NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't. I stay silent during the "With liberty and justice for all" part too, because I'm not convinced that it is true. I consider reciting the pledge during school a waste of class time anyway, so I would be for taking it out of schools.


Then you're pledging your alliegence to the (let's say hypothetical) tyrannical and unjust republic. If you say the "liberty and justice for all bit," then you can view it as a conditional clause. "I'll remain true to this country as long as it remains true to the causes of liberty and justice."

I think I get it better than you do my friend. What about the people who want to include it in their pledge? Would you ban them from saying it?
Then they can "say it if they want."

Then they can "say it if they want."

Now your getting it. Why do you feel a need to legislate this?

Fine, but would you be for banning it from schools?If that was what was necessary to keep it from being recited during class time, yes.

Then you're pledging your alliegence to the (let's say hypothetical) tyrannical and unjust republic. If you say the "liberty and justice for all bit," then you can view it as a conditional clause. "I'll remain true to this country as long as it remains true to the causes of liberty and justice."It doesn't need to be a tyranny to have deeply ingrained injustice. My main beef with it is that I don't want to stand up and tell such a blatant lie.

If that was what was necessary to keep it from being recited during class time, yes.

What of the people who feel it's an important part of their school experiance? You have the right to not participate, sit and read a book or something while it goes on.

What of the people who feel it's an important part of their school experiance?

There are people who believe that praying to Jesus is an important part of their school experience. Personally, I believe that giving Mark Hurley a swirly every day after gym was an important part of my school experience. We don't always get our way in public school.

Fine, but would you be for banning it from schools?
Frankly, I am unhappy with the idea of schools doing anything that is not school-related. I do not consider it appropriate for children as young as six years old to be reciting pledges of allegiance to anything. I do not see why schools should be in the business of exacting pledges of political allegiance, anymore than they should be in the position of carrying out religious observances, since they are neither political parties nor churches. I see their job as being to teach kids how to read, write, do math, and other basic life skills such as computer use, and to give them as broad and thorough a grounding as possible in history, science, higher mathematics, comparative philosophy and logic, the arts, social studies, and civics. They do not need to worry, and have nothing to say, about Little Johnny's soul or political affiliations because they are none of the school's damned business.

Frankly, I am unhappy with the idea of schools doing anything that is not school-related. I do not consider it appropriate for children as young as six years old to be reciting pledges of allegiance to anything. I do not see why schools should be in the business of exacting pledges of political allegiance, anymore than they should be in the position of carrying out religious observances, since they are neither political parties nor churches. I see their job as being to teach kids how to read, write, do math, and other basic life skills such as computer use, and to give them as broad and thorough a grounding as possible in history, science, higher mathematics, comparative philosophy and logic, the arts, social studies, and civics. They do not need to worry, and have nothing to say, about Little Johnny's soul or political affiliations.
Indeed!

In my middle school, we received only 15 minutes of recess and 15 minutes of lunch each day, yet they wasted 5 minutes every morning with our "Flag Ceremony" (bringing out the flag, unfurling it, Pledge). I think we'd all have been much better off with 15 extra minutes of lunch or gym. Schools seem pressed enough for time as it is, without wasting precious minutes on indoctrination ceremonies.

When every single American child is reading at their grade level, then we can talk about maybe throwing in a little Pledge time. When every kid can do their sums and understand basic science concepts, then maybe it will be time to start worrying about whether or not they like the flag enough. But when we've got significant numbers of high school students unable to read and write in their own native language, I think it's downright criminal to be wasting time on bullshit like talking at the flag.

There are people who believe that praying to Jesus is an important part of their school experience. Personally, I believe that giving Mark Hurley a swirly every day after gym was an important part of my school experience. We don't always get our way in public school.

I don't get the Mark Hurley reference but it sounds kinky.

Perhaps the school system in the US is radically different from the system in the UK but we manage to have diversity within our state schools and it doesn't cause a huge fuss. People simply send their kids to the school the most closely resembles the school they want. Some schools pray and some don't, some have mandatory mass and some don't and the whole systems seems to be able to stumble through somehow.

This whole debate smakes of two sides trying to force their beliefs on the other.

Frankly, I am unhappy with the idea of schools doing anything that is not school-related. I do not consider it appropriate for children as young as six years old to be reciting pledges of allegiance to anything. I do not see why schools should be in the business of exacting pledges of political allegiance, anymore than they should be in the position of carrying out religious observances, since they are neither political parties nor churches. I see their job as being to teach kids how to read, write, do math, and other basic life skills such as computer use, and to give them as broad and thorough a grounding as possible in history, science, higher mathematics, comparative philosophy and logic, the arts, social studies, and civics. They do not need to worry, and have nothing to say, about Little Johnny's soul or political affiliations because they are none of the school's damned business.

Is the pledge legally binding?

What of the people who feel it's an important part of their school experiance? You have the right to not participate, sit and read a book or something while it goes on.
That's what clubs are for. Let those children who bond best with their peers by genuflecting before flags and reciting nationalistic prayers aloud in unison, do so on their own time. Such activities are not educational and, therefore, should not be part of the school curriculum.

What of the people who feel it's an important part of their school experiance? You have the right to not participate, sit and read a book or something while it goes on.I don't consider that a very good argument in favor of saying the pledge, seeing that it would open the door for a lot more than just saying the pledge if enough people found that it was important for their school experience.

I don't consider that a very good argument in favor of saying the pledge, seeing that it would open the door for a lot more than just saying the pledge if enough people found that it was important for their school experience.

And you saying that you personally find the wording distasteful is hardly a good argument for banning it.

I don't get the Mark Hurley reference but it sounds kinky.

He was a little pimple who liked to stick his hands up girls' skirts. Administering swirlies seemed to be an effective way of curing him of this habit. (A "swirly" is when you suspend the victim upside-down above a toilet, dunk his head in, and flush.)


Perhaps the school system in the US is radically different from the system in the UK but we manage to have diversity within our state schools and it doesn't cause a huge fuss. People simply send their kids to the school the most closely resembles the school they want. Some schools pray and some don't, some have mandatory mass and some don't and the whole systems seems to be able to stumble through somehow.

This whole debate smakes of two sides trying to force their beliefs on the other.
The problem is that the US is a secular state. A lot of people (myself included) find it inappropriate that public tax dollars are spent on religious propaganda and indoctrination, since this is directly in conflict with our Constitution.

And you saying that you personally find the wording distasteful is hardly a good argument for banning it.I didn't mean to say that's why I want to ban it. It's my personal reason for disliking it. I don't think it should be part of a school day to pledge alliegance to the flag because it wastes class time and serves to indoctrinate children.

Is the pledge legally binding?
You're cute, for an "ignorant Englishman." Here is the link to my earlier post, in response to you, that talked about the nature of the pledge ritual and the social pressures associated with it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11405831&postcount=250

No, the pledge is not legally binding, but that is not the point. Back in the 1950s, the Communist party was never outlawed, although membership in it was enough to bring harrassment, arrest, incarceration and even deportation. It was never declared officially illegal to be a Communist, yet declaring yourself such was treated as tantamount to a declaration of hostility against the US. Here's a link: http://experts.about.com/e/c/co/Communist_Party_USA.htm

Likewise, I believe that to promote the swearing of pledges of allegiance to a nation while at the same time "allowing" people to refuse to pledge their allegiance to their nation automatically creates a negative label to slap onto people -- creating a vague "them" to stand in opposition to a vague "us" -- that, in my opinion, is only different in scale from allowing people to become communists, but treating them like criminals if they do.

You're cute, for an "ignorant Englishman." Here is the link to my earlier post, in response to you, that talked about the nature of the pledge ritual and the social pressures associated with it:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11405831&postcount=250

No, the pledge is not legally binding, but that is not the point. Back in the 1950s, the Communist party was never outlawed, although membership in it was enough to bring harrassment, arrest, incarceration and even deportation. It was never declared officially illegal to be a Communist, yet declaring yourself such was treated as tantamount to a declaration of hostility against the US. Here's a link: http://experts.about.com/e/c/co/Communist_Party_USA.htm

Likewise, I believe that to promote the swearing of pledges of allegiance to a nation while at the same time "allowing" people to refuse to pledge their allegiance to their nation automatically creates a negative label to slap onto people -- creating a vague "them" to stand in opposition to a vague "us" -- that, in my opinion, is only different in scale from allowing people to become communists, but treating them like criminals if they do.

If the pledge isn't binding then there can be no argument about whether or not children are having a political allegiance forced upon them. You are just saying words with no requirement to live by them.

I could be wrong here but I would imagine a child who feels strongly enough about the pledge would have found out that they are not required to say it. I'll go out even further on a limb and say that a child who is this politically aware would probably be in their teenage years and would be rebellious enough to be able to stand up for their belief, ie not say it and be able to defend their reason for doing so.

The problem with McCarthy era US and the vague them and us attitudes is a problem with American society and simply banning anything that might bring it to the fore is not solving the problem, it's burying your heads in the sand.

EDIT: Would you be happy with a solution that required school to make their pupils aware that they didn't have to participate and to respect their, or their parents decision?

EDIT 2: Iactually used the word problem 3 times in one sentence, my vocabulary is going to hell.

For the education of our foreign friend:

This is only an issue because it is illegal on its face, and because it is an injustice- if only a slight one.

Our constitution prohibits government establishing religion or preventing its free excercize.

It has been decided again and again by our supreme court that school-led prayer violates the constitution because the school environment is 'in herantly coercive' to kids. This means that they are put under undue and constitutionally intolerably pressure not to opt-out of prayers.

In the eyes of our law, there is no legal difference between the addition of "under god" to the pledge and "under no god" or "under jesus."

All are serious violations of the constitution which affect millions of people every day.

What he is leaving out is that the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot make the kids recite the pledge of allegience and that at least 2 appelent courts have ruled the pledge with Under God in it, constitutional and one that has said it wasn't (the 9th which is the most over turned court in the country).

Under god is not a prayer of any sort despite what people are trying to prove.

What he is leaving out is that the Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot make the kids recite the pledge of allegience and that at least 2 appelent courts have ruled the pledge with Under God in it, constitutional and one that has said it wasn't (the 9th which is the most over turned court in the country).

Under god is not a prayer of any sort despite what people are trying to prove.


Since when do lower appelate courts get to decide constitutional questions?

I assume that you would have no objection if it said "one nation, under No god?"

Also, while you cannot make kids recite the pledge, you cannot make a school-led prayer even optional.

The coercive environment of school makes it illegal on its face under the constitution.

Since when do lower appelate courts get to decide constitutional questions?

Where do Federal Courts go for appeal? The Circuit Court of Appeals which is then followd by the Supreme Court. So yea they actually do and they can get overriden by the US Supreme Court.

Also, while you cannot make kids recite the pledge, you cannot make a school-led prayer even optional.

Now prove that public schools are still having school led prayer.

The coercive environment of school makes it illegal on its face under the constitution.

:rolleyes:

Now prove that public schools are still having school led prayer.



:rolleyes:


The religious declaration that the country is "under god" is pretty clearly a prayer.


It wouldnt be any more legal for a teacher to say, "Quiet down class, we're going to pray to god now. Repeat after me: God, watch over us"

The religious declaration that the country is "under god" is pretty clearly a prayer.

Oh bull it is. Only a moron would call that a prayer.

It wouldnt be any more legal for a teacher to say, "Quiet down class, we're going to pray to god now. Repeat after me: God, watch over us"

Nice. You can't prove that its still going on.

What makes America so special? Why do Americans seem to think that White Christian God smiles upon them?

Why did we leave England, again? Oh, yes, to escape the oppressive Theocracy. i.e. the fusion of Church and State.
The basis for America is freedom FROM that sort of oppression. What about that is difficult to understand?

Oh bull it is. Only a moron would call that a prayer.



Nice. You can't prove that its still going on.


Huh?

I happens every morning, all around the country when the Pledge is recited along with the 1950s "under god" addition.

Added, significantly, between "one nation" and "indivisible."

You know, conservatives too often fail to notice that the word "religion" (or "religious") appears in our Constitution precisely twice--both times to explain that government should have nothing to do with it.

The word "God" does not appear at all.

Huh?

I happens every morning, all around the country when the Pledge is recited along with the 1950s "under god" addition.

Added, significantly, between "one nation" and "indivisible."

ITS NOT A PRAYER DUMBASS! Never has been and never will be a prayer.

1954 and it was mainly to be anti-Commie, which was stupid because Communists here might still believe in a god.The irony being that the pledge itself was originally written by a socialist who believed that a nationalizing sentiment would encourage people to think about the "public good" rather than their own private good.

I wonder if congresspeople know that "Under God" was never in the original pledge. Probably not, knowing how fucking stupid 99% of them are.

ITS NOT A PRAYER DUMBASS! Never has been and never will be a prayer.


Thats 2 flames in a row corny, calm down.

It is very clearly a prayer, it is a religious incantation, an affirmation of god and certain attributes about him and it is wrapped up in a somber declaration of national loyalty.

It is not one hair different from the teacher having the class say "God, watch over us!" every morning.

This cannot be legal.

A legislature wanting to ban courts from making rulings on constitutionality with a subconstitutional law.

Ludicrous. The courts will just go "yeah, we think we will anyway, since it's what we're supposed to do. Keep your hands off of our branch, thanks."Well, it's uncertain.

Congress does have the power to restrict the jurisdiction of the courts, including their jurisdiction with respect to certain issues, which may be channeled (for instance) into executive review proceedings instead.

Still, the fact that this deals with an explicitly constitutional question makes it a lot stickier. But then again, we've already seen the Supreme Court dodge the "under God" question once, and in the '90s they specifically asked Congress to restrict their jurisdiction on a number of issues to reduce their docket... so, it's hard to say what they'll do.

Why did we leave England, again? Oh, yes, to escape the oppressive Theocracy. i.e. the fusion of Church and State. The basis for America is freedom FROM that sort of oppression. What about that is difficult to understand?

I assume you're talking about the Puritans and Separatists, in which case you're not quite right. The Puritans weren't trying to escape theocracy as a principle. They were trying to escape an Anglican-dominated theocracy, and thus they went to Massachusetts to set up a theocracy more in line with their doctrinal views.

Unless you're talking about the mid-atlantic colonies. In which case the primary purpose for colonization was to make money by raising and selling addictive weeds.

(EDIT): The following link has a discussion of the legal issues involved: http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/07/house_moves_to.html

It is very clearly a prayer, it is a religious incantation, an affirmation of god and certain attributes about him and it is wrapped up in a somber declaration of national loyalty.



I'm uncomfortable with mandatory recitation of the pledge in schools, but in point of fact I don't think it counts as a prayer.

From www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: prayer
Pronunciation: 'prer
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French priere, praiere, preiere, from Medieval Latin precaria, from Latin, feminine of precarius obtained by entreaty, from prec-, prex
1 a (1) : an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage> (2) : a set order of words used in praying b : an earnest request or wish
2 : the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in prayer>
3 : a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers -- often used in plural
4 : something prayed for
5 : a slight chance <haven't got a prayer>

Note that prayer is an address or petition to God.

Acknowledging that something exists is not the same as talking to that thing.

Therefore pledge containing "under God" is not prayer. Indoctrination, maybe. But not prayer.

It is. The SCOTUS will hear a case they want to hear regardless of what the Congress ( or the President, for that matter ) does.First of all, it is far from clear that the Supreme Court wants anything to do with the "under God" question. Thus, even if the lower federal courts are unhappy with this development, it is conceivable that the Supreme Court will decide it's constitutional.

Secondly, the Court has to strike a careful balance when dealing with Congress and the President... remember, "neither the purse nor the sword." If the Court wants to retain any relevancy in American politics, it often has to back down when the stakes are high--and this is especially true when the other two branches are agreed against it.

Historically, the Court only manages to do anything worthwhile when it can get ONE of the other branches on its side.

I'm uncomfortable with mandatory recitation of the pledge in schools, but in point of fact I don't think it counts as a prayer.

From www.m-w.com:



Note that prayer is an address or petition to God.

Acknowledging that something exists is not the same as talking to that thing.

Therefore pledge containing "under God" is not prayer. Indoctrination, maybe. But not prayer.

But you have a problem as it is not mandatory for students to recite the Pledge of Allegience.

I'm uncomfortable with mandatory recitation of the pledge in schools, but in point of fact I don't think it counts as a prayer.

From www.m-w.com:



Note that prayer is an address or petition to God.

Acknowledging that something exists is not the same as talking to that thing.

Therefore pledge containing "under God" is not prayer. Indoctrination, maybe. But not prayer.


Would this then allow something not directed 'to god' like "Class, rise and repeat: May god save us, Maye god above us protect us, May god watch over us always."

But you have a problem as it is not mandatory for students to recite the Pledge of Allegience.


That isnt an issue, even a slight one.

The law of the land regarding school prayer is that it need not be mandatory to violate rights.

Also:

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Would this then allow something not directed 'to god' like "Class, rise and repeat: May god save us, Maye god above us protect us, May god watch over us always."

My opinion: Still shouldn't be allowed. But not a prayer.

A better question: Which has precidence, the first amendment establishment clause or article 3 sec 2.The language of Article 3 Section 2 seems clear enough:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

At the very least, this law is not facially unconstitutional.

The language of Article 3 Section 2 seems clear enough:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

At the very least, this law is not facially unconstitutional.

That's just because you're an originalist. :)

My opinion: Still shouldn't be allowed. But not a prayer.


The important question seems to be:

In barring school-led prayer, did the supreme court intend to use a strict definition of "address to god" ?

If not, then "prayer" as it pertains to the law is not "prayer" as m-w defines it and we have a fallacy of equivocation at play.

Thats 2 flames in a row corny, calm down.

It is very clearly a prayer, it is a religious incantation, an affirmation of god and certain attributes about him and it is wrapped up in a somber declaration of national loyalty.

It is not one hair different from the teacher having the class say "God, watch over us!" every morning.agreed Corn... don't wanna see you gone again.

and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for.

The question is if the bill stripping the jurisdiction itself is unconstitutional, because it attempts to provide for an establishment of religion.No, it doesn't.

What it does is prevent the federal courts from deciding whether a certain policy constitutes an establishment of religion.

Yes, we all know what it actually does... but you need to think like a lawyer. ;)

agreed Corn... don't wanna see you gone again.

I shouldn't have been gone the first time and you're right. Its just that I get so fustrated sometimes and when I do, well....

and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for.

Agreed.

Besides, unless a law is passed protecting this particular law, someone will bring it before SCOTUS and it will likely be declared unconstitutional, then someone can bring up a case about the Pledge.
Actually, if it's going to happen, it's probably going to be the same case.

What other case would have any problem with this law?

Some atheist will have an "under God" case, the State courts will rule against him, and he will appeal to the federal court system. The federal courts will first decide if this restriction is constitutional--and if it is, they will stop there. If it's not, they will consider the First Amendment issue.

In that case, whoever wins will probably appeal... right up to the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will have to (again) decide on the constitutionality of the jurisdictional restriction. If they uphold it, case closed. If not, then they will probably NOT decide the "under God" issue, but instead remand it back to the lower federal courts. Then it will make its way back again....

If this passes, it will be a long, difficult process one way or another. :p

Actually, if it's going to happen, it's probably going to be the same case.

What other case would have any problem with this law?

Some atheist will have an "under God" case, the State courts will rule against him, and he will appeal to the federal court system. The federal courts will first decide if this restriction is constitutional--and if it is, they will stop there. If it's not, they will consider the First Amendment issue.

In that case, whoever wins will probably appeal... right up to the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court will have to (again) decide on the constitutionality of the jurisdictional restriction. If they uphold it, case closed. If not, then they will probably NOT decide the "under God" issue, but instead remand it back to the lower federal courts. Then it will make its way back again....

If this passes, it will be a long, difficult process one way or another. :p

According to what I am reading, it will keep the pledge of allegience out of the federal court system period but it does not prevent state courts from deciding on the issue.

Also, if a state court rules on something, it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court and not to a lower court.

If this passes, it will be a long, difficult process one way or another.
All those billable hours almost make you want to become a Constitutional Lawyer, don't they? :p

(Edited for clarity)

and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for.
If you take out the reference to God.

agreed Corn... don't wanna see you gone again.

and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for.


Which beliefs are ideals are those?

Is it your hope that the 'under god' addition promotes religion?

Truth be told, it is a good question but unfortunately, I am going to hvae to go with Article 3 section 2 on this one because "under God" doesn't establish a religion.I'd tend to agree that the constitutional burden of proof is on those attacking the law...

However, if the Courts choose to read this as unconstitutional, I suspect they will use something like the following argument:

1) The First Amendment prohibits any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. Therefore, we need not ask whether this jurisdictional restriction "establishes" religion, but whether it is a law "respecting" such establishment.

2) While Article 3 Section 2 gives Congress the power to determine the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts, this does not preclude the possibility that such a restriction might itself violate some other constitutional provision; powers granted to Congress by one constitutional provision do not summarily negate restrictions placed upon it by others.

3) In other words, Congress exercises supreme discretionary power with respect to the appellate jurisdiction of the federal courts except where such restrictions, considered in themselves, violate constitutional principle.

4) This is a very narrow rule, with perhaps only one application. Should the Congress, perhaps, restrict federal court jurisdiction with respect to public demonstrations, this might not violate the free speech or assembly clauses of the First Amendment--which does not prohibit laws respecting free speech or assembly, but only those that factually restrict these rights. We decline to rule on these issues, which have no place in the instant case.

5) In the case at hand, however, we are confronted with the strongest prohibition of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The jurisdictional restriction at hand does indeed respect such establishment--this is the very question at hand--regardless of the ultimate determination of that question.

Mark my words... If this law passes and it's overruled, that's how they'll wind up doing it. ;)

I think that if we have to keep the God reference in the pledge we should be fair to all religions and lack thereof and have it change yearly to different names of 'God' to be fair to the different belief systems - start in 2007 with one nation under Allah, then go to Krishna, then Satan, then one nation under no God, one nation under mother nature, one nation under Gods... I'm sure nobody would mind right?

edit: maybe daily would be better...

"Class, during our pledge today we are going to pay homage to Jehova for watching over our nation."

*recites Pledge to diety and country*

"Excellent... tomorrow Satan and then Bob Marley on Friday. Now lets get to work on our History. Columbus was a great and kind man ..."

The language of Article 3 Section 2 seems clear enough:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

At the very least, this law is not facially unconstitutional.
See pages nine, ten, and eleven.

I hate this so bad. The seperation of powers gives the Supreme Court THE FINAL SAY ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. Ultimately the Constution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS OR PRESIDENT SAYS.Since when?

While the doctrine of judicial review is well established, even Supreme Court justices are divided on the question of judicial supremacy. And neither of these actually appears, explicitly, in the Constitution.

even Supreme Court justices are divided on the question of judicial supremacy.
Ironically along party lines.

According to what I am reading, it will keep the pledge of allegience out of the federal court system period but it does not prevent state courts from deciding on the issue.Right... but on appeal to the federal courts, they will have the opportunity to consider the jurisdictional issue.

Also, if a state court rules on something, it'll be appealed to the Supreme Court and not to a lower court.My mistake. :)

1) prove that the FF founded the ACLU.

2) Prove that they actually hated religion.

3) the 1st amendment was designed to keep the country from establishing a state religion. Not to keep religion out of everything public.

You are a sad sad little troll.
I would recommend ignoring this misinformed moron/ridiculous troll.

Nope because it doesn't name what God it is referring too.
Bullshit! As if Allah, Arabic for "God" wouldn't be religion specific!!!

And what about all the atheists? Pagans, polytheists, etc? They're all patriotic Americans. Their beliefs should be as much recognised as anyone elses.

Do I think "under God" crosses the line? Yes. Does all mention of a Judeo-Christian deity cross the line? No.
Why do you people always say "Judeo-Christian"? Afraid of sounding like Nazis? How much, if any, influence did Jews have on the founding of the USA?

The concept of "God" is what seperated America from the evils of Soviet Communism.
No, the concept, and successful application of things like capitalism and personal freedom - both of which have always been supported by liberals - separated America from the evils of Soviet Communism.

Right... but on appeal to the federal courts, they will have the opportunity to consider the jurisdictional issue.

Not in this case according to the law.

My mistake. :)

no problem.

Ironically along party lines.Not really. It's varied across the Court's history.

Under the Rehnquist Court, it was invariably the conservatives who argued for judicial supremacy. The Rehnquist Court was, after all, the most activist Court in history.

On this issue, presumably the conservatives will make the opposite argument: let Congress do what it wants.

Not in this case according to the law.Yes, but someone is still going to file a petition, and the Court is going to look at the petition and decide what to do with it.

They can do one of two things:

1) Reject it on the grounds that it is outside their jurisdiction, according to the law.

2) Decide that the jurisdictional restriction is invalid or inapplicable (as they have done before on other issues), and hear the case.

Why do you people always say "Judeo-Christian"? Afraid of sounding like Nazis? How much, if any, influence did Jews have on the founding of the USA?

Most people who use the word "Judeo-Christian" do so because, although the two religions are distinct, the Christian God is the Jewish God.

Granted, this is not the technical use of the term. However, the connotation is there, and I used that to highlight my point.

Right... but on appeal to the federal courts, they will have the opportunity to consider the jurisdictional issue.

My mistake. :)

Actually, that raises an interesting question.

If the state supreme court ruled, then yeah, it'd ordinarily go straight to the SCOTUS.

BUT:

If memory from my Civil Procedure class serves, any party who is sued in state court can request from the state judge a "remover" to federal court on the basis of a federal question being involved. I think that state courts are pretty much required to grant remover when requested, and it's then for the federal court to either take the case or remand to the state court on the basis that there isn't a federal question after all.

SO: How would this would play out if someone initiated a pledge suit in state court and the school district immediately removed to federal court? There'd be a federal issue, so the state court ostensibly couldn't hear the case. But because of Congress' act, the federal courts couldn't hear it either. So can the federal district court "delegate" jurisdiction over federal questions to the state court?

If SCOTUS does overrule this law, I can't wait to read Scalia's dissent. Should be a barrel of laughs.

Yep! Looks like the Founding fathers believed in God. So much for your opening statements about the Founding Fathers.

Maybe it has never occured to you before, but one can be a Christian in favour of separation of church and state.


Our first President ( who was elected unanimously), firmly believed that any Democracy would fail once it lost its religion ( at a time when the U.S. was 99% Christian.
The US is currently about 80% Christian. Its faith nor its democracy is anywhere near failing, so what's the problem?

You have your opinion, 85% of America and the Congress and the President see it differently.
Maybe it has never occured to you before, but one can be a Christian in favour of separation of church and state.

Most people who use the word "Judeo-Christian" do so because, although the two religions are distinct, the Christian God is the Jewish God.
You may as well mention Islam as well then. They worship the same one.

You may as well mention Islam as well then. They worship the same one.

I agree, and I thought of that, but I don't know how it would be written. Judeo-Christeo-Islamic? Judeo-Chrislamic? Better I stick with words I understand. ;)

I agree, and I thought of that, but I don't know how it would be written. Judeo-Christeo-Islamic? Judeo-Chrislamic? Better I stick with words I understand. ;)
According to Googlefight, "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" wins hands-down. ;)

You may as well mention Islam as well then. They worship the same one.

And Bahá'í.

I agree, and I thought of that, but I don't know how it would be written. Judeo-Christeo-Islamic? Judeo-Chrislamic? Better I stick with words I understand. ;)

You could just go with "Abrahamic."

Maybe it has never occured to you before, but one can be a Christian in favour of separation of church and state.

Care to point where I said that they didnt?

agreed Corn... don't wanna see you gone again.

and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for.

Oh. You mean it's an establishment?

I think that if we have to keep the God reference in the pledge we should be fair to all religions and lack thereof and have it change yearly to different names of 'God' to be fair to the different belief systems - start in 2007 with one nation under Allah, then go to Krishna, then Satan, then one nation under no God, one nation under mother nature, one nation under Gods... I'm sure nobody would mind right?

edit: maybe daily would be better...

"Class, during our pledge today we are going to pay homage to Jehova for watching over our nation."

*recites Pledge to diety and country*

"Excellent... tomorrow Satan and then Bob Marley on Friday. Now lets get to work on our History. Columbus was a great and kind man ..."

or maybe just a general

I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, supposedly under a diety, which many believe in, but others do not (which is fine), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all but the gays.

Maybe it has never occured to you before, but one can be a Christian in favour of separation of church and state.

I'm sure you can understand why some people might lose sight of that, given the actions of the EXTREMELY LOUD MINORITY of Christians who really seem to want theocracy at any cost.


The US is currently about 80% Christian. Its faith nor its democracy is anywhere near failing, so what's the problem?

Some estimates put it as low as 65%, and the percentage of Americans identifying as Christian is dropping even faster than the number of self-identified "non-religious" Americans is growing.

Kind of makes you wonder why some silly Christians are trying to argue that American is a "Christian nation" by virtue of majority rule...in a generation or so, America WON'T be majority Christian, so are they really trying to set up a situation where the majority rules? Because then they're gonna be SOL by like 2050.

You are absolutely right Pants Hero. THE FIRST AMENDMENT WAS ESTABLISHED by the Founders to keep religion out of everything public. The Founders hated religion and realized that it caused war. If you go to the ACLU (which, by the way, was started by the Founders) website, they have an excellent video on this called My Way.

I hate this Pledge so bad, I know it's unconstitutional, and I hate God. Why am I being oppressed? Already, I have to deal with my parents all the time, they try to put their morality on me. Luckily when I got into a bad situation one time, the school nurse was able to get me access to the services I needed, I know my parents wouldn't have.

I hate the USA, I hate Republicans and Fundies. Why don't the Republicans worry about providing us education, healthcare, childcare, food and housing, a decent pension, and a small allowance for recreation. THE WHOLE POINT OF AMERICA was so everyone could freely develop without having to worry about money. :( :(

You, sir, are an idiot.

The Supreme Court can always say that Article 3, Section 2 means something else. One of the beauties of living in modern society is that law schools often change what is currently accepted.

I would much rather be governed by the latest legal theories than by an 18th century document, wouldn't you? Be honest.

All right, I was wrong about you. You, sir, are a brilliant satarist. Your last paragraph gave it away.

All right, I was wrong about you. You, sir, are a brilliant satarist. Your last paragraph gave it away.

Actually his entire act gives him away. He's totally over the top of what we're used to. The thing is that we're more used to far lefties here and we therefore have a harder time picking up on people satarising the far-left.

And I'll thank you to STFU about the validity of a teengager's opinion.

Which beliefs are ideals are those?

Is it your hope that the 'under god' addition promotes religion?
nope, the Under God was put in as a "Feel Good" measure. I have no opinion on keeping it in or out.

Oh. You mean it's an establishment?
Did I say That? no. I didn't.

If you take out the reference to God.
then to you, the US dollar bill is a religious document.

Did I say That? no. I didn't.

Not in so many words, but what you're talking about is... An establishment!

It says

"Here is what we think all Americans should be. If you don't beleive it, you're a bad American"

That's an establishment.

The thing is that we're more used to far lefties here and we therefore have a harder time picking up on people satarising the far-left.

If Conscience and Truth wants to satirize the far left, he should actually pay attention to what the far left advocates; he doesn't do a very good job.

then to you, the US dollar bill is a religious document.

Yeah. Basically. "In God We Trust" does seem to be another case of "Here's what a good American beleives".

It's not like we're advocating to put "Under no god" in the pledge or "We don't trust God" on currency. Why is it even a problem? What is the real harm done by removing a statement that is an attack on people who don't beleive in a God, or beleive in a God which should not be refered to as God? Are conservatives so insecure?

Care to point where I said that they didnt?
You think that because the Founding fathers believed in God, this means that they must have wanted a Christian theocracy.

Not in so many words, but what you're talking about is... An establishment!

It says

"Here is what we think all Americans should be. If you don't beleive it, you're a bad American"

That's an establishment.please don't mistake someone elses arguments for mine.

this is what I said... editing out my comment to corn...
and no it's not a prayer. its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for. Bolding mine. no where do I state, "Here is what we think all Americans should be. If you don't beleive it, you're a bad American" so sorry, but your argument is not supposed to be directed to me.

You think that because the Founding fathers believed in God, this means that they must have wanted a Christian theocracy.

Again, care to point where I said that?

If Conscience and Truth wants to satirize the far left, he should actually pay attention to what the far left advocates; he doesn't do a very good job.

I have yet to meet a troll who actually says something similar to what they are satirizing. Most trolls take the basic logic (or inferred logic) of their topic and then draw it out to the point of unrecognizeable absurdity.

please don't mistake someone elses arguments for mine.

this is what I said... editing out my comment to corn...
Bolding mine. no where do I state, so sorry, but your argument is not supposed to be directed to me.

Those are indeed the words you said. I'm saying what the actual pledge means, and translating what you said into a reality.

Yeah. Basically. "In God We Trust" does seem to be another case of "Here's what a good American beleives".

It's not like we're advocating to put "Under no god" in the pledge or "We don't trust God" on currency. Why is it even a problem? What is the real harm done by removing a statement that is an attack on people who don't beleive in a God, or beleive in a God which should not be refered to as God? Are conservatives so insecure?
and what's the harm in leaving it in there. we have the Pyramid on the back, another religous symbol, yet no one is harping on that.

truth be told, the ruling is a sensable one. the First amendment, works both ways, the Government cannot support any ONE religion and neither can the Government Shut up any one Religion. by leaving in the hands of the state, the Federal Government is upholding the Constitution.

Those are indeed the words you said. I'm saying what the actual pledge means, and translating what you said into a reality.
Quote me where I said "Here is what we think all Americans should be. If you don't beleive it, you're a bad American"

and please quote where in the pledge where it states the same.

Quote me where I said "Here is what we think all Americans should be. If you don't beleive it, you're a bad American"

and please quote where in the pledge where it states the same.


Sorry, I should have been more clear. The words you said were the words you quoted.

I was just saying what they meant when applied to reality, and not simply stated in blustering rhetoric.

You could just go with "Abrahamic."

Meh, I suppose I could, but I was trying to imply the Deity Him/Herself. "Abrahamic" would connote the religions.

and what's the harm in leaving it in there. we have the Pyramid on the back, another religous symbol, yet no one is harping on that.

The Pyramid we have there... Is a symbol of Rah, no? I'm not clear on that. I mean, if it is a religious symbol it doesn't belong there if it is meant as a religious symbol. If not, if it's got nothing to do with religion and it's just supposed to symbolize resilience that's a little different. Words are a lot more explicit than pictures, and so in that regard it could go either way, depending on intention.

The harm is very clear. First off, we're telling everyone that "America beleives this, and if you were a proper American you would too.". The thing is that a proper American beleives whatever the hell they like, and doesn't try to use the government to pressure other people into sharing their faith. It not only wastes the money for the ink needed to print it on the bill (TBH, next to nothing, but still something), but also (in the case of the pledge) preaches to a captive audience about what religion they should follow. Not only is that unfair to all people who don't beleive that the US is "Under God", but it's a creul way of pointing it out.

truth be told, the ruling is a sensable one. the First amendment, works both ways, the Government cannot support any ONE religion and neither can the Government Shut up any one Religion. by leaving in the hands of the state, the Federal Government is upholding the Constitution.

Truth be told, the First Ammendmant doesn't mean that the majority can use the government as a means of prostheletizing. If you want to talk about your religion, that's cool, I'm all for it. The government isn't the place to do it. Do it in your home, your church, your neighbor's home, or anywhere else that doesn't belong to the government. The government is not a recruiting agency for your religion. It keeps religion OUT of government, and government OUT of religion.

I am continually amazed at how good we have it in the US. I am further amazed at the zeal in which low-impact issues are argued. Yes, I am saying that in the large scheme of things, saying the word God is not going to change someone's life one way or another. So, take it out or leave it in. The chance of anyone becoming a Christian because of it (heaven forbid *raise*) is slim. I share my faith regularly, and putting a slogan on money or in the pledge does not hinder or promote it. I guess participating in trivial arguments is better than watching TV. At least one learns to type.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The words you said were the words you quoted.

I was just saying what they meant when applied to reality, and not simply stated in blustering rhetoric.
nope, even when applied to reality. I seid its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for. Should.

The Ideals and Beliefs that this country once stood for was Equality, Opportunity and Freedom. however, because of the Lawyers always redefining things to suit their clients needs, the broad terms were shaved down to the point where people don't excersise good judgement and restraint but run rampant saying it's their "Constitutional Right"

Oh, some of the changes were good, Abolishment of Legal Slavery, Legal Equality among the sexs, but when it comes to other issues, instead of Equality, it's shut them up, get them out, and other phrases of Intollerance.

For me, personally, this is a Non Issue. something Lawyers take up to make themselves look like a "Defender of the People" and politicians use to gain votes... nothing more, nothing less.

I seid its an affirmation to the beliefs and Ideals that this country should stand for. Should.

The Ideals and Beliefs that this country once stood for was Equality, Opportunity and Freedom. however, because of the Lawyers always redefining things to suit their clients needs, the broad terms were shaved down to the point where people don't excersise good judgement and restraint but run rampant saying it's their "Constitutional Right"

So, why doesn't the U.S. hold a new Constitutional Convention. We can write a document to replace the current one, making it free from such interpretations.

So, why doesn't the U.S. hold a new Constitutional Convention. We can write a document to replace the current one, making it free from such interpretations.

Because there is no need for a new constitution.

Because there is no need for a new constitution.

¿Porque?

The Pyramid we have there... Is a symbol of Rah, no? I'm not clear on that. I mean, if it is a religious symbol it doesn't belong there if it is meant as a religious symbol. If not, if it's got nothing to do with religion and it's just supposed to symbolize resilience that's a little different. Words are a lot more explicit than pictures, and so in that regard it could go either way, depending on intention.the pyramid is a symbol of the Chosen of the Gods. remember, the Pharohs were "Chosen by the Gods" and thus, the Gods spoke through them. so each Pyramid is a temple to the Egyptian Gods.

The harm is very clear. First off, we're telling everyone that "America beleives this, and if you were a proper American you would too.". The thing is that a proper American beleives whatever the hell they like, and doesn't try to use the government to pressure other people into sharing their faith. It not only wastes the money for the ink needed to print it on the bill (TBH, next to nothing, but still something), but also (in the case of the pledge) preaches to a captive audience about what religion they should follow. Not only is that unfair to all people who don't beleive that the US is "Under God", but it's a creul way of pointing it out.*LOL* examine what you just wrote, "America believes this and if you were a Proper American you would too" again, I challange you to quote where in the Pledge states this. if you believe that the Pledge says this, then the problem is your interpretation of the pledge, not what's printed.

Truth be told, the First Ammendmant doesn't mean that the majority can use the government as a means of prostheletizing. If you want to talk about your religion, that's cool, I'm all for it. The government isn't the place to do it. Do it in your home, your church, your neighbor's home, or anywhere else that doesn't belong to the government. The government is not a recruiting agency for your religion. It keeps religion OUT of government, and government OUT of religion.wrong! the First Amendment is that the Government cannot dictate policy when it comes to Religion. Jefferson's letter that states a "Wall of Seperation between Church and State" was in response to a pastor who was afraid that the Goverment would outlaw his fledgling church.

in other words, the 10 commandment statue was perfectly fine on Government property, unless they refuse any other symbol of any other Religion. Had a Muslim wanted to also put a statue with parts of the Quoran on it next to the 10 Commandents, then they would be allowed to. the moment the Government said "No" for any one religion to display their faith, then they broke the first Amendment. however, to be equal, it's far easier to say 'No' to everyone. thus the status quo got established.

so while I do agree that the Government cannot "recruit" nor can they "discourage" anyone to join any form of religion, they also cannot shut up nor support any Religion. they have to be Completely Neutral.

So, why doesn't the U.S. hold a new Constitutional Convention. We can write a document to replace the current one, making it free from such interpretations.
Maybe Because no one suggested it or pushed for it.

ever wonder if anyone did Suggest making a NEW CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA?

Maybe Because no one suggested it or pushed for it.

ever wonder if anyone did Suggest making a NEW CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA?

I believe I just did. The Articles of Confederation failed. The Founders weren't afraid to rewrite it. Just because the document is over 220 years old doesn't mean it's sacred. I mention a new Constitutional Convention and it's like I suggested burning all the ugly babies. If the system is a failure, which people are suggesting, then change it!

That would be the perfect time to switch over to proportional representation, too. (But that's another thread for another day.)

I believe I just did. The Articles of Confederation failed. The Founders weren't afraid to rewrite it. Just because the document is over 220 years old doesn't mean it's sacred. I mention a new Constitutional Convention and it's like I suggested burning all the ugly babies. If the system is a failure, which people are suggesting, then change it!

That would be the perfect time to switch over to proportional representation, too. (But that's another thread for another day.)
Oh, I'm talking our politicians in Washington trying to draft a New Constitution.

can you imagine the nitpicking and sqabbling that would occure... talk about nothing getting done.

¿Porque?

It wasn't that hard of a statement to understand.

It wasn't that hard of a statement to understand.

Yes, thank you. I understood the words of your statement. But you didn't state any reasons. Hence, "why?"

Yes, thank you. I understood the words of your statement. But you didn't state any reasons. Hence, "why?"

I thought the reasons would be obvious. But if you insist!

There is no need for a new constitution for the current one is working just fine.

I thought the reasons would be obvious. But if you insist!

There is no need for a new constitution for the current one is working just fine.on this point, Corneliu, I have to Politely point out that the reason why it works is that it's constantly being amended and redefined by the Lawyers. :D :D :D

I guess Meath Street can't prove I said what he thinks I said. No surprise there.

I thought the reasons would be obvious. But if you insist!

There is no need for a new constitution for the current one is working just fine.

A matter of opinion, yes. The other person, JuNii, had an opinion that the current one was not working just fine. See, that opinion differs from yours. There are a lot of people who share your opinion and who share JuNii's opinion. The suggestion of a Constitutional Convention would seem to be a point of debate for the latter group, since the former's stand is as obvious as you say from the Peanut Gallery.

A matter of opinion, yes. The other person, JuNii, had an opinion that the current one was not working just fine. See, that opinion differs from yours. There are a lot of people who share your opinion and who share JuNii's opinion. The suggestion of a Constitutional Convention would seem to be a point of debate for the latter group, since the former's stand is as obvious as you say from the Peanut Gallery.while I did state it needed alot of amendments and redefinitions, trying to get a new one made will be a spectical.

actually, it would be an intersting thing to try. try to make a Constitution for NS General and see how hard it's going to be. Each poster here would be representative of their own constituants... Man, can you just imagine the mess?

actually, it would be an intersting thing to try. try to make a Constitution for NS General and see how hard it's going to be. Each poster here would be representative of their own constituants... Man, can you just imagine the mess?

Yeah, it'd probably look like the NS UN quagmire, only smaller scale.

*LOL* examine what you just wrote, "America believes this and if you were a Proper American you would too" again, I challange you to quote where in the Pledge states this. if you believe that the Pledge says this, then the problem is your interpretation of the pledge, not what's printed.

Oh good... Litteralism ftw! C'mon. Let's be honest. There is no good reason to have it in the pledge except as a form of peer pressure against non-christians.

so while I do agree that the Government cannot "recruit" nor can they "discourage" anyone to join any form of religion, they also cannot shut up nor support any Religion. they have to be Completely Neutral.

They can either prevent all discourse on their land or permit ALL of it. So unless you want the pledge to say "One nation, Under God, Allah, Goddess, Gaia, Satan, Vishnu, No God at All, Maybe a God, Primal Forces, The Ancestor Spirits, Etc. So-on-so-forth" and the dollar bill to say "In God, No God, The Elements, Godess, Satan, Allah, Jehova, Kami of all shapes sizes and such, Etc."

To be fair, it is next to impossible for us to give every faith space in either of these, and so the other answer is to take them out completely.