Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

[xtc]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

ARTICLE (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html)

OPINIONS?

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by xtc
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

ARTICLE (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html)

OPINIONS?

Looks like another liberal atheist on the rampage... :thumbsdown:

It seems that the "issue" is with the inclusion of "under God" in the recital, and not necessarily the whole pledge.

[CrystalTears]

Fucking Christ. If you don't like it, then don't recite it! WTF!

[Fission]

What I don't get is where people like this get off, thinking the whole country needs to change just because they're personally offended by something.

I suppose next he'll sue to have all of our currency recalled and reprinted because heaven forbid he should see the word God there, either.

Suckiest part of it all? He's wasting court time and taxpayer money tilting at windmills. Not like the time or money could be possibly be put to better use, of course.

I heard a radio interview with this guy. He also is calling for changing the words "him" "her" "she" and "he" and replacing them with something like "Re" so men and women can be made even more equal. This dude makes my head spin.

- Arkans

[Detri]

I am an advocate of the death penalty for extreme stupidity.

[Doyle Hargraves]

Originally posted by Arkans
I heard a radio interview with this guy. He also is calling for changing the words "him" "her" "she" and "he" and replacing them with something like "Re" so men and women can be made even more equal. This dude makes my head spin.

- Arkans

Re? What is that, Asian for "we"?

[Czeska]

Personally, I don't think "God" belongs on the money. Or government buildings. Or in the Pledge. But it's laughable to think that spending money to redo things like that is even remotely worth it when we have so many other, more vital causes.

Parents, if you don't want your kids to say "under god" then tell them to stand politely and quietly. What's so damn hard about that? Unless schools make it mandatory, that's what I'd tell my daughter.

[Chaddy]

Originally posted by Detri
I am an advocate of the death penalty for extreme stupidity.

Corporal punishment not capital. If it happens again.....beat them harder.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't think God belongs in schools. If you know the history of it, under god was added only in 1942, which is, in the consideration of the nation itself, not that long ago, so it's not like they're asking for a removal of the right to bear arms.

Besides, if it's so little of a deal, what's the problem with removing it? Guess it's not that small of a deal.


-M

[CrystalTears]

It's more of a deal to make a federal case out of something already set in place than to just ignore it.

[ElanthianSiren]

Is it? Then you can argue it was a big deal to bring it before Congress in 1942 to have a vote to put it in, thus it deserves to be stricken with no trial based on the waste it produced the first time around.

-M

[Keller]

Originally posted by Fission
. . . Suckiest part of it all? He's wasting court time and taxpayer money tilting at windmills. Not like the time or money could be possibly be put to better use, of course.

He and that blowhard Thurgood Marshall. Who the fuck are these people who want to bring the constitution into the discussion of law. Buncha douche-bags if you ask me.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Looks like another liberal atheist on the rampage... :thumbsdown: . . .


I'm surprised to hear rhetoric like that from someone who lives in Michigan . . . no wait, I'm not.

[Artha]

But...the guy is probably liberal, admittedly an atheist, and arguably on a rampage.

Where's he wrong?


If you know the history of it, under god was added only in 1942, which is, in the consideration of the nation itself, not that long ago
Let's see...the nation's been around for about 230 years.
"Under God" has been around for 65 of those years...or just over a fourth as long. A fourth is a pretty substantial fraction.

[Edited on 9-14-2005 by Artha]

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually, I've been told I have the date wrong. It was added sometime in the 50s during the Eisenhower administration.

So 1/5th or 1/4th, potato potatoe.

Supposedly, in god we trust was added to money in 1955. "under god" to the pledge in 1954. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on.

-M

[Bobmuhthol]

I do not recite the pledge simply out of choice, not because I have any problem with it. I do, however, despise the people who complain about its context or fail to at least show respect for their own country and its history by not standing.

Edit: In regards to the notion that God does not belong in government: what the fuck? America is a country of freedom; it is not a country without definition. You will not be tolerably discriminated against for your religious beliefs, race, etc., but that means nothing as far as civil authority is concerned. Who are you to complain that the phrase "under God" exists in the Pledge of Alliegance, that God is on United States currency, or about any other biblical allusion? The country was built by Christians. There is obviously going to be Christian influence. It's not some sort of hate crime against anyone for not being Christian. Since that is the only true/real/whatever argument here, then it makes sense that murder should now be legalized. After all, it's only illegal because Christianity, and its predecessor, Judaism, are under the belief that murder is a crime.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Keller]

Originally posted by Artha
But...the guy is probably liberal, admittedly an atheist, and arguably on a rampage.

Where's he wrong?


One condescending delivery deserved another.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
If you know the history of it, under god was added only in 1942, which is, in the consideration of the nation itself, not that long ago, so it's not like they're asking for a removal of the right to bear arms. They only gave women the right to vote like 80 years ago, so we can toss that too, right? Right?

Anyhoo, it's not like this is the Nicene Creed we're talking about here, anyone can pick and choose which parts they want to say. Some selections might sound a little siller than others (for instance "I pledge to flag one under for"). And given that the United States is a democracy and the majority of people claim to be religious, I don't see how there's a problem with allowing children to say "under God".

[ElanthianSiren]

The idea of tossing it all together was in response to the idea that it costs too much to examine its worth, so we should choose not to do so; my point was, it probably cost money to put it in there too. In other words, that sounds like a convenient rhetoric not to hear a matter having to do with separation of church and state.

I personally think it deserves a fair review, but that's just me. Your opinion may differ.

-M

[Detri]

I'd like to hear what Jon Stewart has to say on this matter and agree with him.

[ElanthianSiren]

By the way, Latrin, I don't have a problem allowing children to say Under God. By all means, teach them it without under god and state if they choose to, they may say under (your supreme deity here). The way it exists presently reinforces a christian deity, which I believe infringes upon the separation of church and state.

Also, I don't see where the comparison of women's suffrage enters into this discussion, unless you venture to state that not expecting children in grades k - 12 to say "under god" in the pledge would somehow drastically curtail their voice in government.

-M

[Bobmuhthol]

Latrinsorm's post was very fitting, considering the basis of your argument was "since the phrase has only been around for 50 years, we can just get rid of it."

[Apotheosis]

I'm glad that this is the most pressing issue that our nation has to deal with.

[Keller]

The point is it's not possible for an atheist to raise a child when you've got state-sponsored recognition of God.

The issue is not how long it's been around or whether suffrage is a fitting analogy. It's not about a judeo-christian god versus a supreme being. It's about the government teaching children that this nation is "under god" and that, in my opinion, goes against the constitution.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I don't see how there's a problem with allowing children to say "under God".

Somehow I think you're smarter than this.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<The point is it's not possible for an atheist to raise a child when you've got state-sponsored recognition of God.

The issue is not how long it's been around or whether suffrage is a fitting analogy. It's not about a judeo-christian god versus a supreme being. It's about the government teaching children that this nation is "under god" and that, in my opinion, goes against the constitution.>>


Speaking as an atheist child..

This is total bullshit.

[ElanthianSiren]

Why do you feel it's bullshit?

-M

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I do not recite the pledge simply out of choice, not because I have any problem with it. I do, however, despise the people who complain about its context or fail to at least show respect for their own country and its history by not standing.

Edit: In regards to the notion that God does not belong in government: what the fuck? America is a country of freedom; it is not a country without definition. You will not be tolerably discriminated against for your religious beliefs, race, etc., but that means nothing as far as civil authority is concerned. Who are you to complain that the phrase "under God" exists in the Pledge of Alliegance, that God is on United States currency, or about any other biblical allusion? The country was built by Christians. There is obviously going to be Christian influence. It's not some sort of hate crime against anyone for not being Christian. Since that is the only true/real/whatever argument here, then it makes sense that murder should now be legalized. After all, it's only illegal because Christianity, and its predecessor, Judaism, are under the belief that murder is a crime.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

This is a great post, Alex. Well said. :clap:

[iomelindi]

Division of Church and State, point blank. I don't get why the "under god" was later added in the first place. One nation, under God...whose God? Pick one, I thought the good old USA was supposed to be a melting pot. Personally I have an issue with anything that states "I swear allegience" to anything, but thats just me.

The truth is, as long as ANY God loving political person is in office, we won't hear the end of God being on the side of the US. And that is an entire other issue.

I'm waiting for the "Our God is better then your God" bumper stickers.

[Artha]

I don't get why the "under god" was later added in the first place.
To differentiate the US from communist Russia.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Artha

I don't get why the "under god" was later added in the first place.
To differentiate the US from communist Russia.

The free market was ineffective.

Good thing we added "under god" or else Reagan would have never "defeated" communism.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Keller]

[Keller]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<The point is it's not possible for an atheist to raise a child when you've got state-sponsored recognition of God.

The issue is not how long it's been around or whether suffrage is a fitting analogy. It's not about a judeo-christian god versus a supreme being. It's about the government teaching children that this nation is "under god" and that, in my opinion, goes against the constitution.>>


Speaking as an atheist child..

This is total bullshit.

Did your parents actively teach you to rely on yourself and that there was no god watching out for you?

[CrystalTears]

I don't know why people are hung up on the word "God" anyway. It's actually kinda sorta (heh) to be a universal word to symbolize whichever spirital being you believe in.

I hate to break this to you athiests, but I believe the world, let alone the USA, is composed of at least 50% of it believing in some type of supreme being. Pick one to believe in... God, Buddha, Allah.. whomever. If you don't believe in anything, then don't say anything at all. But I don't think the majority of the country and/or world should have to bend for the minority for something like this.

[Atlanteax]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Artha

I don't get why the "under god" was later added in the first place.
To differentiate the US from communist Russia.

The free market was ineffective.

Good thing we added "under god" or else Reagan would have never "defeated" communism.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Keller]

Reagan encouraged it, as there is a tendency to believe that "you must be right, if God is on your side".

So in that regard, it was about providing moral strength and another justification in opposing Soviet Russia (other than communism, etc)

[Keller]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I don't know why people are hung up on the word "God" anyway. It's actually kinda sorta (heh) to be a universal word to symbolize whichever spirital being you believe in.

I hate to break this to you athiests, but I believe the world, let alone the USA, is composed of at least 50% of it believing in some type of supreme being. Pick one to believe in... God, Buddha, Allah.. whomever. If you don't believe in anything, then don't say anything at all. But I don't think the majority of the country and/or world should have to bend for the minority for something like this.

We have a constitution to avoid the tyranny of the majority.

Did you ever take even a high school government class?

[iomelindi]

So...tell me again it has nothing to do with forcing people to pray to God?

`````````````````````````````````

"The efforts to bring God into the state reached their peak during the so-called "religious revival" of the 1950s. It was a time when Norman Vincent Peale grafted religion onto the era's feel-good consumerism in his best-selling The Power of Positive Thinking; when Billy Graham rose to fame as a Red-baiter who warned that Americans would perish in a nuclear holocaust unless they embraced Jesus Christ; when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles believed that the United States should oppose communism not because the Soviet Union was a totalitarian regime but because its leaders were atheists.

Hand in hand with the Red Scare, to which it was inextricably linked, the new religiosity overran Washington. Politicians outbid one another to prove their piety. President Eisenhower inaugurated that Washington staple: the prayer breakfast. Congress created a prayer room in the Capitol. In 1955, with Ike's support, Congress added the words "In God We Trust" on all paper money. In 1956 it made the same four words the nation's official motto, replacing "E Pluribus Unum." Legislators introduced Constitutional amendments to state that Americans obeyed "the authority and law of Jesus Christ."

The campaign to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was part of this movement. It's unclear precisely where the idea originated, but one driving force was the Catholic fraternal society the Knights of Columbus. In the early '50s the Knights themselves adopted the God-infused pledge for use in their own meetings, and members bombarded Congress with calls for the United States to do the same. Other fraternal, religious, and veterans clubs backed the idea. In April 1953, Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., formally proposed the alteration of the pledge in a bill he introduced to Congress.

The "under God" movement didn't take off, however, until the next year, when it was endorsed by the Rev. George M. Docherty, the pastor of the Presbyterian church in Washington that Eisenhower attended. In February 1954, Docherty gave a sermon—with the president in the pew before him—arguing that apart from "the United States of America," the pledge "could be the pledge of any country." He added, "I could hear little Moscovites [sic] repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag with equal solemnity." Perhaps forgetting that "liberty and justice for all" was not the norm in Moscow, Docherty urged the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge to denote what he felt was special about the United States.

The ensuing congressional speechifying—debate would be a misnomer, given the near-unanimity of opinion—offered more proof that the point of the bill was to promote religion. The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to "acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism." In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the president."

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067499

[Warriorbird]

Did you ever take even a high school government class?

I wonder that about people so very often. But these days we live in Bizzarro World.

[CrystalTears]

Oh please. I was just giving my interpretation for this day and age. Chill the fuck out.

It just amazes me how intolerant people are in the 21st century.

[Avaia]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The country was built by Christians.

Actually, it wasn't. This is a common (more and more so, it seems) misconception, though.

A number of the most famous of the Founding Fathers of the United States were, in fact, adamantly (and openly) not Christian.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Avaia

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
The country was built by Christians.

Actually, it wasn't. This is a common (more and more so, it seems) misconception, though.

A number of the most famous of the Founding Fathers of the United States were, in fact, adamantly (and openly) not Christian.

While the founding fathers were generally not Christians the majority of Americans have always been Christian. I'm going to have to affirm Alex's contention that America was built by Christians.

[Keller]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Oh please. I was just giving my interpretation for this day and age. Chill the fuck out.

It just amazes me how intolerant people are in the 21st century.

Your interpretation was that because 51%+ of Americans believe in God we shouldn't be forced to follow a silly 200 year old document anymore. That's absurd.

Are you saying I am intolerant?

[cajunlady]

Originally posted by iomelindi
Division of Church and State, point blank.


This is the perfect point. Public schools should not persuede religion. I believe the option to NOT say the oath is there, but who wants to be the child to not say it and attract all that attention? In sixth grade our teacher asked the class, and this was VERY wrong, what reliegion we belonged to. As all the kids rose their hands to "who's catholic, methodist, etc" I sat there without raising my hand. I never joined a church nor had I been baptised. My teacher asked me in front of the whole class if I was atheist. I suppose I could have simply said I was Christian, but I was terribly out of sorts at the time. My parents were PISSED. They believed that we *kids* should choose which church we wanted to ascribe to when we were mature enough to understand the differences between them.

Religion in any way has no buisiness in the classroom. The Scopes Monkey Trial with creation versus evolution ties in this issue as well. We KNOW things evolve, it's fact. How to present this in schools... *sigh* Another topic.

[Warriorbird]

Are you saying I am intolerant?

I don't think she was really saying you were intolerant. I just think she was trying to label you so she could feel justified in her opposition.

[Jayvn]

Originally posted by iomelindi
I'm waiting for the "Our God is better then your God" bumper stickers.

Can we get one?

[Warriorbird]

But I don't think the majority of the country and/or world should have to bend for the minority for something like this.

Yeah. Those damn minorities. They should stop demanding rights. What do they think this country is about?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Did your parents actively teach you to rely on yourself and that there was no god watching out for you?>>

No, my parents/entire family is Catholic.

I said, when I was able to think for myself, "No more Catholic thx."

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

Are you saying I am intolerant?

I don't think she was really saying you were intolerant. I just think she was trying to label you so she could feel justified in her opposition.

Don't ever speak for me, WB. Sick of your shit.

No Keller, I was not calling you intolerant. I was speaking in general. That people as a whole seem a lot more intolerant in this generation.

[Edited on 9/15/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

Don't ever speak for me, WB. Sick of your shit.

Then don't presume to speak for society. I found it positively mindboggling that a member of a minority would suggest that minorities shouldn't matter in America.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

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

If the Contitution is the law of the land, then strictly speaking, forcing anyone to acknowledge any divine persona is taking away their freedom.

Now, I don’t suppose it would have bothered our forefathers much if children recited the pledge in school. But then again, they didn’t invent the pledge and set up our government with strict rules on freedom. So you have to admit, its very possible our founding fathers would object to the practice.

My view on it is you shouldn’t hate those who don’t want to say “under god”, or the ones that do, or anyone who dosen’t want to say the pledge at all. Everyone should be entitled to their own choice and have that choice respected. That is the real basis of our country.

[CrystalTears]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20040616.shtml


Justice Thomas directly challenged the Court's recent reasoning on religious issues, flatly declaring the Pledge constitutional for public schools. But Rehnquist and O'Connor built their opinions on the dismal premise that the words "under God" in the Pledge mean little or nothing.

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."

The pre-Christian Cicero believed in one God whose laws were eternal and unchanging. Rehnquist's Pledge declines to subordinate America to "any particular God." Why not Zeus or Apollo?

O'Connor dismissed the words "under God," along with the Supreme Court's own invocation ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"), as examples of what she calls "ceremonial deism." "Such references," she says, "can serve to solemnize an occasion instead of to invoke divine provenance."

I feel that removing it will cause more problems than good.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115048,00.html


A new poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the reference to God. 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.

Dozens of people camped outside the court on a cold night, bundled in layers and blankets, to be among the first in line to hear the historic case. "I just wanted to have a story to tell my grandkids," said Aron Wolgel, a junior from American University.

More than 100 supporters of the pledge began the day reciting the pledge and emphasizing the words "under God." Some supporters of the California father, outnumbered about four-to-one, shouted over the speeches of pledge proponents. They carried signs with slogans like "Democracy Not Theocracy."

http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/summer2005/Munoz.html


Notice that Jefferson's and Eisenhower's statements, like the phrase "under God" itself, contain a certain ambivalence. Recognition of God may be the most basic expression of Americanism because we believe America to be a part of God's providential order—we are "under God" in the sense that we are a chosen people. Alternatively, recognition of God might express our understanding that a higher law exists and that that law limits the scope and authority of our law—America is "under God" in the sense of being subject to His judgment. In this latter sense, recognition of God would lead America, unlike the Soviet Union, say, to limit political power and to respect the rights with which human beings are endowed by their Creator. Consequently, governmental recognition and even endorsement of God do not necessarily enhance political power or lead to the union of church and state. As Tocqueville observed long ago, religion can increase democratic citizens' affection for their nation while also limiting their demands on it.

Edited to add a link to excerpts between the judges and Newdon. Found it interesting, from both sides of the fence, even though I disagree with Newdon.

http://foi.missouri.edu/firstamendment/excerpts.html


[Edited on 9/15/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

I feel that removing it will cause more problems than good.

Care to elaborate on these problems?

[ElanthianSiren]

One thing I find ironic about the case is that the main group spearheading the opposition to hearing it is a Christian group. They just happen to feel like getting involved I guess, having no personal stake in whether or not their deity's name is ingrained en rote to thousands of kids around the nation every day. After all, it's a completely generic term for a deity, right? They just want to make sure all the little Muslim children are free to say "One nation under Allah". :rolleyes:

Give me a break. If some child actively wants to say "under God", again, I'm fine with that. I doubt many would until they are instructed to. So my issue is more when religion is brought into the classroom of very young children, who are very susceptible to impression by authority figures. You have to admit, after reciting it +100 times each year for 13 years, you might start to believe it.

-M

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
The way it exists presently reinforces a christian deityYou're right, I forgot that the words were "Under Jesus".
By all means, teach them it without under god and state if they choose to, they may say under (your supreme deity here).While I've never tried, I imagine interjecting a phrase of my own into a group recital would be a bit awkward, though there are generally pauses in the recital that I could probably use. Whereas, it's very, very easy to not say something. I do it all the time.
Originally posted by Keller
The point is it's not possible for an atheist to raise a child when you've got state-sponsored recognition of God. Was it possible to raise an abolitionist when there was state-sponsored recognition of slavery?
Originally posted by iomelindi
Personally I have an issue with anything that states "I swear allegience"The word is actually "pledge". I PLEDGE allegiance. Can't substitute in a quote. :)
So...tell me again it has nothing to do with forcing people to pray to God? .... acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the CreatorAny religious belief in a Creator necessarily means that one was created (indirectly or directly) by that Creator. Thus, people are dependant upon the Creator.

Again, it's not like they put "Under Yahweh" in there. One could certainly argue that the pledge promotes monotheism, but once again children are *not* forced to recite the pledge.
Originally posted by cajunlady
but who wants to be the child to not say it and attract all that attention?It would be a gross disservice to children everywhere to say they are mindless conformers.

[Warriorbird]

So then. Can you tell me what the actual benefit is, Latrin?

[Hulkein]

The people who complain about this are just devoid of real problems so they go out of their way to cause this controversy.

[Warriorbird]

The people who complain about this are just devoid of real problems so they go out of their way to cause this controversy.

That'd be funny if it were true. I see a whole lot more controversy about other issues than this right now, however.

Can you tell me the benefit of the God inclusion then, Hulkein?

[Viridian]

Originally posted by xtc
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

ARTICLE (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/14/pledge.ruling.ap/index.html)

OPINIONS?

My opinion, saying the pledge of aelliagnce is an optional thing, you are damn lucky that you have the freedom to not put your right hand over your heart and recite the pledge. Why? Because this is the United States of America where you have the right to say the pledge or not say the pledge. Children have the right to say, "No, I don't wish to say the pledge of allegiance." And no one will force the issue. Taking away this daily routine from school children, takes away their right to choose in my opinion, it takes away a certain freedom, to pledge or not to pledge. So what if it says "Under God," its ultimately up to the children to decide what they feel about it, no one is telling them, "There is a god you have to worship him!" I mean last I checked when I was in school no one leapt to their feet and said, "You are forcing your belief system on me!"

This is a stupid thing to fight over, you know why? Because this country has a few more big fucking problems to contend with right now.

[Warriorbird]

So... you have a reason to defend them adding in the "under God" in the 50's? We got along fine for a pretty long time without it. The author certainly wouldn't have included it. He wrote it in 1892. The Knight of Columbus got it edited in 1954.



[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I do not recite the pledge simply out of choice, not because I have any problem with it. I do, however, despise the people who complain about its context or fail to at least show respect for their own country and its history by not standing.

Edit: In regards to the notion that God does not belong in government: what the fuck? America is a country of freedom; it is not a country without definition. You will not be tolerably discriminated against for your religious beliefs, race, etc., but that means nothing as far as civil authority is concerned. Who are you to complain that the phrase "under God" exists in the Pledge of Alliegance, that God is on United States currency, or about any other biblical allusion? The country was built by Christians. There is obviously going to be Christian influence. It's not some sort of hate crime against anyone for not being Christian. Since that is the only true/real/whatever argument here, then it makes sense that murder should now be legalized. After all, it's only illegal because Christianity, and its predecessor, Judaism, are under the belief that murder is a crime.

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

Tsa'ah would fight you on this point. His claim is that the nation was formed by people trying to avoid religious persecution and that the founding fathers were deists not Christians.

However in the interest of supporting your opinion (purely to stir it up) I include the Mayflower Compact which predates the Constitution.


"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."

LINK (http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Mayflower.html)

[Edited on 9-15-2005 by xtc]

[DeV]

"All it has to do is put the pledge as it was before, and say that we are one nation, indivisible, instead of dividing us on religious basis," Newdow said.
I don't see the harm in that.

[Keller]

First we need to frame the issue correctly.

We're talking about god. Not a particular god but the belief that we're under some being whose presence is only known in the faith of our minds (even if you say you've witnessed miracles it's your faith that makes these occasions miraculous). The issue is not about imposing a judeo-christian god on the nation. It's about state-sponsored recognition of an unattached "god."

Next I'm kind of irritated that we continue to return to the, "well a majority of Americans, 9 out of 10, think we should include the phrase 'under god' so I don't see the problem with violating the constitution." 9 out of 10 people think the KKK shouldn't have a forum in which to spread their message but I don't foresee limiting the freedom of expression on the grounds that "we don't like the message."

Next, the more appropriate question is what difficulties were presented to parents teaching their children all persons are equal when the government placed severe restrictions on the freedom and liberties of those persons. What detriment to authority did that pose? Was there a constitutional provision against the government imposing those restrictions? Your example gives cause to consider but it is too easy to distinguish it from our current issue.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Can you tell me what the actual benefit is, Latrin? I can't tell you what the benefit to 90% of what the government does is. Religious kids get to say a religious thing, nonreligious kids aren't forced to say it. Isn't that what freedom of speech is all about?
Originally posted by the Mayflowerians
the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign LordWhat an awesome name for a rock band.
Originally posted by Keller
What detriment to authority did that pose?No more or less than this. It's just as easy for Jeff Atheist to say "the government is wrong, there is no God" as it was for Nathaniel Abolitionist to say "the government is wrong, there is no justification for slavery", if not easier in the post-Watergate world.

[AnticorRifling]

I say keep it in school. If it's the term "In God we Trust" that is causing people to be butt hurt than they can either:

a) Understand that when I say God I mean my God and when you say God you mean your God. They don't have to be the same.

or

2) Give me all that offensive US currency that says "In God we Trust" so they don't have to look at it.

[xtc]

My problem is this, if we have removed prayer from schools how can we can we continue to have under God in the pledge or on our money. Isn't it the same principle?

It would be easy to remove God from the Pledge and we wouldn't have to recall all the money. We simply wouldn't include God on all new money and would keep the old money in circulation. Over time under God would be completely removed from all money in circulation while minimizing costs.

[Artha]

The Pledge is a patriotic exercise and not a religious affirmation.

[Satira]

I happen to strongly disagree with people who feel removing "under God" makes it into an atheism-friendly pledge.
If they insert "under NO God" in the same spot then I'll feel the same way. Until then, it's just removing something that causes unnecessary tension and isolation from the classroom. It isn't advocating a disbelief in anything.

Also, what if they did include "under no God" and children who believed in God were instructed to not say that part? I think some people would be bitching up a storm about it. In which case, that would suggest that it isn't fair to kids to be put in that position regardless of their beliefs. The only other real argument I can think of against it would be majority rule.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by Satira]

[Keller]

Originally posted by Artha
The Pledge is a patriotic exercise and not a religious affirmation.

A patriotic exercise that includes the state-sponsored advocacy of the existence of god. Don't skirt the issue by denying it's there. You have kids pledging they believe that we're a nation under god. That's pretty explicit.

[Keller]

Originally posted by AnticorRifling
I say keep it in school. If it's the term "In God we Trust" that is causing people to be butt hurt than they can either:

a) Understand that when I say God I mean my God and when you say God you mean your God. They don't have to be the same.

or

2) Give me all that offensive US currency that says "In God we Trust" so they don't have to look at it.

Again. The issue is not whose god we're under. It's that we're under god.

This is a pointless conversation until people understand the issue.

[Warriorbird]

The Pledge is a patriotic exercise and not a religious affirmation.

And a prayer. Ever read the Knights of Columbus' proposal?

It figures that you couldn't tell me a benefit, Latrin.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
It figures that you couldn't tell me a benefit, Latrin.It figures that you simply ignore anything that contradicts your prior opinion of me.

So long as we leave space for kids to interject their religious beliefs en masse, I don't really mind what kooky way the pledge ends up being.

[Warriorbird]

So long as we leave space for kids to interject their religious beliefs en masse

Which is pretty much the problem they have with it.

Mind you, I think it sets a double standard with money and such at that point, but I never thought that the "In God We Trust" was sacrosanct.

Thank for your honesty. It's your belief. I just don't agree with it. If anything that "It figures" was from the fact that no one would be as straight up as you just were and answer.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Well, the Federal Reserve (as I have just found out recently) is privately owned, so there isn’t much anyone can do about that.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Backlash
Well, the Federal Reserve (as I have just found out recently) is privately owned, so there isn’t much anyone can do about that.

Scary isn't it that the Federal Reserve is privately owned?

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Backlash
Well, the Federal Reserve (as I have just found out recently) is privately owned, so there isn’t much anyone can do about that.

Scary isn't it that the Federal Reserve is privately owned? I'd love to do some research and figure out how that came about. If anyone knows off hand would love to not have to do that research.

[Warriorbird]

It's interesting stuff. Lot've detail associated. Lots of good easily library found secondary sources, however.

[Edited on 9-19-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Looks like it was always private even though it was created by Congress.

Here is wikopedia on The Federal Reserve.

FEDERAL RESERVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve)