http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=1&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance

The question of constitutionality of "under god" in the pledge remains unanswered as the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff didn't have sufficient custody to sue on behalf of his child....

What a disappointing decision!

Originally posted by Leper
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=1&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance

The question of constitutionality of "under god" in the pledge remains unanswered as the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff didn't have sufficient custody to sue on behalf of his child....

What a disappointing decision!

Damn...what a way to weasel out of a decision...:mad:

librul reliance on judicial activism to advance their agenda comes to a screeching halt.

Originally posted by Travh20
librul reliance on judicial activism to advance their agenda comes to a screeching halt.

Trav, take the "librul" agenda and stick it...if you have nothing substantive to say about the SC ruling, kindly keep your childish insults to yourself.

The issue I have with their decision is not what they decided, but the fact that they did not decide the case on its merits, they decided it on a proceduaral matter. They basically said that the most important issue in the case was not the separation of church and state, but rather, who had custody of this particular child.

Actually they made the right decision. A person cannot bring a case before a court if they do not have custody of that kid. What the supreme court is doing is waiting until a lower court rules on the custody question. If he is not the legal guardian then he has no case to bring.

I know all the God haters don't like that but that is the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The 9th Circuit Court can only get you so far...

Originally posted by The Republican
Actually they made the right decision. A person cannot bring a case before a court if they do not have custody of that kid. What the supreme court is doing is waiting until a lower court rules on the custody question. If he is not the legal guardian then he has no case to bring.

I understand why they made the decision they did, I'm just disappointed that they chose to ignore the larger issue that was before the court. (the separation of church and state)

I know all the God haters don't like that but that is the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it. The 9th Circuit Court can only get you so far...

Now you're starting to sound like Trav...if someone believes in the separation of church and state, they must hate God. :rolleyes:

Would you allow them to change god to Allah? Would that be acceptable in this country? Islam is the fastest growing religion in here, perhaps our "pledge" should reflect that.

Just because I want to see church seperated from government does not mean I hate god.:@@:

God is not mentioned in my constitution.

My refference was to Michael Newdow who has made it quite clear that he hates God...not people that support seperation of Church and state.

I do not think the Supreme Court is ignoring the Seperation of Church and State issue...merely they are waiting to see if Newdow can even lawfully bring the lawsuit. If he legally and technically cannot then there is no way in which the case can even be heard.

As for seperation of Church and State why is it that people love to back this when it means removing the Church's influence on government but shy away from it when the government influences the Church? Seperation of Church and state is a two way street. Besides our government is not supposed to endorse any one religion...so by mentioning God which religion are we endorsing. We are given freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

yes, michael newdow, bastione of american conservatism :rolleyes:

Another fight between someones belief and another being offended.
I have said a thousand times, if you believe in Allah, Budda or none then insert the appropiate name in the pledge.
If you want to use Mickey, or maybe even Michael Jordan then just say, One nation under Michael Jordan.
I have the right to say God, place a cross on my lawn(even though I wont) or pray in public if I so decide. And yes others have the right not to.
I am tired of hearing, Oh it offends me... So you cant do it again.
We are a nation of differences and embracing those differences is not trying to remove all that is different.
So lets celebrate the differences and stop whining about being offended by a word in a tradition that is truly American.
This nation has many historical ties to God and many references to Christianity from almost every President. Other nations do not remove the religious beliefs of their founders because of immigrants or others saying they are offended. I am offended by the push to remove God from all aspects of this country.

I would say that on this one I have a conservative view.
I do not see that the statement, one nation under God, is a combination of state and religion.
As far as I know the belief in God, in itself, is not a religion.
When I think of religion I consider it to be an organization of people. This organization could be founded upon any ideal from Satanism to Idol worship.

Where do we draw the line? At what point do we, as a nation, say stop letting a few individuals change our National Inheritance.
America has stood for many years as the example of a proud and free people. Changes to appease every joker that comes along will eventually create something that was not before.
A national vote could determine if the American people want changes.
I say leave the Great Lady alone. She has served us well as She is. God, I'm proud to be an American. :)

I agree Dan, I am proud to be an American as long as I can be an American.
I am afraid that PC will turn us into generic people without a national heritage or personal identity.

To me a seperation of State and religion would be stopping people from depriving the United States of tax money by contributing to religious organizations and taking the deduction off their income tax. In essence this money is government tax money used for the furtherment of mans religions.

See my point. Where would it stop? Every person has ideas, including me, of changes.

I do not believe that churches or other groups should be tax exempt anyway. I also think that a seperation of Church and State is only designed to keep the Church from dictating policy or passing laws governing morality. Well the cross on the LA County seal, the line in the pledge, the ten commandments in alabama do not cross those lines. SO why are we making them go away. Why was it so bad to put up a sign after 9/11 that said , God Bless America?
Those who are threatened are offended, if you dont believe why are you threatened? Why is it that a group of atheist go around forcing prayers to be stopped before meetings and even sporting events? If you dont believe then dont pray, but let those that believe pray without harrassment.
When a Bishop or Minister starts dictating laws to us then we can worry about it then.
It is my right to have God in My Pledge Of Allegiance.

I know all the God haters don't like that but that is the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it.
I don't believe in God, I respect people who do. You obviously believe in God, and don't respect those who do not believe.

Originally posted by WindWip
I don't believe in God, I respect people who do. You obviously believe in God, and don't respect those who do not believe.

I guess if you had read the whole thread you would have seen this...

Originally posted by The Republican
My refference was to Michael Newdow who has made it quite clear that he hates God...not people that support seperation of Church and state.

Where did I say I have no respect for those that do not believe in God? I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. But for the record I have no respect for a person like Michael Newdow.

As for seperation of Church and State why is it that people love to back this when it means removing the Church's influence on government but shy away from it when the government influences the Church?
The state is not supposed to be run by the church, though the church must obey the laws of the government. Is that what you were getting at?
Seperation of Church and state is a two way street. It is not a two way street. The government lays down laws which infringe on the abilities of all citizens and churches as well. The church does not lay down the law.
Besides our government is not supposed to endorse any one religion...so by mentioning God which religion are we endorsing. We are given freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
We aren't endorsing atheists. So obviously it is not a freedom of religion.

What has the government done to stop you from practicing your religion, as long as it is not infringing upon others? How would removing God from our government be a freedom from religion?

WindWip you are right the Church should not control the state, and once again does a small cross on the LA County Seal, God in the PLedge control anything?
No it does not, so then it doesnt even come under the seperation guidelines.
I dont understand why GOd in the pledge is so threatening. If you believe in Allah or nothing then change the words to match you views but do not force your views upon me. That is the way I see this debate, my feelings do not count because I believe, but if I was an atheist then I would have the right to have a cross removed from private property because it is offensive.
Being offended is a two way street.

Originally posted by The Republican
Where did I say I have no respect for those that do not believe in God? I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth.
I guess you corrected it. But originally you stated, "I know all the God haters don't like that but that is the law as the Supreme Court has interpreted it"
If you were referring to Michael Newdow when you said, "all the God haters" then you were not being very clear about it. It looked as if it was directed at atheists.

Originally posted by WindWip
It is not a two way street. The government lays down laws which infringe on the abilities of all citizens and churches as well. The church does not lay down the law.

No, you are wrong. It is a two way street. Nothing in Church doctrine is against the law so there is no conflict there. However the state cannot tell the church what it can and cannot worship or how they have to change their doctrine.

do not force your views upon me
I understand where you are coming from Beirut.
God was added to the pledge. It was not originally there, nor should it have been. I do not wish to force my beliefs upon others and do not wish for them to force them upon me. When I see "under god" it is particular to theists.
When you see, "one nation, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all" how is that forcing beliefs on you?

Originally posted by The Republican
However the state cannot tell the church what it can and cannot worship or how they have to change their doctrine.
I agree, but only so long as the doctrine is within the laws.
What issue did you have with that?

Originally posted by WindWip
I understand where you are coming from Beirut.
God was added to the pledge. It was not originally there, nor should it have been. I do not wish to force my beliefs upon others and do not wish for them to force them upon me. When I see "under god" it is particular to theists.
When you see, "one nation, indivisible, for liberty and justice for all" how is that forcing beliefs on you?
How is the mention of God a problem, it is not asking you to stop and pray. I am sure that many people talk about Santa and I dont believe in him and yet I am not offended.
Taking away what maybe keeping people on the good side of morality could be a bad thing. Removing God from the pledge and a cross from the seal could be what is causing the rise in juvenile homicides. I am not saying it is but it could be, I am offended by removing God from the pledge because this nation was founded under God
I would never ask anyone to remove a part of their cultural identity so that I am more comfortable.
Again it is not what was intended by Seperation of Church and State. What was intended was a way to keep someone elses morality out of our lawmaking process.
Again it is not a prayer, it is a statement of fact, whether you believe or not, we were founded upon those beliefs and under God.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
How is the mention of God a problem, it is not asking you to stop and pray. I am sure that many people talk about Santa and I dont believe in him and yet I am not offended.
Taking away what maybe keeping people on the good side of morality could be a bad thing. Removing God from the pledge and a cross from the seal could be what is causing the rise in juvenile homicides. I am not saying it is but it could be, I am offended by removing God from the pledge because this nation was founded under God
I would never ask anyone to remove a part of their cultural identity so that I am more comfortable.
Again it is not what was intended by Seperation of Church and State. What was intended was a way to keep someone elses morality out of our lawmaking process.
Again it is not a prayer, it is a statement of fact, whether you believe or not, we were founded upon those beliefs and under God.
All I have to say is: no we weren't. Yes, the Puritans, etc. may well have been Christian, but they did not found this nation. We were founded in 1776 as a nation which professes no state religion whatsoever.

most dissapointing

I believe they are reciting a lie. Also I am offended because they are having kids in school recite this, which indirectly influences their beliefs. If in school the kids were told to recite, "Communism is a perfect way of life" and the rest of the communist manifesto how would you feel?

Taking away what maybe keeping people on the good side of morality could be a bad thing. Removing God from the pledge and a cross from the seal could be what is causing the rise in juvenile homicides.
The two words, "under god" could not cause that. You are going out on a limb there.
I am offended by removing God from the pledge because this nation was founded under God
How is that? Merely because many of them believed in a god?
That does not make it founded under God. That does not mean that God exists either.
Again it is not what was intended by Seperation of Church and State. What was intended was a way to keep someone elses morality out of our lawmaking process. I agree, but also this nation was founded on a belief that there would be a freedom of religion. If our pledge said "under Allah" how would u feel? What about "under Chu Jung"

Founding documetns would differ with you Borg, first the Mayflower Compact

The Mayflower Compact 1620

"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

Now the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -

These people believed in a god, but that does not mean that our country was founded "under God". By saying "under God" you are saying that God exists, and in a country with a freedom of religion, that is infringing upon atheist beliefs as well as those who are agnostic and those who believe in multiple gods. It is not a freedom of religion.

Originally posted by WindWip
These people believed in a god, but that does not mean that our country was founded "under God". By saying "under God" you are saying that God exists, and in a country with a freedom of religion, that is infringing upon atheist beliefs as well as those who are agnostic and those who believe in multiple gods. It is not a freedom of religion.
Being an atheist doesnt entitle one to protection under freedom of religion as it is not a religion.
But it doesnt say that there is a God nor does it say there isnt a God, just that we were founded upon the principles of our beliefs.
As far as the other religious beliefs substituing their God in would be acceptable. But removing God from the pledge is a violation of my rights so how do we correct the problem?

Originally posted by The Republican
We are given freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

but shouldn't we? is freedom from religion something you don't beleive in?

Wind you said you believe they are reciting a lie, but I believe that it is the truth.
So are we to remove my rights on the basis of your belief? See there is no evidence to support either side, and since this is not part of Church and State Seperation why is it we are even arguing this point?
It doenst make children believe in God anymore than learning about the Pilgrims and Puritans does. As a matter of fact I doubt alot of young children even notice it.
I know there are a lot of people who do not feel that we have justice for all, should that be removed as well? Is that not also a lie?
We should have the freedom to decide for ourselves in a nationwide vote.

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

This shows that no religion should be forced upon anyone in the United States of America. That means the words “under God” implies that our Government is established as a nation that believes in “God"

Saying God in the pledge of allegiance, is telling the general population that God is what you should believe in and what everyone has intended you to believe. This goes against everything our country stands for, freedom of religion.

Some of the reasons for God in the pledge are that our country was founded upon God & Christianity. So in return, we should be able to teach our history, by saying God in the pledge. But if you look in the history of America, it was added in during the 60’s (I believe) and it is actually going against the very history of our nation.

We also left England to escape religious pressure, and in return our country was founded on the Freedom Of religion, not Christianity. Having God in the pledge implies that we should believe in “God” because we are told to say it in our Government, which is supposed to be equal and fair to all religions.

If we are going to have God, we should also have the Buda, and every other “religious figure” in the pledge…sadly it just says “God”. Which that in return makes all Atheists (and other religions that don't have just one "God") feel pressured to believe in God, because our pledge, that we are required to say, in our Government institutions (school) has God in it.

Originally posted by Overdose
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” –Bill of Rights, Amendment I


The pledge is not a law, so I guess what I said earlier that it doesnt apply here is correct still.
Also if a law was passed removing it, or ruling then it might violate the amendment. As it would respect the establishment of a religion....

In 1954 Congress made it a law, that the pledge had to have "under God" written in it.

it seem swindwip and the others think there is a part of the constituion that says you are guarenteed to never be offended. as much as it offends you to hear the word god it offends others just as much to have it removed. it seems people like you are using the constitution to advance your personel beliefs, as it is very convienient that you are such a strict constitutionalist when it comes to "under god", but you have no qualms about completly changing the 2nd ammendment or maybe even abolishing it all togehter. If someone is for the constituiton anda ll of its part I respect their arguments, but to pick and choose what parts are so important as to be taken word for word is rideculous

The PLedge was never a law, or even a law that you have to recite it.

n 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge

Only congressional actions in 1954 on the pledge

They added the words in Congress, and they established a sense of religion, by placing "God" in the pledge.

ya, you said that 2 times already

And Congress is not allowed to establish religion, and they did so when the inserted “Under God” in the pledge.

Originally posted by Overdose
And Congress is not allowed to establish religion, and they did so when the inserted “Under God” in the pledge.
The amendment says shall make NO LAW, it is not a law... Congress mentions God in the record everyday.

If the pledge is not something that isn’t to be dealt with in a “law” manner, then exactly why did they have to go through congress to change the pledge?

Originally posted by Overdose
If the pledge is not something that isn’t to be dealt with in a “law” manner, then exactly why did they have to go through congress to change the pledge?
To make it a part of the official record.
Also being part of our heritage doesnt make it a law.
By the way this has been challenged a couple of times and it is still standing as it was in 1954, if it offends you then just dont say it.
There is no amendment that says you have the right to be happy all the time. Sometimes we are offended, that is what diversity is all about.
If you go through life saying I am offended then it will be a horrid journey and a waste of a life.
Not everything you disagree with is offensive, and vice versa. I am not offended by every person I disagree with, I am only offended when they start telling me how to live.
If you dont believe then say One Nation Under clouds.... Make up something else, it is not a prayer because it mentions God, it doesnt ask God for anything. If that was true then you have prayed alot in this thread.

BV my teacher in my class told me I had to stand up and say the pledge, at least once a week, because it was required. So in our Government (schools) they are requiring kids to say a pledge, that implies the belief in God. Whether you say it or not, it is still spoken, in the classroom of a Government instituted area.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV my teacher in my class told me I had to stand up and say the pledge, at least once a week, because it was required. So in our Government (schools) they are requiring kids to say a pledge, that implies the belief in God. Whether you say it or not, it is still spoken, in the classroom of a Government instituted area.
Since when does congress control state run schools?
Yes it was mandatory in school, but not because it is a law, if you dont do it they may punish you but not arrest you.
Also just dont say God, no problem there.
Why change it when anyone could substitue their god or lack of in that line?
If that was grounds for punishment then I would say that was a violation but not that pledge itself or the inclusion of God.
I was told I couldnt pray quietly in school, so of course I did.( Not because I am overly religious, didnt even go to church. But because I wanted to challenge an infringement on my rights) So I was suspended and my parents fought it and I was reinstated. But I didnt go to the Supreme Court and try to make you act in a manner you didnt want to.

It is in a pledge, in the government, that is required by the federal government. You don’t have to say "God", but that does not stop that person from hearing it, and thinking “Hey, maybe I should believe in God, because it is in our Governments pledge, which I implying the belief in God”

Originally posted by Overdose
It is in a pledge, in the government, that is required by the federal government. You don’t have to say "God", but that does not stop that person from hearing it, and thinking “Hey, maybe I should believe in God, because it is in our Governments pledge, which I implying the belief in God”
It is not required by the federal government to say it, it is up to the local school districts. If it was required you could be arrested and charged with a federal crime for not saying it, thats not happening.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Well the cross on the LA County seal, the line in the pledge, the ten commandments in alabama do not cross those lines. SO why are we making them go away. Why was it so bad to put up a sign after 9/11 that said , God Bless America?[/i]

I think it was (or is) considered "bad" by different people because it only represented one aspect of America -- those that believe in God. At that time, the sign was to represent that the United States had unified in the face of a terrible threat and dangerous enemy, but that sign meant to signal unity excluded those who didn't believe in God, those who believed in a different God, or those who believed in more than one god and so on. We are [one] of the most diverse countries in the world. People from just about every corner of the globe reside here and add, from their roots, a little to America's "culture." "Under God" puts just some of our people in a "good" light while leaving out the rest of our people. And that's why I think so many people had a probem with it. The same goes for the 10 Commandments and such. I mean, the courthouse is there to serve everyone in that state, people who embrace God and those who don't. If people want to bring "America" together or express this or that, they should consider ALL of America, just not those who love God.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Those who are threatened are offended, if you dont believe why are you threatened? Why is it that a group of atheist go around forcing prayers to be stopped before meetings and even sporting events?

My above argument applies to this, also.


Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
If you dont believe then dont pray, but let those that believe pray without harrassment.

There's a difference between praying in the privacy of your own home and having someone lead a prayer at the start of a football game. It all comes down to what America is and who is being excluded when who does what. If the next Bears VS Seahawks game was began with a prayer towards Mecca, you wouldn't be too happy, would you? Probably not. But then, it SHOULD be accepted. It should because Americans believe in Allah, too, not just God (or whoever else). But it won't be because people just can't seem to realize America is all kinds of people, not just God-believers.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Yes it was mandatory in school, but not because it is a law, if you dont do it they may punish you but not arrest you.

But it's not supposed to be that way. The Supreme Court Case Tinker VS Des Moines established that students don't lose their Constitutional rights once they're on school grounds -- they still apply. If a student believes there isn't a God, he's entitled to that belief under the First Amendment and legally shouldn't be punished by the school if he doesn't say the Pledge.

But it doesnt say that there is a God nor does it say there isnt a God, just that we were founded upon the principles of our beliefs.
It says that there is a God. The pledge says "under God". You cannot debate that.
as far as the other religious beliefs substituing their God in would be acceptable. But removing God from the pledge is a violation of my rights so how do we correct the problem?
Not all other religious beliefs can substitute their God. Many believe in multiple Gods and as I said before, atheists and agnostics do not neccessarily believe in a God.
You said that atheists are not a religion. They have a belief, but because of a word you try to deny them a voice?
Very well then
Religion
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I believe that atheists fit into that definition.
Now how is it violating your rights?
If you dont believe then dont pray, but let those that believe pray without harrassment.
I am harrassing no one. Taking out the words "under God" is not hindering anyone from praying.
Wind you said you believe they are reciting a lie, but I believe that it is the truth.
I was responding to your questioning as to why I was offended
It doenst make children believe in God anymore than learning about the Pilgrims and Puritans does. As a matter of fact I doubt alot of young children even notice it.
It is implying that God exists. Having children repeat it is a method of learning. Just like reciting the communist manifesto.
I know there are a lot of people who do not feel that we have justice for all, should that be removed as well? Is that not also a lie?
Tell me why it should be removed. I am giving reasons for why "under god" should be removed, you have given none except that a few people dislike justice for all.

Originally posted by Travh20
it seem swindwip and the others think there is a part of the constituion that says you are guarenteed to never be offended.
Your logic has been floundering lately trav...
as much as it offends you to hear the word god it offends others just as much to have it removed.
It is not a matter of whether or not someone is offended. It matters that
1) there is a clear seperation of church and state in our laws
2) it is not representitive of all religions, which breaches the freedom of religion, one of the foundations for our country
it seems people like you are using the constitution to advance your personel beliefs, as it is very convienient that you are such a strict constitutionalist when it comes to "under god", but you have no qualms about completly changing the 2nd ammendment or maybe even abolishing it all togehter.
The constitution is called a living document that can be debated and revised. Yes, parts of it are outdated and I disagree with them, but until they are changed I will abide by them. Which part of this is giving you troubles?

As I read these posts I realize that it may be a good thing that because of my age I am on the way out instead of on the way in.
I will not live to see this once great country fall to the way-side.
With nothing to believe in America will become an empty shell.
A shell is easily crushed.

B.V., Could be the effect of mass thoughts as we discussed before. The cloak of deception is growing very heavy upon our nation.

Originally posted by Overdose
And Congress is not allowed to establish religion, and they did so when the inserted “Under God” in the pledge.

Which religion was established by Congress when they included "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance? Last time I checked there are many religions that believe in God from Judaism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism, etc. So which one did Congress establish as our state religion?

just keep your fat mouth shut at that part and move on already, stop whining about it. the next time a second amendment argument starts I want to see all these people so hell bent on upholding the constitution doing the same thing.

Originally posted by The Republican
Which religion was established by Congress when they included "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance? Last time I checked there are many religions that believe in God from Judaism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism, etc. So which one did Congress establish as our state religion?


I'm sorry, but this argument is retarded. If Congress passed a tax that taxed people who believed in a God, would you say the same thing? Of course you wouldn't.

If the pledge were amended to say "godless nation" instead of "nation under god," there is no doubt you would be throwing a tissy about how the government is oppressing religion, citing the First Amendment along the way.

Don't Christians believe in doing unto others as we would have them do unto us? It's ironic that Christians are the last people to practice that in this nation.

Originally posted by The Republican
Which religion was established by Congress when they included "Under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance? Last time I checked there are many religions that believe in God from Judaism, to Catholicism, to Protestantism, etc. So which one did Congress establish as our state religion?

they didnt establish a religion. they used the english word for god, and last time I checked we were still an english speaking nation. why would the entire pledge be in english and that one word in some other language? this whole argument is stupid. we cant take seriously anyone who picks and choses what parts of the constitution they want to support :hitout:

Originally posted by Leper
I'm sorry, but this argument is retarded. If Congress passed a tax that taxed people who believed in a God, would you say the same thing? Of course you wouldn't.

If the pledge were amended to say "godless nation" instead of "nation under god," there is no doubt you would be throwing a tissy about how the government is oppressing religion, citing the First Amendment along the way.

Don't Christians believe in doing unto others as we would have them do unto us? It's ironic that Christians are the last people to practice that in this nation.

How is it retarded? I simply asked OD what religion the Congress was imposing on the people by adding the words "Under God" to the pledge. Refferencing his own post...

Originally posted by Overdose
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” –Bill of Rights, Amendment I

I asked a simple question that you have chosen not to answer. If Congress has not established any religion by mentioning "God" then how can it be wrong?

Originally posted by Travh20
they didnt establish a religion. they used the english word for god, and last time I checked we were still an english speaking nation. why would the entire pledge be in english and that one word in some other language? this whole argument is stupid. we cant take seriously anyone who picks and choses what parts of the constitution they want to support :hitout:

Trav,

Either I am misunderstanding your post or you misunderstood mine. We are on the same page here? I know they didn't establish a religion which is why I asked OD which religion was established. If none was established by adding "Under God" to the pledge then there is nothing wrong with those words in the pledge.

BV, the issue here is not about "being offended" as you stated in an earlier post, nor is it about whether or not this country was founded by people who believed in God. I would like to point out that the Puritans, and the Pilgrims, who you say founded this country, also believed in witches. Would you have that belief added to the Pledge? The truth of the matter is that the words "under God" were added to the pledge because the Knights of Columbus petitioned Congress to add the words during the height of the McCarthy era, in an effort to separate us from the "godless" communists. It had absolutely nothing to do with acknowledging the beliefs of the founders of this country, or it would have said "founded under God" or something similar. Oddly enough, the writer of the Pledge was a clergyman, and he didn't see fit to mention God, because he wrote the Pledge to celebrate the anniversary of the discovery of America, not to honor God.

The issue is whether or not our children in public schools, should be led by their teachers, in reciting a pledge that acknowledges the existence of God, when many of them are atheists, or are prevented by their christian beliefs from reciting any oath. One of the first Supreme Court challenges to the mandatory recitation of the Pledge was brought by Jehovahs Witnesses, who are forbidden by their christian beliefs from reciting oaths. My feeling is that if you want your children to be taught about God, or even to to have God acknowledged in school, you should send your kids to a private school, where they can learn about God the way you want them to.

It has been suggested here that the words in the pledge do not establish any particular religion, so mentioning "God" is ok. I find this argument specious. The first amendment does not specify which religions can be promoted by the government and which cannot, it says that this governmnet should not promote any religion, and the notion of the existence of God is a decidedly religious idea.

I believe that for most part, people who want the words "under God" included in the Pledge, desire it for religious reasons. There has been a suggestion that atheists are trying to promote their beliefs by removing the words, but that of course is not borne out by the facts. There is no movemnet by atheists to add words to the Pledge that deny the existence of God, we simply feel he should not be mentioned at all in a public school setting. Again, if you want your kids to learn about god in school, send them to a private school, or take them to church.

Personally, I find it rather creepy that we require our children to recite an oath of allegiance at all. It's as if we believe that unless we have them mindlessly recite this oath we will breed a host of disloyal citizens. Bizarre.

Good post, Vile.

Vile I agree with requiring an oath, so remove it entirely instead of removing God from the Pledge.
I am not a deeply religious person, but I do believe that a God exists and that is not religion. Religion in the biblical sense is a group formed to worship, not a belief in God.
We all put up Santas every year, Government included and he doesnt exist. What is the difference?

Sorry to discredit that, but when you say God, it is directly religious. You do not need to be a religous person to believe in God, but God itself is in the definition of religion.

Religion

1. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
2. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
3. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Definition, doesnt say God or a Deity must be the center of it.

This is what I got from © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back —more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 : archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Pronunciation Key

© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy

Embyr I guess that even Dictionaries argue about the meaning of the word.

I am sure that since the first amendment states congress shall pass no law in the name of religion, and of course the pledge is neither law nor has ever been law that it doesnt apply.
Since the saying of the Pledge is a state or local requirement that all litigations should be started at the local level. And since the Supreme Court has stated many times that they do not like to be involved in State issues it will take a lot to get a ruling from them.
The only way I see they can truly rule on it is if a law is passed requiring the students to recite it in school.
Also I have the right to pray anywhere I choose, others have said that I do not have that right, such as football games. To stop a prayer at a school game is one thing, but at an NFL game is another, The NFL and the teams are private and the law can not be applied in that setting. As it does not involve any government entity.
But for a group to stop me from praying or anyone who wants to is a violation of the rights granted in the constitution.
Now back to the Prayer debate and the Pledge, saying we are formed under God is not a prayer not even saying that God exists, it does state that we have a belief that we were.
I have said this before and I will stick to it, Santa is depicted everywhere, including schools and he doesnt exist. What is the real difference?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
Also I have the right to pray anywhere I choose, others have said that I do not have that right, such as football games. To stop a prayer at a school game is one thing, but at an NFL game is another, The NFL and the teams are private and the law can not be applied in that setting. As it does not involve any government entity.
I would never deny you your right to pray. I would be outraged if a law denied that, as well as in the NFL. They are allowed to lead with a prayer if they choose to. From my understanding of the matter, those who are in control of the league are in debate over the issue, not the government.
Now back to the Prayer debate and the Pledge, saying we are formed under God is not a prayer not even saying that God exists, it does state that we have a belief that we were.
"One nation, under God"
That is saying that God exists right there.
I don't care what you want to label it. It isn't a prayer in my eyes, but it makes no difference what you call it. The point is that the government is supporting certain religions. Not all of them.
I have said this before and I will stick to it, Santa is depicted everywhere, including schools and he doesnt exist. What is the real difference?
If you wish to make a deal out of Santa then go ahead. The main difference is that everyone knows that Santa doesn't exist and it is not written in every classroom that he does exist. People will tell the truth about the issue when kids are old enough. People are not reciting that we are a nation founded under santa. If the pledge said that then I would be debating against santa right now instead of God.

This is absurd, I couldnt help but get sick when I heard about it on the news, now I cant help but get angry when I hear a few of the responses here, let me lay it out for you:

Tha Pledge of Allegiance is an act of PATRIOTISM not religion! You are facing an AMERICAN flag when you say it not some cross or religious symbol. Therefore I cant understand the mad liberals shaking their fists, wrapping themselves in the Constitution and Screaming "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"!...?? Its not a religious act! The Supreme Court is the biggest joke they shouldve stood up to this coward and told him and the rest of this country the Pledge of Allegiance is a very very special thing it represents the flag and the countrys values, you may be able to take crosses off of walls but dont you DARE TOUCH MY FLAG! and my right to pledge ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG! This is such a great country. when will you people see this?!?!

:thumbs:

Originally posted by amcbride
Its not a religious act! The Supreme Court is the biggest joke they shouldve stood up to this coward and told him and the rest of this country the Pledge of Allegiance is a very very special thing it represents the flag and the countrys values, you may be able to take crosses off of walls but dont you DARE TOUCH MY FLAG! and my right to pledge ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG! This is such a great country. when will you people see this?!?!
Thats true. They shouldn't mess with the pledge. They shouldn't have added "under god". It is a pledge to the flag, a pledge to our country, not to God.

beyond the concept of seperation of church and state, which has been debated into oblivion, the reason that the wrods under god are in there really bother me. they were put in there as an act of hatred and essentially, zenophobia. perhaps, for the tradition so many people in this country so love, the pledge should be restored to it's originat state.

Tha Pledge of Allegiance is an act of PATRIOTISM not religion! You are facing an AMERICAN flag when you say it not some cross or religious symbol. Therefore I cant understand the mad liberals shaking their fists, wrapping themselves in the Constitution and Screaming "SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"!...??
So God is not a religious word? I must have been under a false impression...

The Supreme Court is the biggest joke they shouldve stood up to this coward
Coward? How is he a coward for fighting tooth and nail like he has for what he believes in?

and told him and the rest of this country the Pledge of Allegiance is a very very special thing it represents the flag and the countrys values, you may be able to take crosses off of walls but dont you DARE TOUCH MY FLAG!
Very true. However, two things wrong:
-It fails to address the issue of whether God belongs in the Pledge.
-We messed with the Pledge in 1954 by adding "under God" to it under McCarthy-era propaganda in order to distance ourselves from the "godless Commies"

and my right to pledge ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG!
All right, how the FLYING FUCK does getting rid of "under God" take away your right to pledge allegiance to the flag? You can do it ANY FUCKING TIME YOU WANT TO. Try it right now! Insert all the religious references you want. I guarantee that no Secret Service agents will come to break down your door. Just keep it out of the official, government-endorsed, recited-before-school version of the Pledge.

This is such a great country. when will you people see this?!?!
I've seen that for years. Beats me how you think getting rid of "under God" causes me to think the U.S. is some sort of horrible country...

Take a breath Borg....... :D
I agree that it was added to counter the communist threat, a threat we face once again in another form.
I see why some people will take offense to the words under God, but also I have the right to expect the Pledge I have said my entire life to remain intact.

Ok now breath again, ;)

The debate will never end, and we will always disagree on this point, so maybe we should reach a compromise, allow those who do not believe to recite it without God in it, allow those who are Christian and so one to say God, allow other to substitue as needed.
I know, there are religions that believe in more than one God, well this isnt a problem or a reason to remove GOd from the pledge to the American Flag.
Would any other country change their national traditions to keep us from being offended? Could I go to Iran and ask that Allah be removed from their countries oaths and expect it to be debated? No, and I see if we compromise to this extent we have made an effort and still remain the civil rights country.

Even putting church and state aside, "under god" is a product of McCarthyism, a sad part of American history. We wanted to separate ourselves from the commies who were mostly athiest. We aren't fighting communists anymore. We are fighting theocracies. In order to separate ourselves from radical Islam, wouldn't it be best to be a bit more secular?

As for the pledge being patriotic, not religious. Yes, we can leave out the under god if we want. But that is not the correct way of saying the pledge. The official pledge says that there is a god. And if we are "under god", god is more important than our country. This is enforcing a belief in a deity on people that don't believe in one. As an agnostic, religious people treat me like I'm some sort of moron because I don't believe in god. That is their right but it isn't the right of the government to tell me I'm wrong.

BORGHUNTER:

The reason I think that taking out "under god" would be the same as taking away my right to pledge to my flag is because this would be just the beginning, who knows what would be next soon the Flag itself would offend some immigrant who lives here illegally then everyschool and courthouse would have to put up other countries flags to be "fair" ..... the pledge of allegiance SHOULD be said in school, Its one of the great things this country has the young people should realize its a patriotic thing. GOD maybe a religous term, however in the context its not stating a certain religious GOD, its a term everyone can take as they want it to. Whether youre Christian, or your GOD is a golden statue its not seperating a religion into the pledge. and yes this guy is a coward he fought too th and nail because he wanted some $$$$! the little girl he was "protecting" had NO PROBLEM saying "Under God"!!

amc is has already happened.

The CEO of the company, Bill Schrempf, had the flags removed because he felt that some employees might find them offensive. His memo to employees said, "Divisive statements or actions, political or religious discussions and anything else that could be divisive or mean different things to different people are not appropriate in our work environment,"


This article refers to the American Flag after 9/11 he thought it would offend some workers, but the company reversed itself months later.
But yes you have a point, this is why I think a compromise is the best wasy to reslove this.

There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Loving your country is patriotic. Serving in the millitary, voting, volunteering and protesting are all patriotic. In my opinion, pledging a flag is uber nationalist. It's the kind of thing you see in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and communist China. Not a free democracy like we are.

Originally posted by amcbride
BORGHUNTER:

The reason I think that taking out "under god" would be the same as taking away my right to pledge to my flag is because this would be just the beginning, who knows what would be next soon the Flag itself would offend some immigrant who lives here illegally then everyschool and courthouse would have to put up other countries flags to be "fair" ..... the pledge of allegiance SHOULD be said in school, Its one of the great things this country has the young people should realize its a patriotic thing. GOD maybe a religous term, however in the context its not stating a certain religious GOD, its a term everyone can take as they want it to. Whether youre Christian, or your GOD is a golden statue its not seperating a religion into the pledge. and yes this guy is a coward he fought too th and nail because he wanted some $$$$! the little girl he was "protecting" had NO PROBLEM saying "Under God"!!
Slippery slopes are fallacious and not valid arguments.

It is stating a god, and atheists, agnostics, and polytheistic religions do not believe in a single God. I am an atheist. I have a problem with it.

How is Newdow getting any money from this? He isn't, mostly because the Supreme Court can't give people money.

And finally, small children can't think for themselves about these things as adults can. They are rather susceptible to propaganda.

And finally, small children can't think for themselves about these things as adults can. They are rather susceptible to propaganda.

Exactly. The pledge is propaganada. The government shouldn't tell us how to think.

Originally posted by amcbride
BORGHUNTER:
The reason I think that taking out "under god" would be the same as taking away my right to pledge to my flag is because this would be just the beginning, who knows what would be next soon the Flag itself would offend some immigrant who lives here illegally

I think this argument came out of your ass. If the immigrant is here illegally and isn't a citizen of this country, do you think he/she would win a court case against the US saying "hey, take down the flag, dammit!" Um, no. That'd be like me going to Madagascar or some other country and saying, "Hey, I don't like your nation's flag, yet I'm not a citizen. Anyway, that doesn't matter. Take it down." Riiight. Good try, though.

Originally posted by amcbride
then everyschool and courthouse would have to put up other countries flags to be "fair" ..... the pledge of allegiance SHOULD be said in school, Its one of the great things this country has the young people should realize its a patriotic thing.

First, I can't believe you just said that. :eek: Because this country is the United States of America, we have a US flag. If a person is a US citizen yet their heritage/culture comes from another country, they're still US citizens and thus, belong to OUR country. I'm German but as a US citizen, this is my country and I honor this country's flag, not Germany's flag, where my blood comes from. So yeah, nice try, but taking out "God" won't lead into the US waving around another country's flag for the pure fact that we're not that country. Who is there to be fair to? If you live here legally, you're a part of the US and honor the nation you're a part of. If you're here illegally, you don't have a fucking say-so as to which flag is waved in this country and which isn't.

Originally posted by amcbride
GOD maybe a religious term, however in the context its not stating a certain religious GOD, its a term everyone can take as they want it to.

If I don't believe in God, how am I supposed to interpret a reference to any kind of divine entity if I don't think none exist?

Originally posted by amcbride
and yes this guy is a coward he fought too th and nail because he wanted some $$$$! the little girl he was "protecting" had NO PROBLEM saying "Under God"!!

It's funny how nowadays, when people express a different or opposing opinion of something, it's automatically flamed. Our founding fathers encouraged people who had different ideas about how things should be done to come forward and say so. That way, the government wouldn't have a total run of things in this new and "democratic" country: the US. Years and years ago, people challenged the traditional government in England and its ways and that's always held in a good light. Yet in today's day and age, if there's any kind of dissenting opinion (like challenging the religious reference in a patriotic pledge that has become "traditional" to most in this country) it's beaten into nothingness.

I guess I can only post these quotes to support my theory.

Cicero;

And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times, and there will be one master and one rule, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge.

So wrote the Roman Senator Cicero a generation before Christ.

I know you are thinking what has this dead guy have to do with us. well here it is.

Almost two millennia after the fall of the Roman Republic, Thomas Jefferson, citing Cicero as an inspiration, wrote the words that gave birth to the American Republic. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," said Jefferson, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."


If the framers were seriously trying to seperate GOd from our government, explain this;

The same Congress that approved the 1st Amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, asked President George Washington to declare a "day of public thanksgiving and prayer." Washington complied, urging Americans to acknowledge the "many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. "

Now on to recent events.

While we all would have liked a ruling on the merits upholding 'under God' in the Pledge for school children, we're gratified that Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to write separately for the purpose of saying that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution."

And in closing I must gloat a little to see that I agree with Renquist on this, something I have said many times in this thread;

The Pledge, Rehnquist argued, "is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church."

I guess I can not state my case any better, for the keeping the pledge the way it is now.
I dont think the Framers really thought we would remove God from our lives after all.

Almost two millennia after the fall of the Roman Republic, Thomas Jefferson, citing Cicero as an inspiration, wrote the words that gave birth to the American Republic. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," said Jefferson, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
And Creator meant nature. Not god, any kind of a supreme being. It would be your choice in your faith if you want to match nature with god. I know Christianity doesn't.

The same Congress that approved the 1st Amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, asked President George Washington to declare a "day of public thanksgiving and prayer." Washington complied, urging Americans to acknowledge the "many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. "
They were met with opposition and it didn't follow through. Washington's version of Thanksgiving day was shot down by Jefferson and others as breaking the seperation of church and state. It wasn't until later that we got the Thanksgiving holiday. Individual people and such had anual, but it wasn't a national holiday until Lincoln made it one, a non-religious one.

The Pledge, Rehnquist argued, "is a patriotic exercise, not a religious one; participants promise fidelity to our flag and our nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church."
As such, it should have no mention of religion. We should revert to the 1953 version of it.

I feel it neccessary to point out again that the issue isn't whether you have a right to not be offended, nor is it about the truth or falsehood of the idea of a "God".

The fact is that in our public schools, the teachers represent the state. By having these agents of the state lead our children in reciting an oath that acknowledges not only the existence of God, but his sovereignity over this nation, the state is promulgating the idea that there is a God. To suggest that this is not a "religious" idea is, I think, absurd.

To state the question simply, does the state have any business making the statement "There is a God"?

Of course they don't. It's just not their job.

If you believe that the Pledge is a patriotic oath, and not a religious one, then you should have no problem with removing the reference to God, since a belief in God is not a prerequisite for patriotism. Or perhaps you think it is...

BV you posted several references to Santa. How would you feel if, every day at school, your children were strongly encouraged to recite an oath acknowledging the existence of Santa?

BV, you also posted this:

The same Congress that approved the 1st Amendment, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion, asked President George Washington to declare a "day of public thanksgiving and prayer." Washington complied, urging Americans to acknowledge the "many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. "

I don't believe Congress "approved" the Constitution. It was ratified by Constitutional Conventions in each state according to Article VII:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

As Blib correctly points out:
Washington's version of Thanksgiving day was shot down by Jefferson and others as breaking the seperation of church and state. It wasn't until later that we got the Thanksgiving holiday. Individual people and such had anual, but it wasn't a national holiday until Lincoln made it one, a non-religious one.

Also, as an aside, I take issue with this part of Washington's statement that you posted:

Washington complied, urging Americans to acknowledge the "many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness. "

It strikes me as odd that a man who had just fought a war to establish this country would suggest that it had been done "peaceably".

Originally posted by Vilepagan

If you believe that the Pledge is a patriotic oath, and not a religious one, then you should have no problem with removing the reference to God, since a belief in God is not a prerequisite for patriotism. Or perhaps you think it is...



This is a little bit off topic but IMO very relevant.




When George Bush was campaigning for the presidency, as incumbent vice president, one of his stops was in Chicago, Illinois, on August 27, 1987. At O'Hare Airport he held a formal outdoor news conference. There Robert I. Sherman, a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, fully accredited by the state of Illinois and by invitation a participating member of the press corps covering the national candidates had the following exchange with then Vice President Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

As shown by our former president, it is the opinion of many Americans that a belief in a deity is a requisite for patriotism. Quite sad.

It is regrettable. However...I've posted it before and will do it agian now--ever since high school I've never once had to do the pledge and what's on the pledge could hardly and ever affect anyone's everyday life. It's not like, gay marriage, defense budget change, the country turns theocracy, or something like that. It's just the freaking Pledge. But everyone gets so worked up it is a marvel to me.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
It is regrettable. However...I've posted it before and will do it agian now--ever since high school I've never once had to do the pledge and what's on the pledge could hardly and ever affect anyone's everyday life. It's not like, gay marriage, defense budget change, the country turns theocracy, or something like that. It's just the freaking Pledge. But everyone gets so worked up it is a marvel to me.
It is the tip of an iceberg that is looming on the horizon.
I guess people are not interested in the compromise? It may be the only way to change it at all.
If the Supreme Court decisions have any indication of what a new suit may bring.
Notice most said it wasnt protected under the first.

you know, this whole deal with saying the pledge in schools has a lot of relevance to the one where we are duscussing schools being used to indoctrinate children. isn't making little kids, with no understnading of what they are saying, recite a pledge to something brainwashing? wouldn't this back up my theory as to what schools are really meant for?

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
It is the tip of an iceberg that is looming on the horizon.
I guess people are not interested in the compromise? It may be the only way to change it at all.
If the Supreme Court decisions have any indication of what a new suit may bring.
Notice most said it wasnt protected under the first.

Ok BV, what's your idea for a compromise?

What I think is kinda weird is how the polls show that most Americans want to keep under god. Yet here we are about half and half.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Ok BV, what's your idea for a compromise?

The debate will never end, and we will always disagree on this point, so maybe we should reach a compromise, allow those who do not believe to recite it without God in it, allow those who are Christian and so one to say God, allow other to substitue as needed.
I know, there are religions that believe in more than one God, well this isnt a problem or a reason to remove GOd from the pledge to the American Flag.
Would any other country change their national traditions to keep us from being offended? Could I go to Iran and ask that Allah be removed from their countries oaths and expect it to be debated? No, and I see if we compromise to this extent we have made an effort and still remain the civil rights country.

There was no compromise when congress thoughtlessly added it in. After all it was meant to discriminate against athiests and communists. That was the whole point.

Not a lot of sympathy there, atheist dont believe so ignore it, communist I couldnt give a crap about.
I have shown away to meet halfway and you still reject it. See the Justices may rule in favor of God, there opinions say that it is not a prayer there for doesnt represent any religion, God isnt even mentioned by name and by the way the Christian and Jewish God has a name as does Allah....
It uses a generic term for a Diety.
So if it goes back and Renquist is still there it may stay in.
Not everyone can always win and sometimes compromise is as good as it gets. If you dont believe then dont say it.
Easy, really, much cheaper than the money used to take it before the court. Which is money not spent on schools or other items needed.

BV, you talk about going against tradition, but yet, this was added in, going against tradition, in the first place.

Originally posted by Overdose
BV, you talk about going against tradition, but yet, this was added in, going against tradition, in the first place.
SO on that line we should just throw out the formation of this country because it didnt exist in the first place.
But to answer your comment, tradition that has always been in the pledge throughout my life time is good with me.

Originally posted by Beirut_Veteran
SO on that line we should just throw out the formation of this country because it didnt exist in the first place.
But to answer your comment, tradition that has always been in the pledge throughout my life time is good with me.

And what's good for you and all those that believe in God is good for everyone else, right? Or if it's not, it's ignorable, right?

:rolleyes:

yes BV, and that "tradition" was added in as part of a movement that exploited some of my dearest family and freinds for their poltical beleifs. it's like saying that the confederate flag is a great tradition and should stick around, despite the horrible things it stands for.
besides that, tradition is irrelevent. plenty of traditions have been terrible, and what really matters is what is right, not what we have been doing for the longest amount of time. comfort distorts morals.

BV, I don't think your compromise is much of a compromise...it still leaves our public school teachers teaching our children that this nation is subservient to God, and I think it's a little absurd to expect an elementary school kid to pick and choose what they want to insert in the middle of their oath of fealty.

Whammy I could say the confederate flag is heritage not hatred, no flag or other symbol can be seen as hatred. The flag is nothing more than fabric and thread fashioned by people in a certain design that others see as hate.
The pledge is a string of words that have been fashioned to form a symbol of our heritage.
I am a fair person but I also will stand up for what I believe and I believe that God in the pledge is my heritage and no one should be able to take my heritage.
But I can agree to compromise, vile I believe the nature of compromise is to meet in the middle, so that is the only middle I can see, either you say God or you dont, your choice but it should be mine to say it.

It’s not our countries heritage to have God in the pledge.

Oh and I guess the Swastika, or the Nazi flag does not represent anything more then fabric…

Originally posted by Overdose
It’s not our countries heritage to have God in the pledge.

Oh and I guess the Swastika, or the Nazi flag does not represent anything more then fabric…
Actually the broken cross was stolen by Hitler for his regime.
It is not a symbol of hatred but a symbol of life. But Hitlers use of it created a stigma that has become permanent.
If these are flying above a house then it can been seen as a symbol of hate, but the Stars and Bars doesnt stand for 6 million murdered, even thought I am not a supporter of the movements to keep it in state flags but it is not in the same league as Nazi Flag.
Also I dont think taking God out of the pledge is our heritage, mine is to have a nation under God.
You can see it anyway you want, but it is my right, upheld by the Supreme Court, and even in the opinions they stated that the 1st doesnt apply as it is not a prayer or support of any certain religion. It contains the word for a generis diety, not a God from a certain religion, much like the Declaration of Indepences ref. to The Creator. Generic.

Trust me, I know the history of where Hitler got the Swastika. No matter of what it’s original intent was, this day in age, it represents evil, racism and hatred. A confederate flag, represents racism, slavery, and hatred. It’s more then just fabric, it represents a lot more, by the meaning behind the fabric.

The history of the fabric, creates the meaning of the fabric, which in return, creates a negative message if you are talking about the Nazi Flag, and the Confederate Flag.

Originally posted by Overdose
Trust me, I know the history of where Hitler got the Swastika. No matter of what it’s original intent was, this day in age, it represents evil, racism and hatred. A confederate flag, represents racism, slavery, and hatred. It’s more then just fabric, it represents a lot more, by the meaning behind the fabric.

The history of the fabric, creates the meaning of the fabric, which in return, creates a negative message if you are talking about the Nazi Flag, and the Confederate Flag.
Actually I am speaking of the pledge and used what whammy said as an analogy.....
But neither are made of nothing more than thread and fabric it is man who has made them symbols of hatred.
So I guess you can say the broken cross is a symbol of htred but by calling it by the Nazi name for it is placing evil on it.
But as to the Pledge, lets discuss renquist opinion on the ruling.