Pledge of Allegiance

[Shuriken]

Well, it took the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to state the obvious: By having our public-schoolchildren recite the Pledge of Allegiance in class each day, our government is compelling them to profess a belief in God. How can that possibly be constitutional?

But, of course, the politicos are now falling all over themselves to denounce the Court's decision. They're obviously catering to their religious constituents. They are also probably blind to the Pledge's patent unconstitutionality because it affirms their own religious beliefs.

This nation is a secular one that ought to respect the individual's right not to believe in God. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge — a phrase that was inserted into it in 1954 — does not honor that right. I don't see why the Pledge can't simply say "one nation indivisible."

[thaite]

No argument here.

[princess]

but u see what this leads to rite? other attacks on things including the word "God." our money for example. what if it leads to the complaint that "in God we trust" shouldnt be coined onto it? i think it would be sad if our nation abandoned the concept of trusting or having reverence for a higher being totally. i can sympathize with the athiests, but still...i think having such phrases contributes to our morality.

[kasia]

[quote:9795ccdb1e="princess"]but u see what this leads to rite? other attacks on things including the word "God." our money for example. what if it leads to the complaint that "in God we trust" shouldnt be coined onto it? i think it would be sad if our nation abandoned the concept of trusting or having reverence for a higher being totally. i can sympathize with the athiests, but still...i think having such phrases contributes to our morality.[/quote:9795ccdb1e]

i see where you're coming from.

but at the same time, other groups would think that having that phrase takes away from our country's morality. and since we're not a nation based on christianity...

[achtungbaby]

I find this to be a strange issue, in which it seems both liberals and conservatives are guilty of making something out of nothing.

From the conservative standpoint, the absence of the Ten Commandments leads to a whole host of societal ills, since, apparently, having them posted in classrooms wards off such maladies as poverty or teen pregnancy.

From the liberal standpoint, any hint of religion or mention of deity violates the separation of church and state -- and ultimately uses the Bible to beat children into submission.

I think it's easy to point fingers at conservatives and decry their intolerance. Interestingly, when I was in high school, I experienced quite the opposite. I was part of a lunch-time Christian study group that met weekly to talk religion. It was organized by students but had the hardest time even forming the group because of our principal's opposition to it.

I recognize that sometimes, to get anything accomplished in this country, you have to be extreme about your demands; the consequences for passivity can be grave. And that's all this discussion is basically about -- both sides presenting ridiculous arguments because they're both terrified of giving up an inch of ground.

[princess]

[quote:36bf7091e7="kasia"]

i see where you're coming from.

but at the same time, other groups would think that having that phrase takes away from our country's morality. and since we're not a nation based on christianity...[/quote:36bf7091e7]

good points, all of them. but i also dont think simply the word "God" distinguishes WHICH God to which religion. oh well, i dont wanna beat this into the ground anymore.

[thaite]

No, where is it going? Removing "God" from currency? So what? "God" as it is used has a definite distinguishing connoation as to which religion it refers to.

You can trust in God all you want, as for me, I'll take cash.

[Focker]

well you're forgetting its now embodied in "American culture". sure there's the religous thing involved with it, but its part of a unique American heritage and culture now. Its like new years and july 4 almost cause there's some history behind the "under God" part in the 50's and why they added that in.

i'm tolerant to other religions and i understand other people's opinion of offense when it comes to "under GOD", but its now a part of the culture. its no longer only religious, but almost American Culturalism.

whad you think?

[angelnympho]

it's tradition. just because you say "one nation under god" isnt forcing anybody to believe in anything. its not even mandantory to say the pledge anymore... so why should it matter whats in it unless you're absolutely being forced to say it. nobody says anything if you just shut your mouth for that one sentence.

and i think that the pledge is, in fact, constitutional. because the constitution states that no law will be made that prevents you from believing whatever you want. the word "god" in the pledge isnt exactly a law that stifles your beliefs.

[princess]

^ exactly. everyones gotten along with it seemingly juss fine up till now. and as for the money thing...i was gonna take that into how people will start scrutinizing every little thing...even things that arent worth our time or energy when it could be focused on more important issues. changed my mind cuz i didnt wanna ramble on about this issue since im never gonna gain any ground. its nothing something i plan to spend that much energy on trying to explain myself. not worth it to me.

[kasia]

everyone who wasn't bothered by it seemed to think that everything was fine until now.

just like how the whites thought that saying "nigger" was fine until those niggers had to go and make a ruckus.

[angelnympho]

[quote:8e408af459="kasia"]everyone who wasn't bothered by it seemed to think that everything was fine until now.

just like how the whites thought that saying "nigger" was fine until those niggers had to go and make a ruckus.[/quote:8e408af459]
there's a big difference between derogatory names aimed at other people and the word "god"... nobody is doing anything hurtful towards others and nobody's putting anybody down. its just tradition... and its not mandantory.

[kasia]

[quote:3c941c2e3e="angelnympho"][quote:3c941c2e3e="kasia"]everyone who wasn't bothered by it seemed to think that everything was fine until now.

just like how the whites thought that saying "nigger" was fine until those niggers had to go and make a ruckus.[/quote:3c941c2e3e]
there's a big difference between derogatory names aimed at other people and the word "god"... nobody is doing anything hurtful towards others and nobody's putting anybody down. its just tradition... and its not mandantory.[/quote:3c941c2e3e]

i know. my point was, though, that the meanings can be very different to different people.

[Shuriken]

I don't want to beat this issue into the ground either because, in the grand scheme of things, it's not all that important: as long as schoolkids aren't [i:5d2410a8e9]required[/i:5d2410a8e9] to say the Pledge, then professing a belief in monotheism isn't, strictly speaking, compulsory. However, only a couple years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that reciting student-led prayers before public-high-school football games constituted a "coercive" religious environment, and they were therefore unconstitutional. It seems to me that a teacher-led pledge to the flag that invokes monotheism is no less coercive.

This isn't about eradicating the spiritual from our public life — which I think would be impossible anyway — but about making sure that the government does not favor one religion (such as monotheism) over another and compell its citizens to believe in that religion. The 1954 insertion of the phrase "under God" into the 1892 Pledge of Allegiance was a blatant act of religious favoritism unbecoming a country that professes the separation between church and state. The underlying implication is that [i:5d2410a8e9]you can't really be a patriotic American unless you profess a belief in monotheism[/i:5d2410a8e9].

I think that it would be more inclusive of us as a nation if we had a Pledge of Allegiance that all Americans — theists and atheists alike — could recite [i:5d2410a8e9]in its entirety[/i:5d2410a8e9] and still believe in. But I don't expect the monotheistic majority to allow that to happen anytime soon: because the phrase "under God" in the Pledge affirms their particular religious beliefs, they want to make sure that the Pledge of Allegiance officially endorses those beliefs. Is this issue worth starting a second Civil War over? No. It's a tolerable situation. But I think that it speaks volumes about how incompletely realized the separation of church and state in America really is. And I think that it speaks volumes about how religiously biased this country really is.

And by the way, I also think that the phrase "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on our currency either. But like the Pledge, it's a tolerable situation.

[angelnympho]

^-- that's true, and i agree with you. but in this case, i think its unreasonable to get offended that OTHER people are referring to a religion that's not yours. at least from my personal standpoint as a semi-athiest, i dont really have any issue with it at all. in fact, i really dont think it should be changed. its the pledge!!!! you cant fuck with that!!!

this is a lot like how foreign sports players dont have to sing the national anthem. that's fucking GAYYYY... u better sing the damn national anthem and respect the country who's having you play on their team!!! shit! they're paying you! if you wanna sing your OWN national anthem, go play on the team in your country...

[thaite]

[quote:a0fc9edc98]i think its unreasonable to get offended that OTHER people are referring to a religion that's not yours. [/quote:a0fc9edc98]

I think it's perfectly reasonable. It's not that other people speak of God, they can do that all they want. This is my country, mine along with many others -- but if I wish to pledge my allegiance, it seems that I also have to give recognition to someone else's deity, as well. And [i:a0fc9edc98]that's[/i:a0fc9edc98] unreasonable.

Remember in the aftermath of Sept. 11, when all of a sudden politicians and everybody wanted to single out immigrants and whomever else they wanted to finger and require them take an oath affirming their loyalty to the US? What if the oath included a reference to God, and what you can't refuse to take the oath without being suspected of something. That's certainly cramming your religion (as well as other things) down people's throat.


[quote:a0fc9edc98]its the pledge!!!! you cant fuck with that!!! [/quote:a0fc9edc98]

But it already has been, several times.
Here's the original 1892 form: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible, with liberty and Justice for all."

And it was subsequently changed in 1924, 1942, and 1954.

[quote:a0fc9edc98]this is a lot like how foreign sports players dont have to sing the national anthem. that's fucking GAYYYY... u better sing the damn national anthem and respect the country who's having you play on their team!!! shit! they're paying you! if you wanna sing your OWN national anthem, go play on the team in your country...[/quote:a0fc9edc98]
It's not the same thing. Playing on a team is the same thing as taking a job. And what kind of patriot are you if your patriotism is bought, anywway?

[quote:a0fc9edc98]and i think that the pledge is, in fact, constitutional. because the constitution states that no law will be made that prevents you from believing whatever you want. the word "god" in the pledge isnt exactly a law that stifles your beliefs. [/quote:a0fc9edc98]

No? Then why isn't Buddha used, or Vishnu? it's not the word "god" that's referred to, it's "God" and that refers specifically to the god of the Old Testament -- and which religions defer to that?

[quote:a0fc9edc98]everyone who wasn't bothered by it seemed to think that everything was fine until now. [/quote:a0fc9edc98]

Sure, there are other things probably worth more uproar, but [i:a0fc9edc98]I[/i:a0fc9edc98] was bothered by it. I didn't think it was fine.

[Shuriken]

[quote:e81c3b8fc0="angelnympho"]in fact, i really dont think it should be changed. its the pledge!!!! you cant fuck with that!!! [/quote:e81c3b8fc0]

But you're overlooking the fact that the Pledge [i:e81c3b8fc0]was[/i:e81c3b8fc0] changed 62 years after it was written. The Pledge was written in 1892 [i:e81c3b8fc0]by a clergyman[/i:e81c3b8fc0] without the phrase "under God" and recited for all those 62 years without anyone fearing for America's spiritual nourishment. "Under God" was inserted in 1954 during the Cold War as a political gesture against "godless communism."

So, it's clear that our politicians did indeed "fuck with" the Pledge before.

I think it's very interesting that it was a clergyman who wrote the Pledge without any explicit religious references. Of all the professions that might want to assert one's religion along with one's patriotism, a clergyman would seem the most likely. Perhaps the Pledge's author wisely saw that one could be patriotic and still respect the separation of church and state.

[angelnympho]

but realize that the "under god" part of the pledge was actually based on history. the colonies were founded here because people wanted to worship god freely... hence... "one nation under god." if you dont want to worship god, then dont. the thing in the pledge is just a reference, its not an oath of loyalty to jesus fucking christ. i will just as likely recognize the fact that people believe in buddha and in allah or whatever the fuck they want, but that doesnt mean that i believe in it too. like it or not, our nation was founded on the principles of GOD. the nation was founded by people who worshiped god, but since it was also founded under the principle of religious freedom, nobody here is stopping anybody from other religions from worshipping. nobody's making anybody change their faith, and nobody is forcing anybody to stay in this nation.

go on and on with the "what if the oath said something about god" (which, in this day and age, i highly doubt it would have, especially if it was meant for immigrants), but the fact of the matter is, there was no oath and there was no singling out of immagrants forcing them to be all USA A-OK!

and what do you mean by my patriotism is bought? its not bought. singing the national anthem of another country doesnt mean anything to me. shit when the olympics were on, i woulda gladly sang the national anthem of the winning country just to show them respect. its not a big deal. if you cant bring yourself to be able to sing ONE word of the US national anthem, then how can you bring yourself to be playing on a US team, reppin US colors n all that, with US citizens? it shouldnt make much of a difference... and singing the national anthem doesnt automatically make you a nationalist. it just means you're singing the national anthem. great. if i knew the national anthem for africa, i'd sing it if you asked me to.

and buddha or vishnu or whatever isnt used because the foundation of our nation was from those seeking freedom to worship god. just because there's a line in the pledge doesnt mean there's no religious freedom in america, because there sure as hell is. its not a big DEAL. just dont say it if you dont agree with it. nobody's being forced to say it!!! hell if you still want to say the pledge, but dont want to refer to god, then just skip that part. nobody'll hate on you for that... seriously, how does one reference to the history of the foundation of the colonies have anything to do with stifling other relgions?

and when the colonies were founded, religion was a big part of government. the colonists never expected to have to separate religion from government. that's a lot of the reason why there's still implications of religion in our government.

what's next? change all the dollar bills from "in god we trust" to " in (your diety here) we trust?"

[kasia]

[quote:ae68021901="angelnympho"]but realize that the "under god" part of the pledge was actually based on history. the colonies were founded here because people wanted to worship god freely... hence... "one nation under god." if you dont want to worship god, then dont. the thing in the pledge is just a reference, its not an oath of loyalty to jesus fucking christ. i will just as likely recognize the fact that people believe in buddha and in allah or whatever the fuck they want, but that doesnt mean that i believe in it too.
[/quote:ae68021901]

then would it be appropriate for the pledge to read "one nation under buddha"? after all, by your line of reasoning, that wouldn't be an imposition of religion on non-buddhists.

and it doesn't matter whether it was a part of history. we're a nation that progresses. slavery was part of our history as well.

[angelnympho]

[quote:7beff5315b="kasia"]then would it be appropriate for the pledge to read "one nation under buddha"? after all, by your line of reasoning, that wouldn't be an imposition of religion on non-buddhists.

and it doesn't matter whether it was a part of history. we're a nation that progresses. slavery was part of our history as well.[/quote:7beff5315b]

you're right, it wouldnt be an imposition of relgion on non-buddhists.... but keep in mind that this nation was like the promised land to those who worshipped god. the foundation for being here was primarily to worship god. i dont like how people come here from their home countries and try to change things. all im saying is that god and the religion it's affiliated with played a very VERY major role in the foundation of america. and that's why its referenced in the pledge.

[ChinaLama]

I think our history is a lot less religious than a lot of ppl believe. Several of our founding fathers were Deists, which basically meant they were too wussy to say they were atheist but basically were except they were too sissy to forego ANY belief in a creator.

Also, none of the founders as far as i know were hardcore religious. proly not as hardcore as the politicians NOW--who are like all into Ten Commandments and school prayer and Christianity and Jesus. Some of our founders proly didn't even believe Jesus existed (alt this is bsing fr my head--100% bull shit).

Plus a lot of American founders were intellectuals influenced by the French Enlightenment and some Frenchies were pretty anti-religion. Maybe that's one reason we have sep of church and state, cuz certainly the ppl who "wanted religious freedom" like the Puritans only wanted it when THEy were oppresses--as soon as they became the hot shit...well, salem witch trials, everyone. that's all i gotta say.

[Arex]

[quote:8de59b5415="angelnympho"]but keep in mind that this nation was like the promised land to those who worshipped god. the foundation for being here was primarily to worship god. i dont like how people come here from their home countries and try to change things. all im saying is that god and the religion it's affiliated with played a very VERY major role in the foundation of america. and that's why its referenced in the pledge.[/quote:8de59b5415]

Since we're talking about history, let's also not forget that the colonies (and the nation) were founded on the backs of African slaves by people who believed in white superiority. These things are every bit as much a part of American history and the original colonists' belief system as the belief in a Christian god but that doesn't make them any more the appropriate subject matter for the Pledge of Allegiance.

You seem to think that "under God" is merely a "reference" to or an "acknowledgment" of our country's past. But if you do the slightest bit of research on the issue, you'll learn that when Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God" to the Pledge he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." Clearly, this is no mere "historical reference."

And what's this bullshit about not liking people coming here from their "home countries" trying to change things? I'm sorry but that's the dumbest, most ignorant and un-American statement I think I've yet come across on these boards. FYI, the dude who filed the lawsuit, Michael Newdow, as far as I'm aware, is a full blooded Caucasian American. Thus, America is his "home country." Second of all, it wasn't that long ago that people of Asian descent in this country were denied basic American rights despite the mandate of America's Constitution. I suppose us Asians should have just been content to have even been allowed into this great country, much less hoped to one day be treated as equals. :?

Alex

[thaite]

[quote:e073db8b90]
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.
[/quote:e073db8b90]

and

[quote:e073db8b90]
seriously, how does one reference to the history of the foundation of the colonies have anything to do with stifling other relgions?
[/quote:e073db8b90]

The reason for putting it there is not even out historical observation, it's about differentiating. Eisenhower didn't put it there because he wanted to teach us a history lesson, he and others put it there because they wanted to put distance between the US and the "godless" communists.

Now you see, that reference to God may is not a statement about the nation's history, it is about deference to God. For people who don't defer to God, or defer to other religions, why should the state put one religion above another, which is exactly what the Pledge does?

[quote:e073db8b90]
and buddha or vishnu or whatever isnt used because the foundation of our nation was from those seeking freedom to worship god.
[/quote:e073db8b90]

Yup, some did that, some not at all. And they passed that option on to the many others who came here seeking to worship freely to whichever deity they chose, or not at all. And they even passed a Bill of Rights, of which the first item mentions that no law would be restricting or establishing religion.

[quote:e073db8b90]
the colonists never expected to have to separate religion from government.
[/quote:e073db8b90]

And that's just out and out false, or do I have to post the text of the First Amendment, too?

[quote:e073db8b90]
and what do you mean by my patriotism is bought? its not bought.
[/quote:e073db8b90]

Look, you said this: [quote:e073db8b90]this is a lot like how foreign sports players dont have to sing the national anthem. that's fucking GAYYYY... u better sing the damn national anthem and respect the country who's having you play on their team!!![/quote:e073db8b90]

What you're syaing is "We pay for you to play for our team, now you better start singing about how you love us." THAT patriotism is bought and paid for and not the kind we need.

Just because you don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean it aint.

[kasia]

[quote:f99dbd16db="angelnympho"][quote:f99dbd16db="kasia"]then would it be appropriate for the pledge to read "one nation under buddha"? after all, by your line of reasoning, that wouldn't be an imposition of religion on non-buddhists.

and it doesn't matter whether it was a part of history. we're a nation that progresses. slavery was part of our history as well.[/quote:f99dbd16db]

i dont like how people come here from their home countries and try to change things.[/quote:f99dbd16db]

i don't like how that sounded. first, i'm not sure exactly who brought the suit and whether he is an immigrant. but how very convenient to assume that he is one. second, many american citizens--those born here--are not christian and would prefer not to say "under God". and this [i:f99dbd16db]is [/i:f99dbd16db]their home country. shit, this is mine.

[angelnympho]

i didnt say foreign sports players should sing about how they love us, i said they shouldnt be all hating the nation who pays them to play sports. they're getting something out of it.

and just because you think its a big deal doesnt mean it is, too.

look, no need to jump down each other's throats, that's just my opinion, and my views are my views. face it, you're not convincing me.

the pledge isnt even mandantory so why the big fuss over whats in it. if you dont like it DONT SAY IT!

im athiest and i dont give a flying FUCK that i recite the words "one nation under god" any time i want to face a flag and pledge my loyalty.

why is it reasonable to change the pledge, but nobody here has mentioned ANYTHING about the dollar bills??

[thaite]

I may not convince you, but I can sure point out how wrong you are.

[kasia]

[quote:0819bae4be="angelnympho"]look, no need to jump down each other's throats, that's just my opinion, and my views are my views. face it, you're not convincing me.
[/quote:0819bae4be]

well it would be amazing if we were convincing you considering the fact that you're not reading our posts and thinking them through.

[kasia]

[quote:aeaf1b24be="angelnympho"]

im athiest and i dont give a flying FUCK that i recite the words "one nation under god" any time i want to face a flag and pledge my loyalty.
[/quote:aeaf1b24be]

how exactly do you define atheism? and how would you be pledging your loyalty by making a statement that you personally don't buy into?

[inkpainter]

This ruling (Newdow v. U.S. Congress) will not stand. It is in direct opposition to written documents of America's founding, and provides further evidence of unelected judges trying to take over the country by usurping policymaking authority. (It is also in conflict with the 7th Circuit in Chicago).

The fundamental question is what the First Amendment's Establishment Clause means, and it shows how far we've come from the Founding.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is clearly written to guard against the establishment of a state-sponsored religion. The Founders didn't want America to be a Protestant state.

Remember the Pilgrims came from church repression.

But the court has moved from conventional understanding of the antiestablishment clause to reading it as an anti-religion clause.

Essentially the court has developed this idea of a coercive environment: Little Suzy is gravely affected when others around her say the pledge, including the phrase, "one nation...under God."

However the law doesn't normally condition ones behavior on how it will affect others around them. Instead, we are told to avert our eyes and turn our heads away from something we find objectionable.



okay...class dismissed :wink:

[deez nuts]

Honestly, this all seems kinda frivolous to me. I know, I know the whole separation of church and state. It just seems to me, time could be spent on better things. Just my opinion.

[inkpainter]

[quote:14e8d0c732="Chasiubao_Boy"]Honestly, this all seems kinda frivolous to me. I know, I know the whole separation of church and state. It just seems to me, time could be spent on better things. Just my opinion.[/quote:14e8d0c732]

...what kind of things bun boy?

[deez nuts]

I don't know, inkpainter. I just find it weird that the "Pledge of Allegiance" that endured for centuries, only recently has it been questioned and bought to our attention with the "one nation under god" clause.

[inkpainter]

[quote:68212654d1="Chasiubao_Boy"]I don't know, inkpainter. I just find it weird that the "Pledge of Allegiance" that endured for centuries, only recently has it been questioned and bought to our attention with the "one nation under god" clause.[/quote:68212654d1]

your right...i was ranting...what a lot of people don't know is that the pledge has been adjusted through out america's history "The flag of the United States" replaced the words "my Flag" in 1923 because some foreign-born people might have in mind the flag of the country of their birth instead of the United States flag. A year later, "of America" was added after "United States."

No form of the Pledge received official recognition by Congress until June 22, 1942, when the Pledge was formally included in the U.S. Flag Code. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945. The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954, when Congress passed a law, which added the words "under God" after "one nation."

...so there u have it...

but, i was just flexing my "history buff" muscle...there is more to life...and people will believe what they want to believe no matter what's being recited or where it's being recited at....

[deez nuts]

Wow, I didn't know that. Sheesh you learn something new everyday.

But, I guess no matter how small, it still infringed upon our constitutional right. I supposed it's nice to have some vanguard in regards to the greater picture when it comes to issues of the constitution.

[angelnympho]

[quote:bacddaac03="Chasiubao_Boy"]Honestly, this all seems kinda frivolous to me. I know, I know the whole separation of church and state. It just seems to me, time could be spent on better things. Just my opinion.[/quote:bacddaac03]
Hey, I tried to bring that up too. Apperantly, NOTHING is more important.

Hey, if you guys wanna get all technical about it, how bout we change the "with freedom and justice for all" clause to "with freedom and justice for most."

i realize that i may not have made some of the most brilliant comments of my career, im just strongly opposed to changing the stupid pledge which shouldnt even matter because nobody ever says it anymore.

i define atheism as my own god damn religion. i will believe in whatever i feel like and god is just not one of them. i dont follow atheism to the book or anything, though. my religious beliefs have nothing to do with this, though, so don't get me started.

and there's a big difference between being treated as equals and having your own religion mentioned in the pledge. just because god is mentioned and other religions arent doesnt make it any harder to worship what you believe in america.

i honestly think god had a lot to do with why these colonies were formed.

[angelnympho]

sorry for post-whoring. i just wanted to add that its weird that im opposed to changing the pledge. seeing as how i typically am against mentioning anything having to do with religion in every day life. but i guess this is just one of those things... the reason why im opposed to it isnt because i think the phrase BELONGS in the pledge... i mean, i think it does belong there, but if it just said "one nation indivisible" that'd be okay too. i just am against going to all this trouble and making a huge controversial mess out of something so small. and i just realized how much i'm actually ADDING to this controversial mess.

honestly, what's america coming to when there's no tolerance for references to GOD even...

[Arex]

[quote:13c7e347a3="angelnympho"]
Hey, I tried to bring that up too. Apperantly, NOTHING is more important.[/quote:13c7e347a3]

Actually, I don't think anyone here thinks it's really THAT important. The thing is, since the issue's been put on the table, what's the problem in evaluating whether or not there's any merit to the 9th Circuit's holding and whether the phrase "under God" jives with the notion of the American ideal under our Constitution?

Granted, in the grand scheme of things, this is stupid. But your argument that there's no point in "fixing" it assumes that the Pledge has always been this way. But let's not forget that apparently people back in the 50's thought it was worth changing to include the words "under God." I will assume that, had the debate arisen back then, you would've been on the side of leaving it alone, right?

[quote:13c7e347a3="angelnympho"]
Hey, if you guys wanna get all technical about it, how bout we change the "with freedom and justice for all" clause to "with freedom and justice for most."
[/quote:13c7e347a3]

I'm glad you should point that out. With language such as "with liberty and justice for all," one can easily argue that the Pledge is a pledge to everything that this country stands for, i.e., the idealized America. If that's the case, then there's absolutely NO room in the Pledge for language for "under God" since it would seemingly suggest that the notion of an ideal America necessarily includes God.

[quote:13c7e347a3="angelnympho"]
i honestly think god had a lot to do with why these colonies were formed.[/quote:13c7e347a3]

Which is true and fine and dandy, but that's not why it was added to the Pledge...how many times need people point this out to you before you acknowledge the Pledge's true history?!

[angelnympho]

[quote:9ec0e2c8c0="Arex"]Which is true and fine and dandy, but that's not why it was added to the Pledge...how many times need people point this out to you before you acknowledge the Pledge's true history?![/quote:9ec0e2c8c0]

don't think i havnt read the other posts. i have, and i see what you guys are saying about how it was added in later. im just saying, though, its not that inappropriate when you consider the history of the nation.

[odomo]

Hi everyone. First of all, my opinion is completely non-existent 8O . I don't care. I think that the plaintiff (Newdow) has a good case :D , but so does the government :D .

Newdow claims that "his daughter is injured when she is compelled to 'watch and listen...[to] a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's is 'one nation under god.''"

The Lemon Test proves that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional because it does not have a secular purpose. Also, the Pledge does not comply with the Establishment clause and endorsement policies.
Theres more stuff...later

[kasia]

[quote:e9c3502889="odomo"]Hi everyone. First of all, my opinion is completely non-existent 8O . I don't care. I think that the plaintiff (Newdow) has a good case :D , but so does the government :D .

Newdow claims that "his daughter is injured when she is compelled to 'watch and listen...[to] a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's is 'one nation under god.''"

The Lemon Test proves that the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional because it does not have a secular purpose. Also, the Pledge does not comply with the Establishment clause and endorsement policies.
Theres more stuff...later[/quote:e9c3502889]

can you explain the "Lemon Test"?

[odomo]

The Lemon Test is a set of three "tests" made by the Supreme Court (I think) from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case that determines whether or not a government practice violates the Establishment Clause.

The statute or practice that touches upon religion is permissible if 1)it has a secular purpose, 2)it must neither advance nor inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect, and 3) it must not foster an axcessive entanglement with religion.

However, many people can interpret the Lemon Test very differently.

[kasia]

the reason why statutes declaring christmas and good friday as holidays have not been overturned:

"traditional public holidays which are also religiously significant days may, through the passage of time, partially lose their sectarian nature and become constitutionally permissible, regardless of legislative intent in establishing those holidays."

perhaps the two words, "under God", have not lost their religious significance, are still highly secular under every interpretation, and would likely remain that way over time.

[angelnympho]

As un-religious as I am, in the wake of all the 9/11 stuff that's happened, I found some comfort in walking around my community seeing all the signs of support saying "God Bless America." And one in particular, hung from a bridge that was built over quite possibly the biggest freeway in California said "One nation, under God, Indivisible" ... I like the idea of the community coming together for that purpose. And as long as the sentiment is positive, I don't see much of a problem with it.

[kasia]

[quote:6ed26a686b="angelnympho"]As un-religious as I am, in the wake of all the 9/11 stuff that's happened, I found some comfort in walking around my community seeing all the signs of support saying "God Bless America." And one in particular, hung from a bridge that was built over quite possibly the biggest freeway in California said "One nation, under God, Indivisible" ... I like the idea of the community coming together for that purpose. And as long as the sentiment is positive, I don't see much of a problem with it.[/quote:6ed26a686b]

i admit, i felt the same way.

but would the feeling be that much different if the sign just read, "One Nation, Indivisible"?

[odomo]

What bothers me is that most people, when reading the Pledge of Allegiance, say it : "one nation, under God," when it is written and supposed to be said as "one nation under god."

[angelnympho]

[quote:90020afe0d="kasia"]i admit, i felt the same way.

but would the feeling be that much different if the sign just read, "One Nation, Indivisible"?[/quote:90020afe0d]

i cracked the hell up today when i passed the sign and saw that someone had torn down the "under god" part. now it DOES say one nation indivisible. and although it looks a little funny with the big middle chunk of the banner missing.. its still the same. :)

but i really liked the sign that said "and on the seventh day... god made the marines, and then he rested" :)

[ImrkevinpakI]

[quote:f85ab0d02d="angelnympho"][quote:f85ab0d02d="kasia"]i admit, i felt the same way.

but would the feeling be that much different if the sign just read, "One Nation, Indivisible"?[/quote:f85ab0d02d]

i cracked the hell up today when i passed the sign and saw that someone had torn down the "under god" part. now it DOES say one nation indivisible. and although it looks a little funny with the big middle chunk of the banner missing.. its still the same. :)

but i really liked the sign that said "and on the seventh day... god made the marines, and then he rested" :)[/quote:f85ab0d02d]

?

[kasia]

i'm a psychic :wink:

odomo: wouldn't it be a sin for it to be read as "under god"? i thought that worshipping an idol would be a sin--and since "god" could refer to any god...

[angelnympho]

[quote:f6040a7938="kasia"]i'm a psychic :wink:

odomo: wouldn't it be a sin for it to be read as "under god"? i thought that worshipping an idol would be a sin--and since "god" could refer to any god...[/quote:f6040a7938]

somebody re-posted the UNDER GOD part... lOL, now the sign looks all funny.... it says in red white n blue on the big banner... ONE NATION ______ INDIVISIBLE ... n then the UNDER GOD is written on a little piece of cardboard in orange.. taped up like 3x smaller than the rest of the banner. *shrug*

[odomo]

[quote:c9118b5c56]odomo: wouldn't it be a sin for it to be read as "under god"? i thought that worshipping an idol would be a sin--and since "god" could refer to any god...[/quote:c9118b5c56]

Hmm....some people say that the two words "under god" are open for interpretation by the reader...

[princess]

[quote:7da5bbdb0a="odomo"][quote:7da5bbdb0a]odomo: wouldn't it be a sin for it to be read as "under god"? i thought that worshipping an idol would be a sin--and since "god" could refer to any god...[/quote:7da5bbdb0a]

Hmm....some people say that the two words "under god" are open for interpretation by the reader...[/quote:7da5bbdb0a]

thats what i said....it doesnt bother me cuz it doesnt specify WHICH god...

[Shuriken]

[quote:36b139da78="princess"]thats what i said....it doesnt bother me cuz it doesnt specify WHICH god...[/quote:36b139da78]

And if you're a patriotic American who doesn't believe in God, what then? Why must you profess a belief in monotheism (i.e., a belief in one god, as opposed to many gods or no god) in order to pledge allegiance to the flag?

[achtungbaby]

[quote:acded3a92e="Shuriken"]Why must you profess a belief in monotheism (i.e., a belief in one god, as opposed to many gods or no god) in order to pledge allegiance to the flag?[/quote:acded3a92e]

Because! All pantheists are communists who work over at 80-20! :twisted:

[ChinaLama]

I don't believe we're One nation indivisible either. that's just Northern hogwash used to trivialize hundreds of years of confederate/compact theory American belief in the sovereignty of our STATES.

Why is it United STATES if we're ONE nation INDIVISIBLE...then the STATES part becomes basically meaningless, so why live w/ that pretense? why not call ourselves the United Despotic Republic of the Carpetbaggers of America?

An ultra-nationalist Chinese American neo-Confederate New Yorker (alt lately since i've become more regionalist Chinese, my wacko American political theories and Chinese pol theories are becoming more consistently aligned). NOW you've seen them all.


And AB, one of these days, when my boss sends me to LA for a conference or whatever, and since you posted your address online...that's when you'll really receive an achtung, baby!


well let's just say, don't be too surprised when you see your dog(s) in the oven someday. 8) and the head will already be eaten. :twisted:

[princess]

[quote:34050bf27b="ChinaLama"]
well let's just say, don't be too surprised when you see your dog(s) in the oven someday. 8) and the head will already be eaten. :twisted:[/quote:34050bf27b]

8O


shuriken: im not saying that it absolutely should not be taken out. fine, take it out. i can sympathize with those who dont believe in the possibility of there being a god. i was juss pointing it out the ambiguity in the diction.

[Shuriken]

[quote:f3216fe043="achtungbaby"]Because! All pantheists are communists who work over at 80-20! :twisted:[/quote:f3216fe043]

HA HA HA HA HA!!! Good answer!!!

SOB!!! :cry:

[blkazngirl]

This nation was founded in their right for freedom. Don't for get the pilgrams that came here for religious reasons.

The beauty of this is you have the right to pledge or not. If you believe or not. You don't have to recite it, but you should respect the fact that you're here and you have rights. Ask someone that comes from a country that has none.

Besides, the man that started this whole legal battle just wanted to 15 minutes of fame. He made the comment, " I wanted to go to court and have the government remove the words in God we trust from the currency, but that would have take up too much time and money" Clearly, this is a man that has nothing else to do but cause mayhem.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by blkazngirl@Sep 26 2002, 04:09 AM
This nation was founded in their right for freedom. Don't for get the pilgrams that came here for religious reasons.

The beauty of this is you have the right to pledge or not. If you believe or not. You don't have to recite it, but you should respect the fact that you're here and you have rights. Ask someone that comes from a country that has none.

Besides, the man that started this whole legal battle just wanted to 15 minutes of fame. He made the comment, " I wanted to go to court and have the government remove the words in God we trust from the currency, but that would have take up too much time and money" Clearly, this is a man that has nothing else to do but cause mayhem.
werd.....

Lets not forget that we live in a country in which all people are free to believe whatever they want, but chooses to believe in God. I'm not saying all the people in the nation choose to believe in God, but the nation itself does. (Not sure if that made sense, but it makes sense in my head.) We live in a country that allows people to do whatever they want, but still has currency marked "in God we trust," that still has patriotism deeply rooted in the belief in a higher power, and begins each session of the supreme court with "God save the United States and this honorable court."

It's strange how times change. Early on in the history of the nation, we not only had prayer allowed in schools, but it was pretty near mandantory... then it was banned. People began getting their entire lives turned upside down simply by the mention of the word "God." We are a nation founded under God... and even I (and I'm SO not religious) will agree that we live in a nation that has been blessed by God thus far.

Strange that when faced with a national tragedy, September 11th, suddenly the notion and idea of God is not only accepted, but encouraged. Schools take time out for prayers of rememberance, the president speaks of strengthening our faith, and everywhere you go, you see a sign proclaiming "God bless America." Where was this lawsuit guy then?

We've got bigger issues to think about than the mention of "GOD" in a stupid pledge that's not even TAUGHT to kids anymore and is pretty much NEVER said anywhere.

[kasia]

Originally posted by blkazngirl@Sep 26 2002, 04:09 AM
Besides, the man that started this whole legal battle just wanted to 15 minutes of fame.  He made the comment, " I wanted to go to court and have the government remove the words in God we trust from the currency, but that would have take up too much time and money"   Clearly, this is a man that has nothing else to do but cause mayhem.
is it really that clear that his motive was solely "to cause mayhem"? i'm not too familiar with the issue but i had thought that he brought suit b/c he did not believe that his child should be *required* to utter the words "under God" in class. the argument could be made that the routine utterance of such words by young children has more effect the children than the words on a dollar bill (which the children might not notice anyway)....just a theory, though.



<!--EDIT|kasia|Sep 28 2002, 03:17 AM-->

[artsfartsyjanet]

I used to say prayers to my entire high school over the intercom before the announcements. I wasn't even Christian. heheh.... I went to a Catholic all female high school btw, but I went to a public grade and junior high school and said the Pledge of Allegiance b/c everyone did it. I started reciting it in kindergarten. Ah... I grew up faithfully confused. =)



<!--EDIT|artsfartsyjanet|Sep 27 2002, 11:28 AM-->

[phism]

the nation is obviously divisible.

one white heterosexual christian oligarchy under god.