you quote the word conservative, do you generalize all who view themselves as conservative, or are you calling out conservative hypocrites?

Just a clarification, is all. :fluffle:

Are we sure God wants to be associated in the pledge? For where The United States is today? We have so many individual rights that we don't have any individual rights? Take God off the money! I'm sure God never wanted to be there either. God bless America? I'll keep saying it & praying that God does, those of you who don't want God...believe me you don't have to have God!

According to him it's a violation of trademark and copyright laws. He was considering a lawsuit until very recently. Only problem is He can't find any decent lawyers in Heaven...

I think that this will be overturned because GW will have two people on the court. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean much to "conservatives". That's really ironic isn't it. You would think "conservatives" would want to conserve the rights in the constitution. But as you can see, Rights mean nothing when you think your people are in power.
Well said. Power corrupts -- everything, including religion which seems to be more interested in politics than in souls these days.

Actually, I don't think this one will die out. The people themselves will push for it.
Which people?

According to him it's a violation of trademark and copyright laws. He was considering a lawsuit until very recently. Only problem is He can't find any decent lawyers in Heaven...

:eek: :D

"This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said. "Legislators have the right to protect the rights of the people as much as courts." <---John Roberts Today

Don't be surprised if the legislature takes this up.

Which people?

The people of the United States as well as the Congress of the United States.

Remember that when the 9th Circuit Court said it was unconstitutional the last time, the US House and the US Senate both passed a joint resolution affirming the phrase under God in the pledge.

If it gets threatened again, the samething will happen. When Provoked, the House and Senate move at warp speed. If this does get struck down at the highest levels, jobs will be at stake in the legislative body. Care to guess what they will do to save their jobs?

"This body and legislative bodies in the states are protectors of the people's rights," Roberts said. "Legislators have the right to protect the rights of the people as much as courts." <---John Roberts Today

Don't be surprised if the legislature takes this up.

Although Congress could remove the First Amendment violation by repealing the addition of "under God," Congress cannot simply make it constitutional.

This is not a matter for popular vote or for Congress alone.

I repeat my earlier quote from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

The people of the United States as well as the Congress of the United States.

Remember that when the 9th Circuit Court said it was unconstitutional the last time, the US House and the US Senate both passed a joint resolution affirming the phrase under God in the pledge.

If it gets threatened again, the samething will happen. When Provoked, the House and Senate move at warp speed. If this does get struck down at the highest levels, jobs will be at stake in the legislative body. Care to guess what they will do to save their jobs?

Even if your fantasizing about a constitutional amendment were accurate, this does not make it right.

If SCOTUS held something to violate the First Amendment, you would endorse an amendment to force that thing anyway?

Shame on you. Your thinking is contrary to the very heart of our Republic. To the notions of the Pledge you claim to be defending.

Even if your fantasizing about a constitutional amendment were accurate, this does not make it right.

If SCOTUS held something to violate the First Amendment, you would endorse an amendment to force that thing anyway?

Shame on you. Your thinking is contrary to the very heart of our Republic. To the notions of the Pledge you claim to be defending.
Making sure everyone else's kids learn about God is more important than stupid things like freedom.

The people of the United States as well as the Congress of the United States.

Remember that when the 9th Circuit Court said it was unconstitutional the last time, the US House and the US Senate both passed a joint resolution affirming the phrase under God in the pledge.

If it gets threatened again, the samething will happen. When Provoked, the House and Senate move at warp speed. If this does get struck down at the highest levels, jobs will be at stake in the legislative body. Care to guess what they will do to save their jobs?

No not going to happen. It would be the opening of the flood gates.

Reading "In God We Trust" and uttering "Under God" doesn't make you a better Christian.

People need to reflect on their faith if they have to have reminders everywhere.

Although Congress could remove the First Amendment violation by repealing the addition of "under God," Congress cannot simply make it constitutional.

*buzzer*

Wrong again. Here's way

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Also:

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

Now what? This will not get upheld. The 9th will get overturned again.

This is not a matter for popular vote or for Congress alone.

And yet, Congress can undo what the Supreme Court has stated through legislation.

Making sure everyone else's kids learn about God is more important than stupid things like freedom.

I sure hope this was sarcasm.

And yet, Congress can undo what the Supreme Court has stated through legislation.

Not in the matters of the Constitution. An amendment is not so simple as you imply. Why else hasn't there been an anti-gay marriage amendment?

Even if your fantasizing about a constitutional amendment were accurate, this does not make it right.

Actually, I'm not fantasizing about it. There is a move for said amendment. It does have strength.

If SCOTUS held something to violate the First Amendment, you would endorse an amendment to force that thing anyway?

Nope!

Shame on you. Your thinking is contrary to the very heart of our Republic. To the notions of the Pledge you claim to be defending.

So I can't dissent to what the American People on here are saying? That's contrary to the very heart of our republic. To the notions of the pledge you claim to be defending.

Not in the matters of the Constitution. An amendment is not so simple as you imply. Why else hasn't there been an anti-gay marriage amendment?

Even I was opposed to the Anti-gay marriage amendment at the federal level. In reality, it really was just signifying marriage as one man one woman. Nothing in there saying Gays can't have civil unions.

It's not like kids in school HAVE to say the pledge, or they can just not say "under God," so honestly, I don't see why this matters.

Even I was opposed to the Anti-gay marriage amendment at the federal level. In reality, it really was just signifying marriage as one man one woman. Nothing in there saying Gays can't have civil unions.

Fact remains an amendment is not as easy as you suggest. It didn't happen for gay marriage, it won't happen with putting God into the Constitution.

It's not like kids in school HAVE to say the pledge, or they can just not say "under God," so honestly, I don't see why this matters.

It it's that simple, then why have it at all? It's a cold war relic......

Why NOT have it? .. I'm already used to it.

It's not like kids in school HAVE to say the pledge, or they can just not say "under God," so honestly, I don't see why this matters.
You mean besides the fact that it states that our nation is "Under God", which seems to me to be rather clearly establishing a religion...

You mean besides the fact that it states that our nation is "Under God", which seems to me to be rather clearly establishing a religion...

Even though other courts, including Justice Stevens (not a conservative by any stretches) has stated otherwise?

From the 4th Circuit's opinion

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words `under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

Even though other courts, including Justice Stevens (not a conservative by any stretches) has stated otherwise?
A citation would be nice. In context.

A citation would be nice. In context.

Stevens went with the majority in regards to Newman's standing in the eyes of the law, which is zero since he didn't have custady of the daughter.

My apologies on that count.

Stevens went with the majority in regards to Newman's standing in the eyes of the law, which is zero since he didn't have custady of the daughter.

My apologies on that count.
Dismissing a case on a legal technicality gives no opinion as to the merits of the case (eg, the issues at hand besides standing).

Regardless of the 'Under God' part I think the pledge is state worship, an inherently sacreligious practice in my book. I mean, I'm patriotic and all but state worship is unhealthy.

Good (Not that I like the constitution) but lets face it, if a Nation is worth loving and serving, surely you dont need to have it hammered home day after day after day in what is after all practically brainwashing?

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under Evolution,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under Global Warming,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under Ralph Nader,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under Microsoft,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

People can get very peeved at a couple of words in a pledge. How is it patriotism if people are excluded from devoting themselves fully to their country's pledge?

People can get very peeved at a couple of words in a pledge. How is it patriotism if people are excluded from devoting themselves fully to their country's pledge?

Do you honestly want people devoted to their country first and foremost? I think everyone has ideals that they are devoted to more than their country and that is the way it should be. If this was not the case we would constantly fall lockstep behind whoever was in power and gladly do whatever they wanted without question.

Do you honestly want people devoted to their country first and foremost? I think everyone has ideals that they are devoted to more than their country and that is the way it should be. If this was not the case we would constantly fall lockstep behind whoever was in power and gladly do whatever they wanted without question.
That's a good point but I don't see how it relates.

You mean besides the fact that it states that our nation is "Under God", which seems to me to be rather clearly establishing a religion...
And the motto of the country happens to be "In God We Trust," which is also found on every piece of currency and is in the final stanza of The Star Spangled Banner. Take a look at the figures in Statuary Hall in the Capitol Building and you will see a number of priests and missionaries, including the Franciscan that discovered the city in which this court case was won. It is everywhere.

...get over it. God has been engraved into American life. The majority of the American people are religious Protestants (whether they be devout or not). Those that are as vehemently against religion as those that continuously bring up these cases are the few. As long as religion as an institution (there is nothign wrong with following its morality) does not affect legislation or how it is carried out, it doesn't matter. It is a part of life for the religious and vestigial words to those who aren't.

You also say "a religion." Please note that all major world religions believe in a single ultimate god, whether it be the god found in the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Even Hinduism teaches of a single source from which all came, called the Brahman, that is essentially an unpersonified god.

That's a good point but I don't see how it relates.

I might have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that people should be faithfull to their country above all when you said, How is it patriotism if people are excluded from devoting themselves fully to their country's pledge?

And the motto of the country happens to be "In God We Trust," which is also found on every piece of currency and is in the final stanza of The Star Spangled Banner. Take a look at the figures in Statuary Hall in the Capitol Building and you will see a number of priests and missionaries, including the Franciscan that discovered the city in which this court case was won. It is everywhere.

...get over it. God has been engraved into American life. The majority of the American people are religious Protestants (whether they be devout or not). Those that are as vehemently against religion as those that continuously bring up these cases are the few. As long as religion as an institution (there is nothign wrong with following its morality) does not affect legislation or how it is carried out, it doesn't matter. It is a part of life for the religious and vestigial words to those who aren't.

You also say "a religion." Please note that all major world religions believe in a single ultimate god, whether it be the god found in the Bible, Koran, or Torah. Even Hinduism teaches of a single source from which all came, called the Brahman, that is essentially an unpersonified god.
God refers to the juedochristian god, and anything you say to the otherwise is simply being intellectually dishonest. Quite frankly, that's next on my list.

A pointless affirmation, that's actually paradoxically reminiscent of Communism.



I do find those silly, too. A secular nation invoking superstition.


The "enlightened" atheist speaks :rolleyes:

As an American-Buddhist, I've gotta say that I'd take great offense to the "Under God" part of the pledge. Buddhists don't believe in one.

I agree with the poster who said we'll probably wind up with the pledge sans deity. That's for the best, and more true to our heritage as a nation.

here we go

here we go
Brace yourself. :D

Eichen,

Its more probable that SCOTUS will toss out this case. It is likely that the pledge will stay in its current form and that is why I'm not upset with this case.

As an American-Buddhist, I've gotta say that I'd take great offense to the "Under God" part of the pledge. Buddhists don't believe in one.

I agree with the poster who said we'll probably wind up with the pledge sans deity. That's for the best, and more true to our heritage as a nation.

Our true heritage would actually mean including "Under God" in the pledge, as this nation largely Christian and has been. :)


Not that it matters, as these cases have a remarkable penchant for being overturned :D

I take great offense because I believe we are over God and the pledge is directly contradicting my beliefs. :p

People read too much into the idea of god in government. We should of, by now, realized that under god is nothing more than a formality. The pledge has been said for many years, people have repeated thousands of times in their life, and it is exactly what the title calls it: a pledge to our country...and there is nothing wrong with that.

I might have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that people should be faithfull to their country above all when you said,
No, I just meant how can you expect them to be patriotic when they are told to say something they don't believe. I didn't mean that the goal should be to make everyone blindly patriotic.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was ruled unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

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

I can't say I have much issue with this; separation of Church and State issues aside, I've always had issues with the pledge - children are all-but forced to repeat a pledge they almost certainly don't understand, for no real reason other than the comfort of their elders. And yes, I'd argue school kids are 'forced' to say it, or face ridicule and such. People that age don't want to do anything to stand out or be different.

Beyond that, people seem to conveniently forgot the Pledge, as originally written, didn't even HAVE Under God in it, and that it was added for petty 'BEAT THE COMMIES' reasons.

His job is to follow and enforce the precedent of the US Supreme Court which has not made a decision in the case. The case is certain to be appealed and this time there will be a legit ruling on the matter. I think SCOTUS will again overturn the 9th like it has numerous times before.

Eichen,

Its more probable that SCOTUS will toss out this case. It is likely that the pledge will stay in its current form and that is why I'm not upset with this case.
Personally, I just "mute" the "Under God" part of the pledge... meaning I don't say it. It doesn't bother me much, but the Big-Guy-In-the-Sky reference would be far better returned to its original oblivion.

Our true heritage would actually mean including "Under God" in the pledge, as this nation largely Christian and has been. :)


Not that it matters, as these cases have a remarkable penchant for being overturned :D

And yet it wasn't included. And yet the Constitution does not reference God. And yet the DOI doesn't reference God. See a pattern?

Thank goodness someone has the guts to stand up for this. Now, if only someone would file suit to have these other official government proclamations and documents changed, we'd be doing so much better. First, we've got that stupid Declaration of Independence that says, in pertinent part:

"The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

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

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions . . . with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."

Next there is that pesky "in God we Trust" on all our money. Also, what's this with the Supreme Court opening sessions with some guy saying "God save this this honorable court" and that picture of the 10 commandments on the wall? Oh, yeah, and the president and judges and senators and congressmen taking their oaths of office with their hand on on a Bible! Oh, yeah, don't want to forget, what's with this Christmas and Thanksgiving holiday and national day of prayer crap? Oh, yeah, and the Senate and the House have chaplains as do all branches of the military . . shit, the list goes on and on, I guess we just need either the court or congress to just go ahead have the balls to ban christianity all together - the last thing we need to do as a nation is expose someone to the idea that there might be a God - I mean, how fucking offensive can you get. And "forcing" them to actually say the word "God" or read it everytime they try to buy something - we are truly a depraved nation. I mean, the very idea of the government allowing something to happen that might offend someone or acknowledging the belief of the majority of the people of the country - you'd think we were some sort of freaking republic or democracy or something.[/sarcasm]

And yet the DOI doesn't reference God.

I'd go back and re-read the DoI if I were you. You might then wish to retract that statement.

Thank goodness someone has the guts to stand up for this. Now, if only someone would file suit to have these other official government proclamations and documents changed, we'd be doing so much better. First, we've got that stupid Declaration of Independence that says, in pertinent part:

[i]"The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America
*SNIP*
[/sarcasm]

I was going to give a range of comments until I saw the tag.

But for my own curiosity, what legal value does the DOI have in our laws? Also does the references mean the Christian God?

I'd go back and re-read the DoI if I were you. You might then wish to retract that statement.

Yup their creator instead of the creator. Sounds rather generic.

The laws of nature and Natures God? Sounds like Geia to me.

So where does Jehova come into play?

Technically the judge just declared the words under god to be unconstitutional. Not the entire pledge itself.

Our true heritage would actually mean including "Under God" in the pledge, as this nation largely Christian and has been. :)

No it wouldn't, as the pledge was meant to be used by all peoples, regardless of creed..

I don't know how a real Christian, especially one that believes the BIBLE is true, could argue in favor of "under God" or "In God we trust". If you studey the Bible, you will find that Jesus (remember him) argued against any combining if religion and government. Jesus and Paul also argued and lived lives where they found it wrong to force their beliefs on others. Find one place in the BIBLE that says I'm wrong. You will find many that show I'm right. Any real Christian would be humble about their beliefs when among others and let their actions of Love speak for them.

The people of the United States as well as the Congress of the United States.

Remember that when the 9th Circuit Court said it was unconstitutional the last time, the US House and the US Senate both passed a joint resolution affirming the phrase under God in the pledge.

If it gets threatened again, the samething will happen. When Provoked, the House and Senate move at warp speed. If this does get struck down at the highest levels, jobs will be at stake in the legislative body. Care to guess what they will do to save their jobs?

What a lot happens when you take a little break. :)

Anyway, Corneliu, I'm a person of the United States, and I would oppose an amendment to fix "under god" in the pledge. I see that several others ahead of me have said pretty much the same.

So, do you propose to disenfranchise us? Have us stripped of our citizenship? Or maybe you're just confident of enough a majority to get your way by the usual narrow spread.

In any event, for the sake of conversation, I wish you would be more specific. Your faction may be large, but it is not *all* of the American people. Kindly keep that in mind.

I was going to give a range of comments until I saw the tag.

But for my own curiosity, what legal value does the DOI have in our laws? Also does the references mean the Christian God?

The DOI is the foundational document for the nation - it is the document which declared to the world we are in fact a nation. It has legal value as setting a tone and a belief system under which the nation came into being. As to the references to God - they are references to the broad and general Judeao/Christian "idea" of God - a supreme being who created the universe and endowed men with inalienable rights. Founding fathers, as a whole, believed in the broad "idea" of God, the Supreme Being. Some were Deists, some Presbyterian, etc. but they all shared a common belief in a God - it was their beliefs about the nature of that God and their individual methods of worship (or lack of need to worship) that differentiated them.

I don't know how a real Christian, especially one that believes the BIBLE is true, could argue in favor of "under God" or "In God we trust". If you studey the Bible, you will find that Jesus (remember him) argued against any combining if religion and government. Jesus and Paul also argued and lived lives where they found it wrong to force their beliefs on others. Find one place in the BIBLE that says I'm wrong. You will find many that show I'm right. Any real Christian would be humble about their beliefs when among others and let their actions of Love speak for them.

The didn't force their beliefs on anyone, but they spent their lives telling everyone what their beliefs were and why they should believe the same. I think far too many people believe that if a Christian is telling you what he believes and why you should believe too, he is "forcing" his religion on you. That is not so, if it is so, then Jesus and Paul are in fact guilty of "forcing" their beliefs on other people. Also, I am not aware of any place Jesus said that religion and government should not be combined - "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" doesn't mean you can't combine the two. It just means if they are not combined to acknowledge them both with what they are entitled to. He also warned about the potential and actual hypocrosy of men who claimed political power in the the name of God, but then failed to behave as Godly men in the exercise of their political power.

Just my $0.02

So, do you propose to disenfranchise us? Have us stripped of our citizenship? Or maybe you're just confident of enough a majority to get your way by the usual narrow spread.


How are you disenfranchised if the words "under god" are in the pledge? How does that strip you of your citizenship? The answer is that clearly it doesn't - you'll still get to vote and enjoy all the privileges of being a citizen. The problem is it "offends" you and unfortunately, you seem to believe you have some God given right to go through life without being offended. Confidence in the majority? Why not, we do live in a semi-democratic nation where the majority is, in general, supposed to rule.

I don't know what everyone's so twisted about here. The judge in the case had no choice--he was bound by precedent from a higher court. The 9th Circuit's ruling still stands because the SCOTUS ruling on the Newdow case didn't touch the merits of Newdow's suit--they simply told him he didn't have standing to bring the suit.

Those people who want to see the atheists slapped down ought to be applauding right now--if this case gets pushed up to the SCOTUS, which it will eventually, SCOTUS will probably toss the 9th Circuit's ruling, not because it's in error, but because it's a political powderkeg and they know it.

I don't know what everyone's so twisted about here. The judge in the case had no choice--he was bound by precedent from a higher court. The 9th Circuit's ruling still stands because the SCOTUS ruling on the Newdow case didn't touch the merits of Newdow's suit--they simply told him he didn't have standing to bring the suit.

Those people who want to see the atheists slapped down ought to be applauding right now--if this case gets pushed up to the SCOTUS, which it will eventually, SCOTUS will probably toss the 9th Circuit's ruling, not because it's in error, but because it's a political powderkeg and they know it.

You're right about the Judge not having much choice and probably right about SCOTUS

What was the pledge as originally written?
Exactly as it is now, except for the Under God part.

Good. One more member of the hate-America, hate-God coalition exposes himself.

"Oh, shit, ther are indoctrinating my child into a love of the country that gave them and me everything." :rolleyes:

We have no problem with the Pledge...just the "Under God" part...and that because it is unconstitutional. 'Magine that! Getting accused of being an "America-hater" for trying to adhere to the Constitution!

By the way, I'm not a God-hater either, as I am a Unitarian Christian. But I do not feel that it is right to force children to, in effect, pay homage to any specific diety every day...and the Pledge, as currently composed, does exactly that.

No, it's an affirmation of your loyalty to your country, personally I think it's gonna go to the Supreme Court and get fixed back to the way it should be, with the under God in it.

And if you have an issue with "under God", why not God bless America, or any similar phrase?

Because "God Bless America" is NOT our National Anthem, and no one is forced to sing it.
And before anyone else goes off on "In God We Trust" on our money...I personally do not have a problem with that, because I don't have to look at it, or read it, or believe in it...in order to SPEND that money.

It's the forciable paying of homage to God that I have a problem with. As a Christian, I believe God Himself would be against this. He wants people to come boldly, and of their own free will. He does not want people to be coerced or forced into coming to Him, because then their faith is not true.

You're right about the Judge not having much choice and probably right about SCOTUS
You watch SCOTUS for any length of time and you quickly realize that there's very little idealism and a lot of twisting the law to say what you want it to. Scalia is a master of it.

We have no problem with the Pledge...just the "Under God" part...and that because it is unconstitutional. 'Magine that! Getting accused of being an "America-hater" for trying to adhere to the Constitution!

By the way, I'm not a God-hater either, as I am a Unitarian Christian. But I do not feel that it is right to force children to, in effect, pay homage to any specific diety every day...and the Pledge, as currently composed, does exactly that.

Which deity specifically does the pledge require people to pay homage to? The Jewish one, the Christian one, the Islamic one, Gaea, Zeus? Isn't "god" a pretty generic term subject to multiple interpretations? If it said one nation under Jesus, that would be different, but it uses a generic term instead that could apply to multiple religious belief systems, not just christianity.

err, how is saying the pledge without "under god" a hate-America thing?

Ummm, it isn't. that's just the latest whine from right-wing fundie Christian whackjobs to characterize those who actually support an unpopular, yet constitutionally-correct point of view.

See, the right-wing hates the Constitution when it impedes THEIR agenda...but it should be adhered to by the letter when it supports their agenda...or impedes the left-wing agenda...haven't you figured that out yet?

If my (hypothetical) child were forced to say it, I'd have a problem with it, too. And I'm a Christian who most definitely believes in God. I personally believe, however, that my government forcing someone to acknowledge a deity in whom s/he doesn't believe is tragic, especially when the someone is a child.

Excellent! Another Christian who believes as I do.

Which deity specifically does the pledge require people to pay homage to? The Jewish one, the Christian one, the Islamic one, Gaea, Zeus? Isn't "god" a pretty generic term subject to multiple interpretations? If it said one nation under Jesus, that would be different, but it uses a generic term instead that could apply to multiple religious belief systems, not just christianity.
Yeah, but what do you do about the atheists?

See, the right-wing hates the Constitution when it impedes THEIR agenda...but it should be adhered to by the letter when it supports their agenda...or impedes the left-wing agenda...haven't you figured that out yet?

So, in other words, they're like the far left, liberal whack-jobs who hate the Constitution when it impedes THEIR agenda, but demand it be adhered to when it advances their agenda or impedes the agenda of the far right.

Sorry, but a whack-job is a whack-job, be they politically left or right.

Well since you dont like the word GOD or what it represents or whichever nations feels that it belongs to the ultimate supreme being, and with our puny and merley 65,000 years of everlution we feel we have the the brain power to question everything and anything, the mere thought makes me vomit....... :headbang:

And the idea that, with 65,000 years of evolution we feel the need to force everyone else to blindly follow OUR faith, and question nothing...the mere thought of THAT makes ME want to vomit....

Imagine if we never questioned anything in that 65,000 years? We'd still believe the world was flat...there would BE no America, because Chris Columbus never would have set sail...and there certainly would not be any airplanes, because everyone KNEW that a heavier-than-air machine could never fly...

how about your parents a place to put their house, a place to get the christmas tree from, and a job to buy you presents?



agreed....this country IS about freedom, and the children have the freedom to not say it, or to say a modified version of it.



The point everybody is missing, is that while there is a time for the pledge to be said, there is no "coercive requirement" to affirm a god, because there is no "coercive requirement" to say the pledge in the first place. If you dont support it, dont say it simple as that. If the parents dont support it, then they can tell their children not to say it.

Ultimatly has anybody asked the children if it offended them?
Really? Then where's MY job?!!? Wanna answer that one for Mr. Bush?? If my country was supposed to give me a job, then how is it I'm unemployed, and desperately looking for work?

How is it that companies are still allowed to legally discriminate against me, and the government that is supposed to represent me refuses to stand up and tell companies they can't discriminate against me....AND ENFORCE IT WITH REAL CONSEQUENCES THAT MEAN SOMETHING??

Yeah, but what do you do about the atheists?
Saying "under God" doesn't force them to believe in God or worship God or even pay homage to God - at most (I would argue) it is requiring them to acknowledge the belief system of the majority of their fellow citizens and the belief system upon which the country they live in was founded upon. How does it harm them to acknowledge that most citizens believe in some sort of God and that the founding fathers believed there was some sort of God? The Pledge is calling upon them to pledge allegence to "the flag and the the republic for which it stands" the phrase "one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" are phrases which describe the "republic" they are NOT what you are pledging allegence to.

Which deity specifically does the pledge require people to pay homage to? The Jewish one, the Christian one, the Islamic one, Gaea, Zeus? Isn't "god" a pretty generic term subject to multiple interpretations? If it said one nation under Jesus, that would be different, but it uses a generic term instead that could apply to multiple religious belief systems, not just christianity.

Well I did a VERY un-scientifc poll and asked non-american employees what did they think when they read the word God. They all said Christianity. Even the Muslims.

Of the two I think god is generic rather then God.

What most conservative "Christians" don't understand is the division between church and state is in the BIBLE. Among many other Bible quotes on this subject is "Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is Gods". You cannot find anywhere in the NT where either Jesus or Paul asked for the combination of church and state. Secondly, Jesus talked directly against Public Prayer. When you pray go to a closet and pray in secret. Those who pray in public have received their award. Reference: Matt 6:5-8

It always amazes me that those who demand strict following of the BIBLE seldom know what it says. So fundamentalists--Do you follow the Bible or your own desires?

No, they strictly follow those parts of the Bible that validate their own views, and re-inforce their own desires...and conveniently ignore those parts of the Bible that don't. Haven't you figured that out about fundie whackjobs by now?

You people? Hold on, I think you've got me all wrong. I'm not advocating some theocracy church-government. That's stupid, and it never works. I was simply pointing it out as an example, not trying to blatantly offend you. Honestly, I wouldn't be upset if it was taken off the currency. Again, it's just an example.

I should hope not!! But the right-wing fundie whackjobs ARE advocating a theocracy church-government, in which all are forced to adhere to THEIR principles, and death is the punishment for failure to do so. Yes, there are whackjobs out there who ARE advocating just that! They just aren't coming right out and SAYING that...but if you look carefully at their actions...and their occasional Freudian slips...you can figure out their TRUE agenda...and what REALLY lies deep within their heart of hearts. Their true colors are seeping out, if you care to look.

The Pledge of Allegiance is like a promise, or a declaration of intention. It is like a preamble of our heart's loyalty to our country.

And like the National Anthem, and the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble for almost every single State Constitution that exists, the American people choose to proclaim and recognize the "Supreme Legislature of the Universe," as above and beyond the jurisdiction of man and the very government we are about to ordain with our Pledge...

"In God we Trust," has been on coins for over a hundred years...

There is no establishment of religion when we say the pledge, we do not discriminate against the non-believer by believing ourselves, nor do we pay privilege nor pay sustenance to any religion by our collective agreement to choose to recognize and thank the Almighty Supreme Being for providing us with the ability and the desire to form our Union.


-----
State Preambles (Again)

AL - We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

AK - We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

AR - We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to our selves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

AZ - We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

CA - We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

CO - We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

CT - The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

DE - Section 1. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted;

FL - We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

GA - To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

HI - We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding heart toward all peoples of the earth do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.

ID - We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.

IA - WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuance of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the STATE OF IOWA, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:

IL - We, the people of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty that He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors -

IN - TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

KS - We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit:

KY - We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

LA - We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property;

MA - We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design,

MD - We the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and
Religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declares:

ME - Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment,

MI - We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

MO - We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State.

MN- We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

MS - We, the people of Mississippi, in Convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

MT - We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

NC - We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity,

ND - We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

NE - We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.

NH - http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_nh.htm (read this one for yourself, this one is downright scary once you start to get to the middle of it) – “Morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion;”

NJ - We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NM - We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NY - WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

NV - We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this CONSTITUTION.

OH - We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God
For our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

OK - Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

OR - We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. no God here! OMGosh, a state of heathens! LOL

PA - WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

RI - We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.

SC – South Carolina's first Constitution refered to the DoI as the document requiring that they make a Consitution and then South Carolina’s 1778 Constitution said this:
Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.

SD - We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.

TN – I can’t find anything for Tennessee (surprisingly to me, but they have a huge preamble)

TX - Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

UT - Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

VA - A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

VT - WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man;

WA - We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the
Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution.

WI - We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution.

WV – Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.

WY - We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Antre_Travarious']Why is it that those that persecute the religious and demand this supposed seperation of Church and State are never satisfied, and will use any avenue to stamp out religion and those that practice it? Reminds of those good old religious persecuters, the Nazis.

Why is it that everything must be black or white with fundies like you? why can you not see the shades of gray? There is an appropriate time and an apporpriate place for worship of God. It is called Church...your own home. It is NOT your right...nor God's desire....for you to FORCE Him onto other people who do not want Him or do not believe in Him.

I'm a Unitarian Christian, by the way. I come to my faith by my own free will, which is how God wants people to come. He does not want them forced, coerced, or brainwashed into it.

You took the words right out of my mouth. I don't understand these people who have to have even the most personal parts of their lives officially ok'd by the government. Smacks of something...

What bothers me is that almost none of the people who want god references all over school, government, money seem willing to give equal time to any other religions.
Of course not. Because it IS their intent to indoctrinate, to brainwash, to force and coerce adherence to THEIR beliefs.

Obviously, they are so insecure in their own faith that they require some sort of outside "validation" of their faith...and in order to perpetuate their faith, they feel it must be FORCED.

Pretty sad, if you ask me...that their faith is so weak as to require these things.

I'm a Unitarian Christian, and I need look no further than within my own self for validation of my faith...I feel no need to force others into accepting my version of faith, as I feel the merits of my faith alone are enough for it to perpetuate itself...and, similarly, I do not feel threatened by "competing faiths" for, once again, I am still free to worship who I choose, and how I choose...so what does it matter to me if someone makes different choices than I did?

See, I'm comfortable and at ease with my choices, and my faith...I need no outside validation, because my faith is STRONG.

Theirs isn't. Hence the need for validation, indoctrination, brainwashing, and codification of their belief structure into civil law in order to insure it's perpetuation.

Belief in God shouldn't be able to survive a k-12 education, but unfortunately, thanks to people who indoctrinate kids from the earliest age possible, it does. It is kind of screwy to see full grown adult talking to an invisible man in the sky, but to see a large group of people in a classroom that is supposed to give students a secular education acknowledge it's existence is frightening.

We aren't talking to an invisible man in the sky. That is not what true Christianity is about. Try looking into it sometime. And I mean REAL Christianity, not the kind peddled by the fundie right-wing "so-called Christian" whackjobs.

Why is it that many overly-religious people immediately shout "persecution!" simply because less-religious and non-religious people alike want to re-affirm the very-logical wall between church and state that is being slowly eroded away by those who have no trouble forcing their religious beliefs and morality on those who may not share them?

Because they are trained to shout "persecution" at the SLIGHTEST hindrance to their agenda.

You have to prove a constitutional violation. In this case, saying under god does not constitute a prayer because god (notice a lower case g) could mean anything from Zeus to Allah and to God!

I for one have no problem with saying this and I do believe that SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will either:

A) Toss it out of court on a technicality

or

b) keep it the way it is.

Only Congress can remove the phrase Under god and when the 9th Circuit ruled on this the last time, Both houses of Congress RE-AFFIRMED the phrase under god in the pledge of alliegence.

I'll say this now! If SCOTUS says its unconstitutional, watch for a Constitutional Amendmend to be introduced and passed.


You can't pass an Amendment to do an unConstitutional thing. Go ahead. If the new Supreme Court has any balls (and I doubt they will) they will uphold the Constitution...throw out the Under God" part...and throw out any subsequent Amendment to same.

"One nation under diety, mythology - and or lack of - of your choice."

something like that should please all.

Nope. It won't please the fundies who are determined to take away our freedoms in the name of THEIR God.

You can't pass an Amendment to do an unConstitutional thing. Go ahead. If the new Supreme Court has any balls (and I doubt they will) they will uphold the Constitution...throw out the Under God" part...and throw out any subsequent Amendment to same.


That's a silly argument, an Amendment IS the constitution.

Personally, I always thought it was stupid to pledge allegiance to a flag. To a nation, sure. But a flag is a peice of cloth.

Tell that to Texas!!

Texas law requires all public schoolchildren to not only recite the Pledge every morning (including "Under God") but also require students to recite the Pledge to the Texas Flag...I shit you not!!

How do I know this? I'm a product of the Texas Public School System.

Texas Flag Pledge

Honor the Texas Flag
I pledge alliegiance to thee, Texas
One and indivisible.

Honest to Christ, that is an actual requirement in Texas public schools. Incidentally...so is a class in Texas History. That is a required subject! I actually enjoyed it, myself, but, nevertheless...

You can't pass an Amendment to do an unConstitutional thing.
Well, actually, if you amend the constitution to allow something, then it's no longer unconstitutional.

No one's trying to take away your freedoms. If you are a kid who is smart enough to know what atheism is, then you are smart enough to know that no one is making you say the pledge, or that part of the pledge. How easy is it to just omit those two words if they offend you? America was founded on minority rights with majority rule, and this is no exception. Note also that I am strongly opposed to a mandated prayer in public schools - you don't have to be a "fundie" to think that God can have a place in the pledge so long as the kids aren't forced to acknowledge it.

Honest to Christ, that is an actual requirement in Texas public schools. Incidentally...so is a class in Texas History. That is a required subject! I actually enjoyed it, myself, but, nevertheless...

We had Georgia history. I don't see a problem with a year's focus of it myself.

Tell that to Texas!!

Texas law requires all public schoolchildren to not only recite the Pledge every morning (including "Under God") but also require students to recite the Pledge to the Texas Flag...I shit you not!!

How do I know this? I'm a product of the Texas Public School System.

Texas Flag Pledge

Honor the Texas Flag
I pledge alliegiance to thee, Texas
One and indivisible.

Honest to Christ, that is an actual requirement in Texas public schools. Incidentally...so is a class in Texas History. That is a required subject! I actually enjoyed it, myself, but, nevertheless...

I'm from Texas too. The Texas flag thing is unique I think, but I think most states, or at least a lot of states require that you take state history. And actually, I think that's a good idea.

The people of the United States as well as the Congress of the United States.

Remember that when the 9th Circuit Court said it was unconstitutional the last time, the US House and the US Senate both passed a joint resolution affirming the phrase under God in the pledge.

If it gets threatened again, the samething will happen. When Provoked, the House and Senate move at warp speed. If this does get struck down at the highest levels, jobs will be at stake in the legislative body. Care to guess what they will do to save their jobs?

So, their jobs, and titles...as Senators and Congressmen...are more important than what their actual job duties are...among them, to uphold the fucking Constitution?

And yet it wasn't included. And yet the Constitution does not reference God. And yet the DOI doesn't reference God. See a pattern?

Actually, the DoI does reference God.

"And of NATURE'S GOD entitled them.

You can't pass an Amendment to do an unConstitutional thing. Go ahead. If the new Supreme Court has any balls (and I doubt they will) they will uphold the Constitution...throw out the Under God" part...and throw out any subsequent Amendment to same.

That was hilarious.

The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment. In fact, an amendment IS a part of the constitution, so is, by definition, constitutional. You are a gigantic idiot.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/owned.gif

Do you honestly want people devoted to their country first and foremost? I think everyone has ideals that they are devoted to more than their country and that is the way it should be. If this was not the case we would constantly fall lockstep behind whoever was in power and gladly do whatever they wanted without question.


But that is EXACTLY what the neo-cons want!!

What a lot happens when you take a little break. :)

You can say that again :D

Anyway, Corneliu, I'm a person of the United States, and I would oppose an amendment to fix "under god" in the pledge. I see that several others ahead of me have said pretty much the same.

And how many of them are actually americans? Anyway, the Congress went into an uproar the last time this was brought forth and when it DOES get to the US Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will state that it isn't unconstitutional. I'll place bets on that.

So, do you propose to disenfranchise us? Have us stripped of our citizenship? Or maybe you're just confident of enough a majority to get your way by the usual narrow spread.

What about those of us who want to keep it? Do you propose to disenfranchise us of our right to say under god? Have us stripped of our citizenship (wondering where that came from fyi)

In any event, for the sake of conversation, I wish you would be more specific. Your faction may be large, but it is not *all* of the American people. Kindly keep that in mind.

I'm of the firm belief that most people would want under god to stay in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The didn't force their beliefs on anyone, but they spent their lives telling everyone what their beliefs were and why they should believe the same. I think far too many people believe that if a Christian is telling you what he believes and why you should believe too, he is "forcing" his religion on you. That is not so, if it is so, then Jesus and Paul are in fact guilty of "forcing" their beliefs on other people. Also, I am not aware of any place Jesus said that religion and government should not be combined - "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" doesn't mean you can't combine the two. It just means if they are not combined to acknowledge them both with what they are entitled to. He also warned about the potential and actual hypocrosy of men who claimed political power in the the name of God, but then failed to behave as Godly men in the exercise of their political power.

Just my $0.02

You mean...men like GW Bush??

Because they are trained to shout "persecution" at the SLIGHTEST hindrance to their agenda.

Just like other people are trained to shout discrimination at the SLIGHTEST hindrance to their agenda!

Get off of it Lyric. What one side does, the other side does as well. Welcome to politics.

I don't know what everyone's so twisted about here. The judge in the case had no choice--he was bound by precedent from a higher court. The 9th Circuit's ruling still stands because the SCOTUS ruling on the Newdow case didn't touch the merits of Newdow's suit--they simply told him he didn't have standing to bring the suit.

Those people who want to see the atheists slapped down ought to be applauding right now--if this case gets pushed up to the SCOTUS, which it will eventually, SCOTUS will probably toss the 9th Circuit's ruling, not because it's in error, but because it's a political powderkeg and they know it.

Precisely WHY SCOTUS judges are not elected, and are given lifetime tenure. so that they are protected from political powderkegs, and thus are able to make the unpopular decisions that the Constitution sometimes requires them to.

SCOTUS judges are supposed to be above popular opion, and are supposed to judge cases based solely on their merits...and are suposed to interpret how the constitution applies in a case...not inject their own personal opinions...or the opinions of the masses.

THEREFORE, if they fail to have a spine, and actually fail uphold the Constitution, caving istead to popular public pressure...then the entire SCOTUS is guilty of dereliction of duty, and should be removed from the bench by means of impeachment. Yes, SCOTUS judges CAN be impeached for dereliction of duty.

If the Supreme court goes in there and starts throwing away established precedent, like the Pledge and other "God" words, what makes people think they will recognize established precedent when it comes to right to privacy and property rights etc?

The ACLU has ALWAYS (even when it was first established) been against the “under God” Pledge. The ACLU was founded on Communism ideals the objective of bringing down the American Republic …

Don’t ask me to prove it, you wouldn’t believe me anyway, go look it up, the founder of the ACLU and the radical view that they had/have for what America should be (Socialist/non-religious/Communism).

You can't pass an Amendment to do an unConstitutional thing. Go ahead.

Someone needs another lesson in government class!

If Congress passes a constitutional amendment saying the pledge with Under god in it, then it becomes constitutional! Why do you think income taxes are constitutional? We have a thing called the 16th amendment. Why do you think women's right to vote is constitutional (when it wasn't at first) because of the 19th Amendment. Why do you think the blacks have the right to vote when they didn't? Because of the 15th Amendment.

All of the amendments I just stated turned unconstitutional things into fully constitutional items.

If the new Supreme Court has any balls (and I doubt they will) they will uphold the Constitution...throw out the Under God" part...and throw out any subsequent Amendment to same.

Don't hold your breath. The Nazz actually said it right. It's a political powderkeg. They will not throw out under god because it isn't prayer. They will re-affirm it and if they don't, the Congress will.

The Pledge of Allegiance is like a promise, or a declaration of intention. It is like a preamble of our heart's loyalty to our country.

And like the National Anthem, and the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble for almost every single State Constitution that exists, the American people choose to proclaim and recognize the "Supreme Legislature of the Universe," as above and beyond the jurisdiction of man and the very government we are about to ordain with our Pledge...

"In God we Trust," has been on coins for over a hundred years...

There is no establishment of religion when we say the pledge, we do not discriminate against the non-believer by believing ourselves, nor do we pay privilege nor pay sustenance to any religion by our collective agreement to choose to recognize and thank the Almighty Supreme Being for providing us with the ability and the desire to form our Union.


-----
State Preambles (Again)

AL - We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:

AK - We the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land, in order to secure and transmit to succeeding generations our heritage of political, civil, and religious liberty within the Union of States, do ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Alaska.

AR - We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government, for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to our selves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

AZ - We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.

CA - We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

CO - We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, in order to form a more independent and perfect government; establish justice; insure tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the "State of Colorado".

CT - The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

DE - Section 1. Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted;

FL - We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

GA - To perpetuate the principles of free government, insure justice to all, preserve peace, promote the interest and happiness of the citizen, and transmit to posterity the enjoyment of liberty, we, the people of Georgia, relying upon the protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

HI - We, the people of the State of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage, reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding heart toward all peoples of the earth do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii.

ID - We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.

IA - WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF IOWA, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuance of those blessings, do ordain and establish a free and independent government, by the name of the STATE OF IOWA, the boundaries whereof shall be as follows:

IL - We, the people of the State of Illinois - grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty that He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors -

IN - TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.

KS - We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges, in order to insure the full enjoyment of our rights as American citizens, do ordain and establish this constitution of the state of Kansas, with the following boundaries, to wit:

KY - We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

LA - We, the people of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, economic, and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to protect individual rights to life, liberty, and property;

MA - We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the great Legislator of the universe, in affording us, in the course of His providence, an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud, violence, or surprise, of entering into an original, explicit, and solemn compact with each other, and of forming a new constitution of civil government for ourselves and posterity; and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design,

MD - We the people of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and
Religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declares:

ME - Objects of government. We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment,

MI - We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, and earnestly desiring to secure these blessings undiminished to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.

MO - We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness, do establish this Constitution for the better government of the State.

MN- We, the people of the state of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings and secure the same to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution

MS - We, the people of Mississippi, in Convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

MT - We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

NC - We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us and our posterity,

ND - We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.

NE - We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, do ordain and establish the following declaration of rights and frame of government, as the Constitution of the State of Nebraska.

NH - http://candst.tripod.com/cnst_nh.htm (read this one for yourself, this one is downright scary once you start to get to the middle of it) – “Morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as a knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the DEITY, and of public instruction in morality and religion;”

NJ - We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NM - We, the people of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, in order to secure the advantages of a state government, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

NY - WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.

NV - We the people of the State of Nevada Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom in order to secure its blessings, insure domestic tranquility, and form a more perfect Government, do establish this CONSTITUTION.

OH - We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God
For our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.

OK - Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful government; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness, we, the people of the State of Oklahoma, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

OR - We the people of the State of Oregon to the end that Justice be established, order maintained, and liberty perpetuated, do ordain this Constitution. no God here! OMGosh, a state of heathens! LOL

PA - WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

RI - We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.

SC – South Carolina's first Constitution refered to the DoI as the document requiring that they make a Consitution and then South Carolina’s 1778 Constitution said this:
Ist. That there is one eternal God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.
2d. That God is publicly to be worshipped.
3d. That the Christian religion is the true religion.
4th. That the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are of divine inspiration, and are the rule of faith and practice.
5th That it is lawful and the duty of every man being thereunto called by those that govern, to bear witness to the truth.

SD - We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution for the state of South Dakota.

TN – I can’t find anything for Tennessee (surprisingly to me, but they have a huge preamble)

TX - Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

UT - Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we, the people of Utah, in order to secure and perpetuate the principles of free government, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION.

VA - A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

VT - WHEREAS, all government ought to be instituted and supported, for the security and protection of the community, as such, and to enable the individuals who compose it, to enjoy their natural rights, and the other blessings which the Author of existence has bestowed upon man;

WA - We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the
Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution.

WI - We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution.

WV – Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, in and through the provisions of this Constitution, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God and seek diligently to promote, preserve and perpetuate good government in the state of West Virginia for the common welfare, freedom and security of ourselves and our posterity.

WY - We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political and religious liberties, and desiring to secure them to ourselves and perpetuate them to our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Wow, where did you find that? :p Can I copy and link it sometime?

Which deity specifically does the pledge require people to pay homage to? The Jewish one, the Christian one, the Islamic one, Gaea, Zeus? Isn't "god" a pretty generic term subject to multiple interpretations? If it said one nation under Jesus, that would be different, but it uses a generic term instead that could apply to multiple religious belief systems, not just christianity.

"God" is capitalized in the Pledge...and is intended to refer to the Judeo-Christian God, and you know it...any argument otherwise is intellectually dishonest, and you know it.

So, their jobs, and titles...as Senators and Congressmen...are more important than what their actual job duties are...among them, to uphold the fucking Constitution?

Show me in the Constitution where it is illegal to say under god in the Pledge of Alligence

So, in other words, they're like the far left, liberal whack-jobs who hate the Constitution when it impedes THEIR agenda, but demand it be adhered to when it advances their agenda or impedes the agenda of the far right.

Sorry, but a whack-job is a whack-job, be they politically left or right.

I'd agree with that. But if we are gonna be ruled by one set of whackjobs over another, I would sooner be ruled by the left-wing variety. They are closer to my political ideology.

The ACLU has ALWAYS (even when it was first established) been against the “under God” Pledge. The ACLU was founded on Communism ideals the objective of bringing down the American Republic …

Don’t ask me to prove it, you wouldn’t believe me anyway, go look it up, the founder of the ACLU and the radical view that they had/have for what America should be (Socialist/non-religious/Communism).

:rolleyes: Okay, I think you've had WAY too red cordial. If the ACLU is a commie ploy, why the heck did they defend the rights of NAZIS (enemy of commies everywhere) to march? Did they get a little counter-productive that week?

Saying "under God" doesn't force them to believe in God or worship God or even pay homage to God - at most (I would argue) it is requiring them to acknowledge the belief system of the majority of their fellow citizens and the belief system upon which the country they live in was founded upon. How does it harm them to acknowledge that most citizens believe in some sort of God and that the founding fathers believed there was some sort of God? The Pledge is calling upon them to pledge allegence to "the flag and the the republic for which it stands" the phrase "one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" are phrases which describe the "republic" they are NOT what you are pledging allegence to.
Again with this specious claim that the US was founded on a belief in a deity. It was not--plain and simple. The notion of a common belief in a creator was most carefully kept out of the document that becamse the legal basis for the country--the Constitution. Don't give me any crap about the Declaration being our founding document either--that was a statement of principles by a privileged elite and nothing more.

There's another major problem with your argument and it's a grammatical one. You quote the pledge as saying "one nation, under god," and then argue that those clauses describe the republic. Problem is that in the pledge, there's no comma, so those separate clauses become "one nation under god," and for an atheist to describe his or her nation as a republic beholden to a deity that they don't believe exists is rightfully offensive. It's as offensive as it would be to expect a fundamentalist christian to say "one nation under Allah" or an orthodox Jew to say "one nation under Jesus."

Saying "under God" doesn't force them to believe in God or worship God or even pay homage to God - at most (I would argue) it is requiring them to acknowledge the belief system of the majority of their fellow citizens and the belief system upon which the country they live in was founded upon. How does it harm them to acknowledge that most citizens believe in some sort of God and that the founding fathers believed there was some sort of God? The Pledge is calling upon them to pledge allegence to "the flag and the the republic for which it stands" the phrase "one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" are phrases which describe the "republic" they are NOT what you are pledging allegence to.

since they do not believe in God...saying "under God" is not reflective of the Republic to which they are pledging. They do not believe that this nation IS under God...because they believe in no God. so why are you hell-bent on forcing them to acknowledge the existence of your God? Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you require everyone else to validate them for you?

If so, I feel sorry for you.

Show me in the Constitution where it is illegal to say under god in the Pledge of AlligenceThe problem with statements like that is the fact that "under God" wasn't originally in the Pledge of Allegiance to begin with. It was ADDED in during the Red Scare of the 1950s McCarthy era.

As far as I'm concerned, forcing people who don't believe in God or a god to recite "under God" in something that has either the explicit approval or the implicit consent of the United States government is an unwelcomed governmental intrusion on religious freedom.

Frankly, I hope "under God" is overturned. It doesn't belong in the Pledge to begin with.

:rolleyes: Okay, I think you've had WAY too red cordial. If the ACLU is a commie ploy, why the heck did they defend the rights of NAZIS (enemy of commies everywhere) to march? Did they get a little counter-productive that week?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1293149/posts

That's a silly argument, an Amendment IS the constitution.

That's why Amendment 2 in colorado was thrown out all those years ago.

You cannot pass an Amendment to make legal something the Constitution forbids.

since they do not believe in God...saying "under God" is not reflective of the Republic to which they are pledging. They do not believe that this nation IS under God...because they believe in no God. so why are you hell-bent on forcing them to acknowledge the existence of your God? Are you so insecure in your own beliefs that you require everyone else to validate them for you?

If so, I feel sorry for you.

More to the point, are you so insecure in your belief of no God that saying "under God" will shake your beliefs? Are you so insecure that, even though you are not required to say it yourself, you will be swayed into believing in God because other people are saying it around you? Is this your contention?

We have ample basis for being legally able to not repeat the pledge of allegiance, or to repeat parts of it. This precident has already been set years ago.

That's why Amendment 2 in colorado was thrown out all those years ago.

You cannot pass an Amendment to make legal something the Constitution forbids.

Federal Constitution > State Constitution.

Federal Constitution = Federal Constitution

Is this so hard to understand?

No one's trying to take away your freedoms. If you are a kid who is smart enough to know what atheism is, then you are smart enough to know that no one is making you say the pledge, or that part of the pledge. How easy is it to just omit those two words if they offend you? America was founded on minority rights with majority rule, and this is no exception. Note also that I am strongly opposed to a mandated prayer in public schools - you don't have to be a "fundie" to think that God can have a place in the pledge so long as the kids aren't forced to acknowledge it.



We had Georgia history. I don't see a problem with a year's focus of it myself.

This is exactly the problem. As it is now, kids ARE being forced to acknowledge it.

This is exactly the problem. As it is now, kids ARE being forced to acknowledge it.

No they are not. They are not forced. You are not required to repeat the pledge if you don't want to, nor are you required to repeat it in its entirety.

West Virginia BoE vs Barnette (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624)

I'm from Texas too. The Texas flag thing is unique I think, but I think most states, or at least a lot of states require that you take state history. And actually, I think that's a good idea.

Oh, I think the state history is a good idea too. I actually ENJOYED Texas History. But I thought it was unique to Texas. Apparently I was wrong.

Hell, who wouldn't enjoy reading about The Alamo, and Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie, and Sam Houston, and William Barrett Travis, and Goliad, and Deaf Smith, and Stephen Austin?? Texas History was an AWESOME class...I loved the hell out of it, myself. Honestly, I think Texas has among the richest of all state histories. And, the fact that Texas was once it's own country...well, damn, that's just too awesome!

Incidentally, the Six Flags that have flown over Texas:
France, Spain, Mexico, Texas National (later the same flag became the Texas State Flag), the US flag, and the Confederate Flag. Those are the six flags that have flown over Texas.

The problem with statements like that is the fact that "under God" wasn't originally in the Pledge of Allegiance to begin with. It was ADDED in during the Red Scare of the 1950s McCarthy era.

As far as I'm concerned, forcing people who don't believe in God or a god to recite "under God" in something that has either the explicit approval or the implicit consent of the United States government is an unwelcomed governmental intrusion on religious freedom.

Frankly, I hope "under God" is overturned. It doesn't belong in the Pledge to begin with.

Your right. It wasn't orginially in it. But it is now. However, no one has shown me proof:

Where in the Constitution does it say that saying under God is illegal?

Answer: It doesn't.

The US Supreme Court will overturn the 9th (if they say its unconstitutional, which they will) and that'll be that. The issue will be resolved.

That was hilarious.

The Supreme Court doesn't have the power to overturn a constitutional amendment. In fact, an amendment IS a part of the constitution, so is, by definition, constitutional. You are a gigantic idiot.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/owned.gif

They do if it directly contradicts a different part of the Constitution. They have to resolve that conflict.

Such a proposed Amendment would violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

By your argument, then...we should still be under Prohibition...since the Eighteenth Amendment outlawed booze. It was overturned by the 21st Amendment. BUT...both are now parts of the Constitution!!

Now, just suppose, that chocolate bars were Unconstitutional. Now, along comes an Amendment requiring the consumption of chocolate bars. The SCOTUS would have to then resolve the Constitutional conflict.

And such is the case if the proposed Under God Amendment ever got passed. It would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment...and the SCOTUS would have to resolve the Constituional conflict. That is the very definition of the job of SCOTUS...to resolve Constitutional conflicts...or don't you know much about our government?

No they are not. They are not forced. You are not required to repeat the pledge if you don't want to, nor are you required to repeat it in its entirety.The way I remember it, neither I nor any of my classmates were informed of any choices we had in whether or not to recite the Pledge or to omit any part of it that we found offensive. When I was in school, the implied expectation was that every kid recited it and did so word for word. Of course, I lived in a time when atheism wasn't even discussed, and certainly there weren't any cases of people objecting to any references to God that I can remember from that time.

That may not be "forced" in the sense of putting a gun to someone's head to make them recite it word for word, but I'd consider that compelling children by omission since they're not being told they have any choice in the matter. As a result, I think "under God" needs to be struck from the Pledge, especially in an era where people are becoming more aware of people with different ideological and socio-cultural backgrounds.

That's why Amendment 2 in colorado was thrown out all those years ago.

You cannot pass an Amendment to make legal something the Constitution forbids.

Actually you can.

Amendment 18 banned alcohol. That made drinking and selling it unconstitutional. However, the 21st amendment was passed, thus making drinking and selling alcohol constitutional again.

If you actually believe what you just wrote then Blacks shouldn't vote and neither should women and nore should 18 yo kids. Do you still want to believe what you just said?

Though I am happy for Tralada, for his good schooling, I find statements such as this to be misleading and rarely the case.

I also would argue that kids are not forced to say the pedge, in highschools plenty of kids do not do it, in middle school kids do it in a mocking manner, and in elementry school kids DO say it. However there are plenty of kids in elementry schools that do not recite the pledge and have not had undue pressure put on them to say it. When i was in elementry school i never said the pledge because it was (imo) a waste of time. a teacher asked my why i didnt, and i told her, and that was that. no other pressure from kids, no other pressure from teachers, no other pressure from anything/body. Thus i do not think that there is a "coercive requirement" to say the pledge
While I attended Elementary school every member of the classroom was required to stand straight and recite the pledge of allegiance, on occasions the school principal would make surprise checks on classrooms to ensure this. There was not simply social pressure, it was a requirement that held a penalty and punishment by the school staff. A couple of teachers forbid useing the word "God" or "Lord" in vain, and wrote students up for profanity and defiance if they used them. Throughout Middle Schooling, Teachers continued to nearly force students, though it is true many recited mockingly. If you were to not recite the pledge, even if you were respectful and standing, instuctors claimed that you must have Muslim parents or some such and threaten to communicate parents and require a religous reason why you could not recite it. The situation went to the point that certain instructors made insults and referred to myself as an idiot and fool for not reciting the pledge, and singled myself out as an obvious "non-christian" choice whenever any question about evolution or non-judean subjects were being tought in the sciences. After many complaints, the school system made no changes and sent a clear message that non-christians are not to be respected in public schools and that folowing your own religous views was a sin and to be punished on Earth. Into Highschool, instructors made less effort in anything, and rarely noticed. However, there grew strong social pressure to stand and recite the pledge. If you made the decision not to, you were often singled out for attack and isolation.

The amazing part is that I went to public school, not in the Bible Belt, but of all places, central California.

By your argument, then...we should still be under Prohibition...since the Eighteenth Amendment outlawed booze. It was overturned by the 21st Amendment. BUT...both are now parts of the Constitution!!

The 21st repealed the 18th.

Now, just suppose, that chocolate bars were Unconstitutional. Now, along comes an Amendment requiring the consumption of chocolate bars. The SCOTUS would have to then resolve the Constitutional conflict.

No, because the second one would repeal the first one. Do you know what it means to repeal something?

And such is the case if the proposed Under God Amendment ever got passed. It would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment...and the SCOTUS would have to resolve the Constituional conflict. That is the very definition of the job of SCOTUS...to resolve Constitutional conflicts...or don't you know much about our government?

It's not up to Scotus. Any new amendment is deemed to repeal or clarify a previous statement or amendment when they are in disagreement.

It is up to SCOTUS to determine if a law (NOT an amendment) is constitutional or not. An amendment is constitutional, because it is part of the constitution. It is theoretically possible for an amendment to be passed which repeals the first amendment and all the freedoms listed therein. Getting it passed would be hell, but it could theoretically be done.

It is called repealing.

They do if it directly contradicts a different part of the Constitution. They have to resolve that conflict.

Such a proposed Amendment would violate the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

By your argument, then...we should still be under Prohibition...since the Eighteenth Amendment outlawed booze. It was overturned by the 21st Amendment. BUT...both are now parts of the Constitution!!

Now, just suppose, that chocolate bars were Unconstitutional. Now, along comes an Amendment requiring the consumption of chocolate bars. The SCOTUS would have to then resolve the Constitutional conflict.

And such is the case if the proposed Under God Amendment ever got passed. It would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment...and the SCOTUS would have to resolve the Constituional conflict. That is the very definition of the job of SCOTUS...to resolve Constitutional conflicts...or don't you know much about our government?

SCOTUS would not have to get involved unless the Amendment was poorly worded. If it said something like "The terms of the First Amendment to this Constitution notwithstanding, the phrase "under God" shall be a part of the official pledge of allegance to the flag and country of the United States."

Bingo - constitutional ammendment with "under God" in the pledge and nothing for the SCOTUS to decide as the amendment itself took care of the conflict by saying it "overrode" the establishment clause in this one regard.

The way I remember it, neither I nor any of my classmates were informed of any choices we had in whether or not to recite the Pledge or to omit any part of it that we found offensive. When I was in school, the implied expectation was that every kid recited it and did so word for word. Of course, I lived in a time when atheism wasn't even discussed, and certainly there weren't any cases of people objecting to any references to God that I can remember from that time.

It's too bad that you weren't informed. Your lack of knowledge in the area was regrettable.

That may not be "forced" in the sense of putting a gun to someone's head to make them recite it word for word, but I'd consider that compelling children by omission since they're not being told they have any choice in the matter. As a result, I think "under God" needs to be struck from the Pledge, especially in an era where people are becoming more aware of people with different ideological and socio-cultural backgrounds.

But they do. If their parents had any sense, they would research ahead of time what they can do, and they would inform their children that they do.