Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God' Case

1 hour, 15 minutes ago


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Americans overwhelmingly want the phrase "under God" preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance, a new poll says as the Supreme Court examines whether the classroom salute crosses the division of church and state.


AP Photo



Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll.

The Supreme Court was hearing arguments Wednesday from a California atheist who objected to the daily pledges in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom. He sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

The pledge is different, argue officials at Elk Grove Unified School District near Sacramento, where the girl attends school. Superintendent Dave Gordon said popular opinion is on their side — but that's not all.

"It's not a popularity contest. If something is wrong, it should be corrected. No matter how many people support it," he said. "The argument that `under God' in the pledge is pushing religion on children is wrong on the law. It's also wrong from a commonsense perspective."

God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in 1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students.

The question put to the Supreme Court: Does the use of the pledge in public schools violate the Constitution's ban on government established religion?

Michael Newdow, the father who filed the lawsuit, compared the controversy to the issue of segregation in schools, which the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.

"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" asked Newdow, a 50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court.

The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase "under God" should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.

Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.

The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge.

Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance&cid=558&ncid=716

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” –Bill of Rights, Amendment I.

This clearly states that the Government should not force a religion upon any of its citizens. Creating the amendment was to protect each and every citizen from what the Church of England had done for many years (forcing a religion upon everyone).

One of the religious issues that had now gone to the Supreme Court is the right to say “God” in the pledge of allegiance? The argument was that saying “one Nation under God” is implying that everyone must and should believe in God (true).

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress. Many republicans were outraged and they publicly demonstrate against it.

The ironic thing is, the argument is, our nation was founded on God and Christianity. But it was added in, in 1954, meaning that it’s not apart of our history, it’s actually going against our history. We added it in, to separate ourselves from the communists…and now we do not have that threat anymore, and it’s time to take it out.

When I have to say, “under God”, it implies that I should indeed believe in God, since I’m being forced to say it, in my Government, instituted classroom. When I choose not to say it, and everyone else is indeed saying it, most kids (not me) get the feeling they are “weird, or different” and that is not how our schools should work.

Everyone is equal, and when they say, well everyone believes in some kind of God...so why not say it...umm, it’s call the atheists!

Also, our Government is indeed implying we should believe in God, since it is in our PLEDGE to our country. Meaning our country should be a country that believes in God, for we have it in our national pledge.

Our founding fathers founded our nation on freedom of religion, not the implication of God, that is why it was not originally included in our pledge

Also the majority of our founding fathers (correct me if I’m wrong) were agnostic.

wow, overdose is against saying "under god" in the pledge? I'm shocked :rolleyes:

how about this, once again, the conservative is the one who tries to comprimise so everyone gets what they want. in the pledge, you can say the name of wahtever god you worship, be it allah, budah, a golden calf, whatever, or you could say atheism. it may sound distorted and garbled at the point in the pledge, but it would symbolize how different we all are, yet the same. so in short, at the point where you would say "god", you insert the name of what it is you believe in, or if you dont believe in anything you either dont say anything or you say athiesm or whatever. problem solved, no one is left feeling lonely and dejected for being forced to say something they find offensive. your precious little ego is left intact and all is well.

Getting rid of it entirely is simpler and equally effective.

or not getting rid of it is even simpler. its called freedom of speech, freedom of religion, there is nothing in the constitution that says there should be a speration of church and state. it says congress shall pass no law establishing a religion. there is no church of america. when we say god, we are using teh english word for god. it is not specifying jesus or any specific god. it is the englih word for god, how else can you say it? are supposed to have the entire pledge in english except one word in arabic or chinese? no, that is our word for that. I try and comprimise with you all time after time, but you wont budge an inch, and then turn around and wonder why eveyone hates liberals so much. they are on this crusade to change everythignabot america, and are so blinded by their religion of no nreligion and gay rights they can not comprehend how anyone could stand against them. anyone who disagrees eith them must be wrong.

One of the religious issues that had now gone to the Supreme Court is the right to say “God” in the pledge of allegiance? The argument was that saying “one Nation under God” is implying that everyone must and should believe in God (true).

Not everyone has to believe in "GOD". When I hear this, it drives me insane. The way I've always perceived "under God" is this .... we all have freedom of religion to worship whoever, whatever, we want. My "GOD" may be "God", "Allah", "Jesus", "Akasha" etc. If I choose a god (or higher power) to worship that's my right. What one person perceives as "God" may not be the same higher power as someone else. Lucky for us, we have that freedom in the USA.

As I've also always been taught, this Country was founded on religion whether it be puritan faith, christian faith, catholic, etc. I understand that "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge in the 50s - with good reason. I think it's a shame that it be removed. No matter what, we all look to a higher power when the going gets tough - whether we do so consciously or unconsciously.

If I wanted to change my name in the future, I have that right. But to do so, would sadden my father who is very proud of our family "name". I sort of feel the same way in this instance. Our founding fathers are rolling their eyes now wondering WTF we are thinking?? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by saycricket
I understand that "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge in the 50s - with good reason.
"Under God" was added in 1954 after the Knights of Columbus (a conservative group which still exists today) pressured Congress to add it. Congress caved -- because of the view at the time of Communist nations as godless, and America wanted to be as uncommunist as possible. Not a good reason.

"Under God" means what it sounds like: that the U.S. is a nation which bows to God as the supreme authority. Which is, of course, a load of bull plop. Same with "In God we trust" and all that. If we are not a nation with Christianity as the state religion, what purpose does "under God" serve? Really, none.

Honestly, whoever wants to be religious and pray to God etc. should be allowed to -- changing the Pledge will not change people's religious freedom. If you want to pray, you can do so...just don't try to insert religious references into a pledge that millions of schoolchildren repeat every day.

While "God" may or may not really refer to the Christian God, it still refers to a god, which is not a view that the entire U.S. shares.

in other words the athiests think thier view is more right, or more important than the majority of americans, and intepret the constitution to say so, becaue god forbid anyone argue agaisnt the constitution (excpt the 2nd ammendment of course) :rolleyes:

Anything added in 1954 by a conservative group should be deleted on principle.

It doesn't belong there and should be removed.

No matter what, we all look to a higher power when the going gets tough - whether we do so consciously or unconsciously.
I'm going out on a limb here but -- From WHAT or WHO do you ask forgiveness or mercy from when you're in pain or trouble, or just need to "feel" something? It's a spirituality concept - not a book concept. If we don't have some type of spirituality whether Godlike or otherwise, WHAT do we have, really?
America wanted to be as uncommunist as possible. Not a good reason.
Sorry, but I think being as "uncommunist" as possible is just about the best reason there is. Our country has grown in leaps and bounds because we are uncommunist.
"Under God" means what it sounds like: that the U.S. is a nation which bows to God as the supreme authority. Which is, of course, a load of bull plop. Same with "In God we trust" and all that. If we are not a nation with Christianity as the state religion, what purpose does "under God" serve? Really, none.
Again...without a spiritual figure (whatever it may be), I'm anxious to know what you perceive (or would like) to be a "supreme authority". Certainly not our government?
While "God" may or may not really refer to the Christian God, it still refers to a god, which is not a view that the entire U.S. shares.
No, I agree, the ENTIRE USA doesn't share the same view - which is why we are a democracy. However, if you will look around you, the MAJORITY of the USA does agree to allow "under God" remain in the Pledge.
AP Poll 87% "Remain" vs 12% "Remove" (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040324/D81GJB401.html)

it wasnt addd by a conservative group, it was added by congress, so it should be de legislated through congress. again the minority trying to legislate to the majority through the courts things they know would never pass a vote in congress or on a ballot. the anti god crowd has an issue with religion and christianity in general. they pretend to be offended by the violation of teh constitution, knowing that honest americans revere the constitution and take seriously anything pertaining to it or incorperating it into its argument. to make this a constitutional issue is disgraceful. becasue they dont like to, or dont want to say god, they play on the emotion of the people. its hard to believe that simply not wanting to say a word would need the supreme court of the united states. it is obviouly personel for this guy, and has been taken up by athiests as some sort of non religious crusade to impose their will on the people through the courts, on the back of a single line in the constitution that means nothing close to what they insinuate that it does. very disgustng and unamerican on the part of this particular group of activists.

The Senate voted 99-0 to maintain the clause.

Damn democrats. They've been brainwashed too.:rolleyes:

It should be dropped, but on balance there are more important things for the government to address than that. The polls probably relect the fact that probably nobody cares about that.

The polls probably relect the fact that probably nobody cares about that. Whatever....:rolleyes:

As an agnostic, I don't really care whether the pledge says "In a goat we trust", because in the end, the pledge isn't going to make that much of a difference in people's lives. But it is important to realize that there are those who are very offended by the pledge and its bias towards religious groups, and in that regard I would support ending the discrimination.

because god forbid anyone argue agaisnt the constitution
If people had never argued against the constitution, the US would be a much different place than it is today. Segregation would continue, with coloured people being forced to attend their own non-white schools because of rampid racism. Was the legal system wrong to shut down such discrimination? You seem to suggest so, with your comment belittling any challenges against the law.

its called freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
When something is extremely offensive to an entire group of people, in this case atheists, then it is not freedom of speech, it is harrassment, and I believe that in any civilized nation laws must be in place to prevent such discrimination. How would your opinion differ if the pledge said "In nothing we trust, since there is no God" to appeal to atheists? I'm betting that a lot of religious citizens would oppose such a one sided reference in what many consider to be one of the US's most symbolic sayings. And freedom of religion includes the freedom to not believe as well, and no one has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone else.

I try and comprimise with you all time after time, but you wont budge an inch
Compromise in this case means nothing. To those who are very offended and insulted by such a biased statement in their own country, your compromise means nothing. In a case of discrimination, there is no middleground, and one either acts as the perpetrator of the abuse or as the opposer.

Originally posted by Travh20

how about this, once again, the conservative is the one who tries to comprimise so everyone gets what they want. in the pledge, you can say the name of wahtever god you worship, be it allah, budah, a golden calf, whatever, or you could say atheism. it may sound distorted and garbled at the point in the pledge, but it would symbolize how different we all are, yet the same. so in short, at the point where you would say "god", you insert the name of what it is you believe in, or if you dont believe in anything you either dont say anything or you say athiesm or whatever. problem solved, no one is left feeling lonely and dejected for being forced to say something they find offensive. your precious little ego is left intact and all is well.

Trav, do you remember being in school? do you recall what hapnes to children who set themselves apart from the pack? in case you don't, I will remind you that it's not pretty. by not saying the god part of the pledge, or not saying the pledge at all, children make it known to their classmates that they are different. it's a sure way to have classmates constantly bothering you about it. I nkow this personally: I'm in high school, and morning anouncements come on during my AP class (a college level hisotry course) and I have classmates who syill feel the need to interrogate me daily on why I choose not to recite the pledge. I'm lucky it's not worse. this type of thing happens to any child who is blatantly different from their classmates, it's undeniable. the only other option is compormising ones beleifs, adn choosing between getiing tortured by ones classmates and saying something one doesn't beleive in is not a choice that should be forced upon kids in public schools.

you mentioned more than once how the pledge of allegiance is highly offensive to people. if you are highly offended by the pledge of allegiance, something is wrong with you. the funny thing is, that when these same people hear soemone mention how they are highly offended by some of the shows on TV with their graphic sexual material, they laugh and say if you dont like it dont watch, well we say the same to them , if you dont like it dont say it, but dont take away our right to say it because you are offended by a word. whatever happed to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I am just fed up with everyone being offended by everything all the time. I know you think it is noble and patriotic to try and outlaw the pledge of allegiance, but it isnt.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
Trav, do you remember being in school? do you recall what hapnes to children who set themselves apart from the pack? in case you don't, I will remind you that it's not pretty. by not saying the god part of the pledge, or not saying the pledge at all, children make it known to their classmates that they are different. it's a sure way to have classmates constantly bothering you about it. I nkow this personally: I'm in high school, and morning anouncements come on during my AP class (a college level hisotry course) and I have classmates who syill feel the need to interrogate me daily on why I choose not to recite the pledge. I'm lucky it's not worse. this type of thing happens to any child who is blatantly different from their classmates, it's undeniable. the only other option is compormising ones beleifs, adn choosing between getiing tortured by ones classmates and saying something one doesn't beleive in is not a choice that should be forced upon kids in public schools.


oh break out the violins! play this person a song please! I think I am going to cry . the thought of a kid in school geting picked on for being diffrent is to much for me to handle. this is what I was talking about in another post about the feminization of america. here it is, laid out before you. no one is allowe d to feel different or out of place anymore. we have to bend over backwards to make sure everyone feels inculded. if that means going to the supreme court, by god so be it! as long as you can feel content in your skin and not feel threatened ever you will be OK. what a crock! I never ever even noticed if someone wasnt saying the pledge. who cares? if you are getting picked on becasue o dont say under god iwhile reciting the pledge of allegiane, I hate to break it to you, but thats not why you are getting picked on. this is the dumbest argument for taking the words Under God out of the pledge I have ever heard! I just have to laugh. when have high school kids ever been known for beong great humanitarians in the first place?

Originally posted by Travh20
you mentioned more than once how the pledge of allegiance is highly offensive to people. if you are highly offended by the pledge of allegiance, something is wrong with you. the funny thing is, that when these same people hear soemone mention how they are highly offended by some of the shows on TV with their graphic sexual material, they laugh and say if you dont like it dont watch, well we say the same to them , if you dont like it dont say it, but dont take away our right to say it because you are offended by a word. whatever happed to sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me? I am just fed up with everyone being offended by everything all the time. I know you think it is noble and patriotic to try and outlaw the pledge of allegiance, but it isnt.

I don't think anyone's offended by the pledge itself, just the idea that while tryting to be patriotic to our country god is being forced on us. I would be happy to rdcite the pledge if it didn't mention god.
the sticks and stones thing? Trav, that's no way to go about raising the children of this country. bulying can have terrible effects on kids, and verbal bullying is just as serious as physical, kids shouldn't have to put og with being picked on becasue they're diferent. it's something schools shouldn't tolerate. the emotional and physcoliogical repurcussions are huge, and school shouldn't instigate experiences like that. school should be a safe, nurtuting envoronment, and by forcing kids to seperate themsleves from the rest of their class, it totally ruins that environment for kids. I'm not a parent and I know that the sticks and sotnes theory doesn't work, and has absolutely no basis in relaity.
I don't think it's patriotic to ban the pledge, and it's not what I'm suggesting. all I wnat is a plaedge free from the McCarthy era religiousness that doesn't rperesent me, and my reasons for loving this country. the reason I ont want the word od in there is so I can say the pledge without feeling uncomfortable or cokpromising myslef. by demanding seperation of church and state I'm being far more patriotic than anyone who wants to go against the intentions this country was founded on.

ok, you want it changed because it makes you feel unconfortable, and try to solidify your argument with the constitution, and of course mention the worn out line about dissent being patriotic. could you be any more sterortypicaly liberal?
and the sticks and stone thing is something that parents teach their kids, not schools. you teach your children that words are words, and to get all bent out of shape because someone makes fun of you is a waste of energy. it is not wrong to teach your kids that saying. just becasue you get all hurt and your pride beuised when someone asks you why you dont say god doesnt mean everyone does.

Apparently the guy who argued the case, a Dr who is also a non-practicing lawyer was superb. It's predicted to be at least a 4-4 (1 justice recused) - which will uphold the appeals court verdict that it must be removed.

its my opinion that god should absolutely not be mentioned in the pledge of allegiance. and for those of you who say that atheists can just not say "god" when theyre reciting the pledge, its really tough trying to be a little kid AND an atheist. believe me, i was one as a young kid. many children aren't so tolerant to people outside thier religion, and there would be an unhealthy amount of peer pressure on these poor kids. better to just eliminate "under god" from the pledge.

Originally posted by Travh20
ok, you want it changed because it makes you feel unconfortable, and try to solidify your argument with the constitution, and of course mention the worn out line about dissent being patriotic. could you be any more sterortypicaly liberal?
and the sticks and stone thing is something that parents teach their kids, not schools. you teach your children that words are words, and to get all bent out of shape because someone makes fun of you is a waste of energy. it is not wrong to teach your kids that saying. just becasue you get all hurt and your pride beuised when someone asks you why you dont say god doesnt mean everyone does.


I want it chnaged because it's not right to mention god in a governemnt sponsored thing. this is another issue where the whole idea is that we have the right to have our own beleifs nad practices, but they should be forced on nayone by law. the whole concept of this country is that we are free, and that includes freedom of religion, stated explicitly in the constitution. I don't see anything wrong with going back to that document, it outlines the purpose of this country, and the way ti's supposed to be run.

we're talking about little kids here. they're whole owrld is school and they're families, possibly some other type of community. beleive me, getting picked on at school sucks, and it takes even the most mature kids a little while to realize that what other pople say about you doiesn't really matter. in a sense, until they get older, it doesm atter, becasue they are stuck with the other kids all the time.

when have high school kids ever been known for beong great humanitarians in the first place?
LMAO!! Go Trav!

Imagining that there are this many atheist teenagers, on this board alone, literally BLOWS MY MIND!!

I'm in the questioning mood lately, in case you hadn't noticed. Here's one from before: I'm curious!! When the going gets tough and you need spiritual support, where do you "atheist" teens go? I cannot fathom that you do not have any kind of higher power that you trust in. Enlighten me, please.

I also would like to know how hard it must be for you NOT to say the words "Under God" while in a large homeroom with half of the students probably not even reciting the Pledge as it is. Like Trav said, I'm sure there are other reasons that you are so called "being picked on".

I think that sometimes it's the status quo these days - to stand out to make a "stand". There are so many more important things to worry about...you'll see that as you get older. You have buckets of teen wisdom now. Wait until life slaps you in the face.

Prepare yourself cricket....the ALLFORUMS Kiddie Korps are going to take extreme offense at your post. Und dey vil let ju know itt!!

Originally posted by DrewM
Apparently the guy who argued the case, a Dr who is also a non-practicing lawyer was superb. It's predicted to be at least a 4-4 (1 justice recused) - which will uphold the appeals court verdict that it must be removed.

I give credit to anyone that can argue in front of the Supremes. Still, have you read anything about this guy? He's a bit loony. Of course I tend to think that anyone that gets that wrapped up in any issue is a little loony.

if you dont like it dont say it, but dont take away our right to say it because you are offended by a word. (Trav)

Take away your right to say it? LMAO! Since when was this outlawing saying "under God"? It's just changing the official Pledge! Say "under God" all day for all I care!

When the going gets tough and you need spiritual support, where do you "atheist" teens go? I cannot fathom that you do not have any kind of higher power that you trust in. Enlighten me, please. (cricket)

Turns out not all of us need spiritual support.

Like Trav said, I'm sure there are other reasons that you are so called "being picked on".

I'm not being picked on, and I don't know where that came from. (Maybe you were talking to Whammy?) For the most part, people leave me alone.

You have buckets of teen wisdom now. Wait until life slaps you in the face.

Everyone says this...and it sounds so generic! I have yet to be "slapped in the face" and I think I'm well-prepared for life right now...

ALLFORUMS Kiddie Korps (Havok)

You realize you just joined the Allforums Middle-Aged Geezers with that remark, right? :D

Originally posted by BorgHunter
ALLFORUMS Kiddie Korps (Havok)

You realize you just joined the Allforums Middle-Aged Geezers with that remark, right? :D Proudly earned. :D

Originally posted by sputnik
its my opinion that god should absolutely not be mentioned in the pledge of allegiance. and for those of you who say that atheists can just not say "god" when theyre reciting the pledge, its really tough trying to be a little kid AND an atheist. believe me, i was one as a young kid. many children aren't so tolerant to people outside thier religion, and there would be an unhealthy amount of peer pressure on these poor kids. better to just eliminate "under god" from the pledge.

Agree 100%.

One argument put forth by the supremes was that by a 1943 law any child can opt out of the pledge and not say it all. To which the great response was that a 9 year old child does not understand that and the government is creating a situation where her dad says one thing (God doesn't exist) and the government says another (under God). The government therefore questioning her father in the girls eyes.

Trav - I don't buy your argument at all about 'don't take away our right to say that' - Nobody is taking away any rights. You can say it all you like.

In my opinion the words "under god" do not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Supreme Court last ruled on the pledge in 1943, at the height of WWII, when the court ruled in the case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette.

It should be noted here that the pledge has undergone some changes in content and delivery since it was first recited in 1892.

Somewhat ironically, the man who wrote it, Francis Bellamy, did not see fit to include God in the original version even though he was a Baptist minister. The original pledge was:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1924 a National Flag Conference announced that my flag would be changed to read the flag of the United States of America thusly:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954 Congress added the words under God to create the pledge as we know it today.

The salute that accompanies the pledge also has changed over the years. Today we place our right hand over our heart as we recite the pledge, but for many years the proper salute was to the flag itself with your right hand extended towards the flag, palm outward. That changed during WWII for obvious reasons.

The case I mentioned earlier, West VA v. Barnette, was about compulsory recitation of the pledge, and thus is not completely on point. The justice who wrote the opinion of the court was Robert Jackson, who later went on to become the presiding judge at the Nuremburg war crimes tribunals. It's a very well written opinion however, and contains much wisdom on the subject of state sponsored speech.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us.

Supreme Court cases involving compelled speech:
http://www.mclu.org/supremecourtcases.htm

West Virginia School Board v. Barnette:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=319&invol=624

Originally posted by Travh20
I am just fed up with everyone being offended by everything all the time.

Am I the only one who detects a certain irony in that statement?

I know you think it is noble and patriotic to try and outlaw the pledge of allegiance, but it isnt.

Is someone trying to outlaw the pledge?

It's clear there are very sound arguments for removing it and pretty much no argument at all for leaving it in, apart from emotive logic, which is irrelevent.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's clear there are very sound arguments for removing it and pretty much no argument at all for leaving it in, apart from emotive logic, which is irrelevent. Actually its the entire pledge that has become irrelevent. That pledge has no meaning at all to a lot of people who are "American" in name only. And when they remove the "under God" part of the pledge, it will have no relevance to me whatsoever. Because i have no respect for a Godless country.

So I personally say dont do away with the "under God" part, do away with the pledge of allegience in its entirety.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Actually its the entire pledge that has become irrelevent. That pledge has no meaning at all to a lot of people who are "American" in name only. And when they remove the "under God" part of the pledge, it will have no relevance to me whatsoever. Because i have no respect for a Godless country.

So I personally say dont do away with the "under God" part, do away with the pledge of allegience in its entirety.

The relevancy of the pledge is not in question, your personal view of it is not in question either.

If taking the phrase out makes the US a Godless country - then you admit that the phrase has deep religious significance, therefore by that standard it must be removed. The pledge is a pledge to the flag, not to God. Save that for church on Sunday because it has no relevance to the USA. Not every American is a christian and being Christian is in no way shape or form a requirement to be American and have allegance to the flag and what it stands for.

There will never be a US mandated pledge to God because thankfully this has nothing at all to do with what the USA is all about. The country is awash with religious bigotry - lets not train up more morons.

Personally though I too believe the pledge should be scrapped - at least in schools anyway. It's nothing but a form of brainwashing young minds through endless repetition......but if brainwashing must occur then remove christianity from the equation - christianity needs no extra help in the area of brainwashing. Brainwashing is to the christian church what gasoline is to a car.

The argument at the supremes to keep it was that it doesn't really mean anything to do with God per say. If thats the case then no problem for them to remove it right? No of course not, they understand what it is - it's a little but powerful early age recruitment drive. Get a kid saying "under God" for years, starting early and they are a much easier sell down the road.

lets just get rid of god, allow the homos to get married, release the terrorists , then we can bend over, place our head between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. goodbye america, it was nice knowing you, now we are going to take evrythign you have used to get to where you are and turn it upside down. they tell us its no big deal, so I guess we wll have to believe them. they call us racist, homophobe bigots, so I guess we are. they say that all they want is to get married, or remove a word from the pledge. it cant hut anyone, stop being so ridiculous. oyur beliefs have been wrong all along idiot. join us, civil rights, the constitution, yo cant argue agaisnt that, can you? if you do your un american, nevermind that we are tryign to rule the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional, you are un american. nevermind the majority of america is againt gay marriage and removing god, they are ignorant sheep that dont know what this country is about, but we, the atheists and homosexuals do, we are not mearly using the constitution as leverage to get what we want, we are doing it for you, you poor ignorant pleebs. you cant argue agaisnt us, or you argue against america itself, for we are what america is all about, minority rule over the majority through the courts, all based on selfish interpretation of the constitution.

Yowza! Jeez, Trav, when you put it that way, it take on a whole new meaning!
When the going gets tough and you need spiritual support, where do you "atheist" teens go? I cannot fathom that you do not have any kind of higher power that you trust in. Enlighten me, please. (cricket)
Turns out not all of us need spiritual support. (Borg)
I think this is a GREAT BIG GIANT load of crap...even if you worship mother nature, planet earth...there is SOMETHING.

AND, like I said, you have BUCKETS of teen wisdom now, and I do find you particularly intelligent for your age. However, book smarts are one thing...street smarts, parental smarts, etc. are quite another. Life takes on a whole new meaning after schooling. Trust me.

PS. Leave it to a teen to say we're Middle Aged at 34 :p

Originally posted by Travh20
lets just get rid of god, allow the homos to get married, release the terrorists , then we can bend over, place our head between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.

Is there an actual, logical reason, for you to believe that allowing gay marriage and removing the reference to God from the pledge of allegiance will lead to the collapse of american society?

they tell us its no big deal, so I guess we wll have to believe them.

On the contrary, I think the issues are very important.


they call us racist, homophobe bigots, so I guess we are.

When was the last time anyone on this board called you any of those things? Are you feeling picked on Trav?

they say that all they want is to get married, or remove a word from the pledge. it cant hut anyone, stop being so ridiculous.

Unless you can elucidate exactly how YOU will be hurt by allowing gays to marry, or removing a word from the pledge, I have to agree...stop being so ridiculous.

oyur beliefs have been wrong all along idiot. join us, civil rights, the constitution, yo cant argue agaisnt that, can you? if you do your un american, nevermind that we are tryign to rule the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional, you are un american.

No one has said your beliefs are wrong Trav, and calling people un-american is your schtick not mine...

Nobody is trying to rule the pledge unconstitutional, just the words "under God". Get it?

nevermind the majority of america is againt gay marriage and removing god, they are ignorant sheep that dont know what this country is about, but we, the atheists and homosexuals do, we are not mearly using the constitution as leverage to get what we want, we are doing it for you, you poor ignorant pleebs. you cant argue agaisnt us, or you argue against america itself, for we are what america is all about, minority rule over the majority through the courts, all based on selfish interpretation of the constitution.

If we lived in a country that was run by majority rule we would all be christians of the most popular denomination. How would that mesh with your beliefs Trav?

How does one use the constitution as leverage to get what we want? If the arguments we are making are supported by the constitution, then we are making the right arguments, and if the constitution doesn't support your arguments then you are not.

Why do you refer to yourself as an ignorant sheep and an ignorant pleeb? I don't remember anyone else calling you those things.

Who in your mind is "selfish" in interpreting the constitution?

Originally posted by saycricket
I think this is a GREAT BIG GIANT load of crap...even if you worship mother nature, planet earth...there is SOMETHING.
You asked for an answer, I gave it to you. If you choose not to believe it, that's your prerogative.

Originally posted by Travh20
lets just get rid of god, allow the homos to get married, release the terrorists , then we can bend over, place our head between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye. goodbye america, it was nice knowing you, now we are going to take evrythign you have used to get to where you are and turn it upside down. they tell us its no big deal, so I guess we wll have to believe them. they call us racist, homophobe bigots, so I guess we are. they say that all they want is to get married, or remove a word from the pledge. it cant hut anyone, stop being so ridiculous. oyur beliefs have been wrong all along idiot. join us, civil rights, the constitution, yo cant argue agaisnt that, can you? if you do your un american, nevermind that we are tryign to rule the pledge of allegiance unconstitutional, you are un american. nevermind the majority of america is againt gay marriage and removing god, they are ignorant sheep that dont know what this country is about, but we, the atheists and homosexuals do, we are not mearly using the constitution as leverage to get what we want, we are doing it for you, you poor ignorant pleebs. you cant argue agaisnt us, or you argue against america itself, for we are what america is all about, minority rule over the majority through the courts, all based on selfish interpretation of the constitution.

How long will it take for you to reach the realization that your religious beliefs mean nothing when it comes to the US system. The US is not christian - it is many beliefs mixed into one. Don't try and hijack the US with your christian morality - I find your christian views stomach churning. I don't subscribe to your views yet I certainly subscribe to the way the US system works. It's designed to keep the religious crowd at bay.

The sky will not fall, society will not crumble because of anything related to christian thinking.

Does that mean we should remove "In God we trust" from our currency too?

I'd agree that this is an attempt to achieve thru the courts what would have no chance on a ballot.

the sky hasnt fallen or society crumbled because we had god in the pledge or used to do prayers in school either. I am not the one who thinks the government will fall apart if god is mentioned in a public place. you personaly dont like christianity, you just said so, so you decide to interpret the constitution to back your personal beliefs. when I say the selfish interpretation of the constitution, this is what I am talking about. the athiests interpret it to remove something they find highly offensive, that being god, from ever having to bee seen by them anywhere. they gay activists take lines from here and there and try and make anyone who disagrees with gay marriage feel guilty for being so obviously anti constitution. "look, it says in teh constitution that gays can get married, why you!!!", its freaking sad.

Originally posted by waldo
Does that mean we should remove "In God we trust" from our currency too?
Yes.
I'd agree that this is an attempt to achieve thru the courts what would have no chance on a ballot.
Last I checked, going through the judicial system is the way to check the constitutionality of existing laws and statutes. It may be true that the majority of Americans support leaving "under God" in -- that is irrelevant. A majority of Americans supported segregation in the 60's. The majority cannot trample on the Constitution just because they're the majority.

Originally posted by Travh20
the sky hasnt fallen or society crumbled because we had god in the pledge or used to do prayers in school either. I am not the one who thinks the government will fall apart if god is mentioned in a public place. you personaly dont like christianity, you just said so, so you decide to interpret the constitution to back your personal beliefs. when I say the selfish interpretation of the constitution, this is what I am talking about. the athiests interpret it to remove something they find highly offensive, that being god, from ever having to bee seen by them anywhere. they gay activists take lines from here and there and try and make anyone who disagrees with gay marriage feel guilty for being so obviously anti constitution. "look, it says in teh constitution that gays can get married, why you!!!", its freaking sad.

Nobody said having those things in will make society crumble. Of course it wouldn't - but thats not the issue. The issue is it's offensive to people who don't believe in God. Why do Christians seem to believe they have this right? You would go nuts if the line was "Under Allah" - it's no more or less offensive to some as "Under God" - so don't call people selfish because they won't play your game - that's their perogative and it's reasonable for people to want to keep religion out. In fact - its the way this country works.

Basically it seems you believe that the constitution is fine so long as it is never enforced to put christianity in it's rightful place - a belief system that some people hold, some don't, but no more or less important than any other belief system.

LOL, yes, we need a new ammendment that guarentees the right to never be offended by anything. and go ahead and change it under allah, I dont give a crap, its the same god, different name. as I said, the word god is the english word for the supreme being, we speak english in this country last time I checked. so if you want to change the word god to another language, go ahead, I dont care. it is simply there to acnowledge that the US government is not the end all be all of power in the universe. there is something above politics and constitutions and resolutions and activists and protests and all that other crap. in this country, where the pledge is made, it is called god, in another country withanother language and another pledge, tehy call it what they call it.

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, yes, we need a new ammendment that guarentees the right to never be offended by anything. and go ahead and change it under allah, I dont give a crap, its the same god, different name. as I said, the word god is the english word for the supreme being, we speak english in this country last time I checked. so if you want to change the word god to another language, go ahead, I dont care. it is simply there to acnowledge that the US government is not the end all be all of power in the universe. there is something above politics and constitutions and resolutions and activists and protests and all that other crap. in this country, where the pledge is made, it is called god, in another country withanother language and another pledge, tehy call it what they call it.

These are just your opinions. Luckily your opinions don't count - that's why we have a constitution to protect us from one groups opinion.

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, yes, we need a new ammendment that guarentees the right to never be offended by anything. and go ahead and change it under allah, I dont give a crap, its the same god, different name.

Trav, despite your attempt to oversimplify the issue and claim that this is merely about some citizens not being "offended', the issue is whether or not government should promote one religion over another, or even promote religion at all.

it is simply there to acnowledge that the US government is not the end all be all of power in the universe. there is something above politics and constitutions and resolutions and activists and protests and all that other crap.

The constitution was not written to be an acknowledement of your religious beliefs or mine. It is a document designed to enumerate the powers and structure of the American government and political system, nothing more. If you want acknowledgement of God's powers, go to church.

I'm sorry to see that you think the Constitution is crap. Personally, I think it's one of the finest documents ever written, and hopefully will remain untainted by anyone's opinions about a supreme being.

LMAO, yes, I stated specifically that I thought the US constitution was crap :rolleyes:

The problem Trav is you think the structure of the US and christianity are tied. There is no conection.

Originally posted by Travh20
LMAO, yes, I stated specifically that I thought the US constitution was crap :rolleyes:

Well... it IS what you wrote...

there is something above politics and constitutions and resolutions and activists and protests and all that other crap.


Just out of curiosity Trav, why should the government acknowledge the existence of God?

oh come on pagan, another case of liberals being either very vague or very literal. in this case the litteral was taken. it just never ends. a good reason for the government to acknowledge the existance of god is so that its citizens can be sure that the government knows that it is not supposed to take on that role itself. just becasue a government accepts that god is above it doesnt automatically mean that it will slip into some sort of taliban theocracy. if there is no god then there is no highest moral authority. in the absence of god the government becomes the highest moral authority. this is good for those who like their morals to change as time goes by, but not for people who like morals that stay the same. a government can change rapidly, so its sense of morality can change rapidly. "gods" morals are forever, and can not change. hence, if gay marriage is wrong, its wrong, there is no document to be interpreted to make it OK all of a sudden. this is why relgion is so hated, because its morals can not easily be manipulated in the eyes of its believers, and this is a road block to those who wish to radically change the morals of a religious country.

Originally posted by Travh20
a good reason for the government to acknowledge the existance of god is so that its citizens can be sure that the government knows that it is not supposed to take on that role itself.

Very well put.

just becasue a government accepts that god is above it doesnt automatically mean that it will slip into some sort of taliban theocracy.

No it doesn't have to be automatic, but it would be a logical first step.

if there is no god then there is no highest moral authority. in the absence of god the government becomes the highest moral authority.

That's a fine idea, but since God's judgement doesn't come in this world, effectively the government is the highest moral authority.

this is good for those who like their morals to change as time goes by, but not for people who like morals that stay the same. a government can change rapidly, so its sense of morality can change rapidly. "gods" morals are forever, and can not change.

I have to disagree with you here Trav. Morals change as the society changes. While it was once morally acceptable in this country to burn witches, we no longer subscribe to that belief, even though the Bible tells us to put them to death. The same can be said of slavery, executing adulterers, and so on. Our society has decided that these practices are unworthy of a civilized nation regardless of what it says in the Bible. I'm not sure, but maybe that's not what you meant when you referred to "God's morals". What did you mean?

hence, if gay marriage is wrong, its wrong, there is no document to be interpreted to make it OK all of a sudden. this is why relgion is so hated, because its morals can not easily be manipulated in the eyes of its believers, and this is a road block to those who wish to radically change the morals of a religious country.

I don't hate religion, I do dislike people who think I should live my life according to what they believe, and I do not regard the U.S. as a religious country.

Originally posted by saycricket
LMAO!! Go Trav!

Imagining that there are this many atheist teenagers, on this board alone, literally BLOWS MY MIND!!

I'm in the questioning mood lately, in case you hadn't noticed. Here's one from before: I'm curious!! When the going gets tough and you need spiritual support, where do you "atheist" teens go? I cannot fathom that you do not have any kind of higher power that you trust in. Enlighten me, please.

no, we don't. i'm sorry if you can't bring yourself to imagine that but that's your problem not ours.

Originally posted by DrewM
Don't try and hijack the US with your christian morality - I find your christian views stomach churning. Dont try and hijack the US with you lack of morality-I find your lack of any religious views stomach churning.

Originally posted by DrewM

If taking the phrase out makes the US a Godless country - then you admit that the phrase has deep religious significance, therefore by that standard it must be removed. The pledge is a pledge to the flag, not to God. Yes...taking the "under God" part does make it a Godless country and i do admit the phrase has religious signifigance, now here's the important part, TO ME . What you get out of it, or dont get is up to you. I personally couldnt care any less than i do, what your belief system is as long as you dont try to force me to change mine. But you people dont want to see that, do you?

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yes...taking the "under God" part does make it a Godless country and i do admit the phrase has religious signifigance, now here's the important part, TO ME .

And YOU are welcome to say whatever you like when you pledge your allegiance to the flag. Did we live in a godless country before the words were added in 1954?

What you get out of it, or dont get is up to you. I personally couldnt care any less than i do, what your belief system is as long as you dont try to force me to change mine. But you people dont want to see that, do you?

How would removing the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance be an attempt to change anyone's belief?

The issue isn't about what you or anyone else believes, it's about the government insinuating itself into matters of religion. When public school teachers lead their class in reciting the pledge, it is in fact a case of the local government promoting religion, and that doesn't belong in public school.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
And YOU are welcome to say whatever you like when you pledge your allegiance to the flag. Did we live in a godless country before the words were added in 1954?I was not living anywhere in 1954 so i cannot answer that. All history is perspective, IMO. And i dont subscribe to others memory quite as much as some do.




Originally posted by Vilepagan
How would removing the words "under God" from the pledge of allegiance be an attempt to change anyone's belief?
The issue isn't about what you or anyone else believes, it's about the government insinuating itself into matters of religion. When public school teachers lead their class in reciting the pledge, it is in fact a case of the local government promoting religion, and that doesn't belong in public school. Come on Vile, are you trying to say that christianity has not been coming under direct assault from the Atheist Left for the past 20 or so years? About the pledge, i have said this already.... Do away with the pledge in its entirety, because it has no meaning anymore anyway. As some have pointed out, most of the kids dont even understand what they are saying anyway. So dont force anything on them. I say sing a Justin Timberlake song every morning in homeroom and let Janet Jackson accompany with dance steps. Failing that, just pump MTV through the vid screens in every room and let them continue eroding the morals of our children.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I was not living anywhere in 1954 so i cannot answer that. All history is perspective, IMO. And i dont subscribe to others memory quite as much as some do.

I wasn't alive in 1954 either HaVok but the point is that this pledge was never meant to have any religious significance. It was written in 1892 for a ceremony commemorating the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America. The guy who wrote it was a Baptist minister and I think if he felt God should be mentioned, he would have mentioned him. The words were added in 1954 during the "godless commie scare", and have no place in a public school setting.

Come on Vile, are you trying to say that christianity has not been coming under direct assault from the Atheist Left for the past 20 or so years?

I'm really not sure what you are referring to...could you be more specific?

“the sky hasnt fallen or society crumbled because we had god in the pledge or used to do prayers in school either. I am not the one who thinks the government will fall apart if god is mentioned in a public place. you personaly dont like christianity, you just said so, so you decide to interpret the constitution to back your personal beliefs. when I say the selfish interpretation of the constitution, this is what I am talking about. the athiests interpret it to remove something they find highly offensive, that being god, from ever having to bee seen by them anywhere. they gay activists take lines from here and there and try and make anyone who disagrees with gay marriage feel guilty for being so obviously anti constitution. "look, it says in teh constitution that gays can get married, why you!!!", its freaking sad.”

TRAV you are crazy

Our society didn’t fall when we didn’t have it in our pledge, aka before 1954…meaning if we take it out, it won’t fall again! Look Trev, our society didn’t collapse when we didn’t have it in, and I doubt it will collapse if we get rid of it, now.

Trav, our society didn’t collapse when we allowed same-races getting married (for they now use the same argunments against Gays, as they did back then for same-race marrying). So I doubt again, our society will collapse, if we allow gay marriage...

Saying “God”, in any form goes to any religion that may believe in a God. God itself is associated with Religion, and religion is not in our government, as it says in our constitution.

So saying we are bending over backwards for the atheists, is just a way to defend your Christian thinking. It’s what are founding fathers’ wanted; they wanted a religious free government, that is WHY THEY DID NOT ORGINALLY PUT IT IN THE PLEDGE...

Originally posted by HaVoK
Yes...taking the "under God" part does make it a Godless country and i do admit the phrase has religious signifigance, now here's the important part, TO ME . What you get out of it, or dont get is up to you. I personally couldnt care any less than i do, what your belief system is as long as you dont try to force me to change mine. But you people dont want to see that, do you?

Nobody is trying to force you to change your religious views. Have whatever views you like, that is upto you, but when it comes to christian views - save it for those that care less - the people at church on Sunday. You have your private views and I can have mine and lets keep the pledge of allegance and anything else related to the USA out of it because the US has nothing to do with your religious views or mine.

Originally posted by saycricket
LMAO!! Go Trav!

Imagining that there are this many atheist teenagers, on this board alone, literally BLOWS MY MIND!!

I'm in the questioning mood lately, in case you hadn't noticed. Here's one from before: I'm curious!! When the going gets tough and you need spiritual support, where do you "atheist" teens go? I cannot fathom that you do not have any kind of higher power that you trust in. Enlighten me, please.

I also would like to know how hard it must be for you NOT to say the words "Under God" while in a large homeroom with half of the students probably not even reciting the Pledge as it is. Like Trav said, I'm sure there are other reasons that you are so called "being picked on".

I think that sometimes it's the status quo these days - to stand out to make a "stand". There are so many more important things to worry about...you'll see that as you get older. You have buckets of teen wisdom now. Wait until life slaps you in the face.

I don't need spiritual guidance. if I need help I get support from my freinds and family.
there are tons of kids who "stand out" becasue it's cool. I do what I do becasue that's what I beleive in. I'm not the type of kid to contradict everyhting authority says just to be contrary. I find it incredibly immature to do that. I know I'm not an adult yet,but that doesn't make my beleifs any less valid.


Trav: just look at precedents set in the past. a few decades ago there were christians saying that interracial marraiges would be the downfall of maerican society. it looks to me like we;re still running just fine, the same argumentsa were used for the gay marraige thing, and everyone turned out ok, right?

Havok: just becasue god is your sourceo fmorality doesn't mena it is everyone's. if there is no mention of god in government, thna everyone can have their own opinions porivately, without them being intruded on. I'm not asking for the pledge to say not under god, just for it to not mention god.

Originally posted by WhammyBar
Havok: just becasue god is your sourceo fmorality doesn't mena it is everyone's. if there is no mention of god in government, thna everyone can have their own opinions porivately, without them being intruded on. I'm not asking for the pledge to say not under god, just for it to not mention god. No, but you are asking for the pledge to be changed to suit your views.

I wonder if you would answer a personal question for me? Does the pledge create any sense of pride of this country to you?

Originally posted by HaVoK
No, but you are asking for the pledge to be changed to suit your views.
That's exactly how "under God" got in there in the first place.

Originally posted by Overdose
Supreme Court Takes Up 'Under God' Case

1 hour, 15 minutes ago


By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Americans overwhelmingly want the phrase "under God" preserved in the Pledge of Allegiance, a new poll says as the Supreme Court examines whether the classroom salute crosses the division of church and state.


AP Photo



Almost nine in 10 people said the reference to God belongs in the pledge despite constitutional questions about the separation of church and state, according to an Associated Press poll.

The Supreme Court was hearing arguments Wednesday from a California atheist who objected to the daily pledges in his 9-year-old daughter's classroom. He sued her school and won, setting up the landmark appeal before a court that has repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.

The pledge is different, argue officials at Elk Grove Unified School District near Sacramento, where the girl attends school. Superintendent Dave Gordon said popular opinion is on their side — but that's not all.

"It's not a popularity contest. If something is wrong, it should be corrected. No matter how many people support it," he said. "The argument that `under God' in the pledge is pushing religion on children is wrong on the law. It's also wrong from a commonsense perspective."

God was not part of the original pledge written in 1892. Congress inserted it in 1954, after lobbying by religious leaders during the Cold War. Since then, it has become a familiar part of life for a generation of students.

The question put to the Supreme Court: Does the use of the pledge in public schools violate the Constitution's ban on government established religion?

Michael Newdow, the father who filed the lawsuit, compared the controversy to the issue of segregation in schools, which the Supreme Court took up 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education.

"Aren't we a better nation because we got rid of that stuff?" asked Newdow, a 50-year-old lawyer and doctor arguing his own case at the court.

The AP poll, conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, found college graduates were more likely than those who did not have a college degree to say the phrase "under God" should be removed. Democrats and independents were more likely than Republicans to think the phrase should be taken out.

Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother's consent.

The girl's mother, Sandra Banning, is a born-again Christian and supporter of the pledge.

Absent from the case is one of the court's most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow's favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance&cid=558&ncid=716

I don't believe the direction this country is headed. Total kaos
One nation under God indivisable with justice and liberty for
all.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
That's exactly how "under God" got in there in the first place. Im talking about now, not some distant time when you and I were not even sparkles in our father's eyes.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
That's exactly how "under God" got in there in the first place.


under god was put there by a vote in congress borg, not the supreme court. if it is to be removed it should be voted out. you know it wont, the guy startinga all this knows it too, just another example of activists using the courts to change legislation they dont like or doesnt agree to thier way of life, instead of putting it to a vote. the civil rights act was passed by legislation, not the supreme court.

The Supreme Court is used to see if a “law”, or anything else in our Government is unconstitutional. This “under God” issue could be deemed unconstitutional, and it’s not the senate’s job to take up this or create a vote, because a lot of the voters in the senate will vote religiously, and the Supreme Court can only go by the constitution. Which is exactly why the Supreme Court takes up these acts…because it’s not up to the “people” or the Senate, because adding this in (under God) is one thing, that was done by our “people representatives” and it’s the Supreme Courts job to interpret it and see if it is constitutional or not.

If I remember correctly, (I MAY BE WRONG), but wasn’t it the Supreme Court that ruled interracial marriage, unconstitutional? And it was the senate, or state laws, who said it should never occur? Meaning if we had the senate vote, it would have passed and we would still be debating this issue. So that proves that the Supreme Court was designed to get rid of one sided opinions, and to make a fair, and constitutional vote.

More Info:

Now if that is to hold true, the Supreme Court is to counter act majority rule, like it was in America at the time. For if we lived in a “majority ruled” nation we would still be debating these very issues today…and again we would be debating these issues, again if the senate were to vote on these issues.

uh huh, keep spinning....

Originally posted by Hope Barclay
I don't believe the direction this country is headed. Total kaos
One nation under God indivisable with justice and liberty for
all.

There will not be total chaos. Do you think punk kids suddenly change their mind every morning and decide to be upstanding citizens when they recite the pledge?

"uh huh, keep spinning...." ~Trav

Great defense

Originally posted by HaVoK
No, but you are asking for the pledge to be changed to suit your views.

This is the major flaw in your argument (an argument you use not only on this issue). If it were changed to suit my views it would be "not under christianity" instead of "under God" - everybody could have their own pet version that suited their views.

The point is - to remove it so it doesn't reflect anybodies views when it comes to religion, because religion does not belong there.

Right now - (A) it reflects YOUR views and ignores my views and (B) - it doesn't belong there in the first place. This is the case presented to the supremes and it's an argument that holds water.

By removing it then neither my views nor your views are suited. This is how it has to be when it comes to religious views and government because religious views are diverse and inherently a personal thing. The basis upon which the US system and by consequence the pledge is based is not diverse - it is clear cut. Religion, whatever religion that maybe - is a pollutant.

Originally posted by Travh20
under god was put there by a vote in congress borg, not the supreme court. if it is to be removed it should be voted out. you know it wont, the guy startinga all this knows it too, just another example of activists using the courts to change legislation they dont like or doesnt agree to thier way of life, instead of putting it to a vote. the civil rights act was passed by legislation, not the supreme court.

It's hardly relevant how the system moves towards correction. The system - legislative, judicial and executive work as a synergy. No branch has more legitamacy than the other - they are all legitimate and act in the way they were designed to do. So, your argument that action through the judicial branch is somehow less valid than action via the legislative branch is retarded not to mention a gross lack of understanding of what each branch is capable of doing.

But, to address your point that it was voted in. Yes, it was - by whom? By a bunch of christians! - How many people ran for congress in 1954 on a platform of aithiesm? er - none Trav.

As much as you hate to accept it - the system is designed to correct for bigotry & although it may often take many years to fulfill it's promise - it does so. Watch and learn Trav - this is the system in action before your very eyes.

Oh - I almost forgot

Hope Barclay - Welcome to the forums :)

Trav if you didn’t understand my last post I’ll reword it for you…because you seem to have not gotten the clear picture.

The reason it is going to be sent to the Supreme Court is because the Senate has opinions that directly reflect the people of America. Our senators directly reflect what the views we Americans have, since they are our voted reprehensives'.

So the reason we do have this “under God” issue in the Supreme Court is because it eliminates opinions that do not co-inside with the constitution. The Supreme Court was made for this specific reason, to interpret rules, laws and any actions by the Senate; to interpret it to be constitutional or not.

The actions by the Senate are being interpreted this very moment. To see if “under God” is constitutional or not. Meaning if the Senate were to vote, they would not vote on that premise but on their opinions, and the views of Americans. That is again, why the Supreme Court was created.

If we were to have these issues debated in the Senate, we would be debating Women’s right to vote, Inter-Racial Marriage and many other issues…for the Senate would be voting by the majority rule of America, and that is not what America is, we are not majority rule. So the majority can think what it wants, but the Supreme Court is to eliminate opinions, and they are there to see if it’s constitutional.

The majority thought blacks and whites should not marry, but the Supreme Court voted, and then they got to marry. If it had gone threw the senate we would be debating this now.

Face it, all the Republicans that say "IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE SENATE" are only saying that because they know "under God" is unconstitutional; for our founding fathers created this document and didn't originally have it in there. So Trav, turn off the Talk Radio, and think in reality.

Originally posted by DrewM
It's hardly relevant how the system moves towards correction. The system - legislative, judicial and executive work as a synergy. No branch has more legitamacy than the other - they are all legitimate and act in the way they were designed to do. So, your argument that action through the judicial branch is somehow less valid than action via the legislative branch is retarded not to mention a gross lack of understanding of what each branch is capable of doing.

But, to address your point that it was voted in. Yes, it was - by whom? By a bunch of christians! - How many people ran for congress in 1954 on a platform of aithiesm? er - none Trav.

As much as you hate to accept it - the system is designed to correct for bigotry & although it may often take many years to fulfill it's promise - it does so. Watch and learn Trav - this is the system in action before your very eyes.

*applauds*

Trav, you may not believe it and you may not like it, but this country is not about "majority rule". If it was this country would only have laws that favored white, heterosexual, christians. This country has a constitution that demands that the majority cannot deny rights to the minority. The government was wisely set up so that the three branches of government balanced each other in their powers. When the legislative branch passes a law that favors the majority over the minority, it is the job of the judicial branch to check the powers of the legislature. You may falsely refer to them as "judicial activists" all you want, but they are just doing exactly what they are supposed to do, check the powers of the legislature. Welcome to the United States.

One last point...if you really believe in "majority rule", remember that a majority of the citizens in this country are female...

“One last point...if you really believe in "majority rule", remember that a majority of the citizens in this country are female...”

Many women, didn’t protest, or fight for their rights…a lot thought it was their place to stay second class. I’m not trying to say a lot didn’t fight, but a lot thought it was “un-lady like”…or their husband's controlled them.

But back then was the majority women? And not many women were in the Senate. Or the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by Overdose

The majority thought blacks and whites should not marry, but the Supreme Court voted, and then they got to marry. If it had gone threw the senate we would be debating this now.
You know, you use the race analogy a lot on a variety of different topics. We're talking about the Pledge right now, not interracial marriage. Get a new arguement please.

“You know, you use the race analogy a lot on a variety of different topics. We're talking about the Pledge right now, not interracial marriage. Get a new arguement please.”

I use it because it provides a great analogy because it proves that we are just repeating the history of America 20th century style. If this argument wasn’t a good one, you’d be all for me using it, because you could disagree with it. Instead, you want me to stop using it, because it makes perfect sense.

Overdose:

Face it, all the Republicans that say "IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH THE SENATE" are only saying that because they know "under God" is unconstitutional; for our founding fathers created this document and didn't originally have it in there. So Trav, turn off the Talk Radio, and think in reality.

I agree with what you're saying, but the Pledge of Allegiance was not written until 1892. The founding fathers had nothing to do with it. The pledge was written by a Baptist minister who was trying to come up with a ceremony to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America.

“I agree with what you're saying, but the Pledge of Allegiance was not written until 1892. The founding fathers had nothing to do with it. The pledge was written by a Baptist minister who was trying to come up with a ceremony to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' discovery of America.”

Ahh, thanks for the info…

But at least those people from that era, understood what the found fathers were trying to do.

I mean honestly, no religion in out Government.

God is a religious figure, no matter how you look at it.

GOD - An omiscent and omnipotent being, creator of the universe.

Religion - Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe

Atheism - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods

The pledge of allegience is currently respected by congress.

First, this is an infringement upon the first amendment and no one can deny it. To say that the word 'God' means Allah, Jesus ect.. is obviously flawed because of atheists, budists and many other religions who do not believe in God under the definition we have given him.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Where is TRAV?

I am right here, what do you want?

you are...? you haven't posted in awhile, you must have nothing more to say, to prove us wrong. Come on, I know you have more in you!

I am not going to retype everythign again, just go back and look at what I said earlier in the post. jsut because soomeone breaks out a dictionary doesnt mean I am going to rehash everything I have already said.

Everything you've said has been proven wrong....but nice try

proven wrong? LOL, you can no more prove me wrong in this issue than you can prove yourself right. lets see what the supremes say. I think they are the ones to decide who is wrong and who is right, not you.

aww, at least you understand why it goes to the Supreme Court, and not the Senate....lol...that was great...you sure do know a lot about our Government...

I am not saying that I think it should be a court issue, thats where it is. why do you have such ahard time just accepting reality little man?

“I am not saying that I think it should be a court issue, thats where it is. why do you have such ahard time just accepting reality little man?”

What reality are you talking about, Trav. The reality that you think it should go to the Senate? The reality that is incorrect? The reality that is pointless, and proven wrong, as we have shown in our previous posts?

Originally posted by Travh20
proven wrong? LOL, you can no more prove me wrong in this issue than you can prove yourself right. lets see what the supremes say. I think they are the ones to decide who is wrong and who is right, not you.

Do me a favor Trav, if the Supreme Court Rules in favor of Mr. Newdow, let's not hear any crap from you about "activist judges"...ok? :D

fine whatever, jsut get this sorry cheesedick overdose off my ass. the kid is like a knat who wont go away. heres reality for you man, when you live more in reality then in fairytale land, you will no longe be a liberal.

lol, so I'm assuming that almost half, if not more of Americans who are liberal are living in a fairy land...

Hard to believe, yes...and I think maybe you need to wake up and jump back in reality. You didn't even know how our courts system was set up...honestly Trav...you say I'm a knot in your back, but you are just as much of a pain in mine.

Again, don't ask for help, to "get me off you", you’re a big boy...just deal with it.

I did as you asked Trav, I read through all of your posts on this thread and I didn't see a defense. I saw complaints about all the atheists and gays, but there was really no defense against what I wrote.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

God pertains to religions. Congress is respecting the pledge. Therefore Congress is respecting religion, which is unconstitutional. Which part of that do you disagree with?

Originally posted by Travh20
fine whatever, jsut get this sorry cheesedick overdose off my ass. the kid is like a knat who wont go away. heres reality for you man, when you live more in reality then in fairytale land, you will no longe be a liberal.

I live in Wisconsin and we have cheeseheads...what's a cheesedick?

Btw is your new avatar from the movie "The Passion"?

LOL, I should have known you would be interested in the cheesedick thing, LOL. and no, the picture is of Jim Morrison, you are the 2nd person to think that was jesus.

Originally posted by Travh20
LOL, I should have known you would be interested in the cheesedick thing, LOL. and no, the picture is of Jim Morrison, you are the 2nd person to think that was jesus.

Ahhhh...a Doors fan...

yes, the doors rule

Originally posted by Travh20
proven wrong? LOL, you can no more prove me wrong in this issue than you can prove yourself right. lets see what the supremes say. I think they are the ones to decide who is wrong and who is right, not you.

Come on Trav - Unless you simply just don't understand how the US system works, even if you didn't - you should now after being educated on that in this thread, you can not claim to have any argument that holds water. What you do have is a desire to see it stay and a disdain for liberals. That's fine, but it doesn't win you the argument. You lost the argument hands down.

^^ Agree

I agree that Trav lost the argument, but I do agree with him when he said The Doors rule...:D