Now I've seen everything.

Can you expand a little:)

Turn on your news.

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=020626&cat=news&st=newscourtpledgedc

i don't believe they're saying the pledge itself is unconstitutional, just including the under god part that was added in in 56, and for schools that require children recite it regardless of their religious beliefs. which, i believe the person suing is doing so based on the fact that his daugter's school required she recite it..


ah gosh. i hope this doesn't turn into a religious debate.

Originally posted by skylab
i don't believe they're saying the pledge itself is unconstitutional, just including the under god part that was added in in 56, and for schools that require children recite it regardless of their religious beliefs. which, i believe the person suing is doing so based on the fact that his daugter's school required she recite it..

Yep, they are: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html

It is unconstitutional and there's no denying it, but most people just don't think it's that big of a deal.

Do you really need this Pledge?
Personally I think its silly


You don't nor should you have to recite a Pledge to prove you love your country and are patriotic

Get rid of it life will go on.

Cheers

Originally posted by mindboggle
Yep, they are: Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutionalRegardless of what an editor chose to put in a headline in an attempt to grab attention, it doesn't seem to be what the court said, and I'd be sure that the phrase "the Pledge or Allegience is unconstitutional" doesn't appear in the written ruling.

The courrt overturned the 1954 Act of Congress that added "under God" to the pledge, saying the words violated the basic Constitutional tenet of separation of church and state, and said that the text of the pledge as currently written into federal law "impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God." If people just choose to say it on their own, the court would have nothing to do with it, but it's written into federal law and that's where the problem lies.

To put it in as general a statement as "the Pledge has been ruled unconstitutional" is more sweeping than the reality, which could more accurately be put "the placement of this particular text in a federal law is unconstitutional."

Greetings:

http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=020626&cat=news&st=newscourtpledgedc

==> "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,"' it said

1. The overwhelming majority of our founding fathers where Judaic/Christians. So one nation under God means the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob).

2. There are times I get totally confused over the understanding of separation of church and state.

The concept is that there would not be a government mandated "organized religion."

This concept does not preclude our government from mentioning God, having the 10 commandments posted in public places, having a moment of silence in our schools, etc.

Sighing...

Originally posted by JayC
Regardless of what an editor chose to put in a headline in an attempt to grab attention, it doesn't seem to be what the court said, and I'd be sure that the phrase "the Pledge or Allegience is unconstitutional" doesn't appear in the written ruling.


For the first time ever, a federal appeals court declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional Wednesday because of the words "under God" added by Congress in 1954.

It appears as if that's what they did rule, I don't think the article would lie about that. Anyway, I'm just assuming that's what they ruled, but I may be wrong. It just seems logical that if an element of the pledge is unconstitutional, then the entire pledge is unconstitutional. I'm not trying to be unpatriotic, but I say can the pledge.

I would hardly call having to say the word "God" an establishment of a religion. It simply doesn't apply here, and it will get overturned...

Originally posted by JMD
Do you really need this Pledge?
Personally I think its silly. . . . . . When I went to school, it was the first thing you did in the morning and whenever there was any type of assembly.
We also recited the Lord's Prayer before meals.

I believe it bolstered a young persons' feeling of belonging and self-worth.
Since schools across the nation were forced to abandon this practice, it seems morality of youth has suffered. :(

I dont think they sould change the pledge, but I also dont think they should make people say it either, that is unconstitutional.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
When I went to school, it was the first thing you did in the morning and whenever there was any type of assembly.
We also recited the Lord's Prayer before meals.

I believe it bolstered a young persons' feeling of belonging and self-worth.
Since schools across the nation were forced to abandon this practice, it seems morality of youth has suffered. :(

I think you will find that most kids don't even know the words to it, the mumble along with the rest of their classmates because they have to.

I doubt it has or will have an effect on their morality. I believe the majority of them will grow up to be law-abiding tax paying fine young American Citizens.
I think there are bigger issues out there having an effect on the moral fiber of the young people.

As a Buddhist growing up in America, I've always wondered about that "under God" part, but I never gave much thought about it. We were all forced to say the pledge anyway. At some point in our school years we stopped standing up and saying the pledge. I think somewhere around high school. When you're a kid you didn't question much. I remember in 4th grade my music teacher made us learn the "Noah's Ark" song, in a public school. I didn't even question it. *shrugs* Call it a groupthink idea if you will.

Next thing you know, we have to recall all coins and bills because it says "In God We Trust" on them. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mlip129
I dont think they sould change the pledge, but I also dont think they should make people say it either, that is unconstitutional.


Your not forced to say it, when I was in elemtry school I was forced, but the law has changed since then...

No one can force you to say it...Unless your in the military :D

Congress I beleive is vote against the ruling now...

Christ whats next ruling our money is unconstitutional...

Originally posted by mindboggle
It appears as if that's what they did rule, I don't think the article would lie about that. It's not that their lying; it's an overly generalized paraphrasing of the ruling. Maybe my point can be best made this way: A "pledge" can not be unconstitutional. Only laws can be unconstitutional. The ruling, then, did not find the Pledge to be unconstitutional, it found the presence, in the body of Federal law, of the text containing the phrase "under God" to be unconstitutional. And while I haven't read the actual text of the ruling, I'll stick by my statement that it's unlikely that the statement "the Pledge is unconstitutional" appears in it -- what you've found is a statement written by a reporter, in effect summarizing the ruling.

But newspaper editors and reporters are oversimplifying the situation (as it seems they usually do); either to create attention-grabbing headlines and copy, or because they think it's too complicated for their readers or too much to write if they try to go into the real details.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
believe it bolstered a young persons' feeling of belonging and self-worth.
Since schools across the nation were forced to abandon this practice, it seems morality of youth has suffered. :( When did the Pledge in schools become uncommon? Ten years ago? Fifteen? Do you really think that youth today are so much less moral than the youth of the 80's? Or even the 70s? How about the oh-so-moral 60s?

If in fact it could be proven that today's youth are so much more hopelessly immoral, do you really think there's a causal relationship? They'd be so much different, if only we'd forced them to say a prayer and the Pledge every morning?

Yeah, if only creating "morality" were so easy.

Originally posted by JayC
It's not that their lying; it's an overly generalized paraphrasing of the ruling. Maybe my point can be best made this way: A "pledge" can not be unconstitutional. Only laws can be unconstitutional. The ruling, then, did not find the Pledge to be unconstitutional, it found the presence, in the body of Federal law, of the text containing the phrase "under God" to be unconstitutional. And while I haven't read the actual text of the ruling, I'll stick by my statement that it's unlikely that the statement "the Pledge is unconstitutional" appears in it -- what you've found is a statement written by a reporter, in effect summarizing the ruling.

The pledge, which is associated with the government because it was created by the government, is unconstitutional in that it has applied the idea of God which implies the idea of religion and the constitution states that church and government shall be separate.

Originally posted by mindboggle
The pledge, which is associated with the government because it was created by the government, is unconstitutional in that it has applied the idea of God which implies the idea of religion and the constitution states that church and government shall be separate. Uh... no, the pledge wasn't "created by government." It was written by a Francis Bellamy, who never had any connection with any government (by the way, he was reportedly a socialist and wrote the document to express the views of his brother, who had himself written a couple of socialist utopian novels), and first appeared in a kid's magazine in 1892. Organizations like the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, and The United States Flag Association, none of which are connected to the US government, then adopted it, and each wrote their own modifications.

Anyway, my point here is really just about how the statement is worded, the effect is really the same... I guess what matters is whether the term "the Pledge" is being used to refer only to what has been codified by Congress... if you use it that way, saying "the Pledge is unconstitutional" is the same as saying the law is unconstitutional. But, take any of the above organzations, or any organization at all. They can say any pledge they want to, because it's not part of the body of law. The pledge as written in the literature of, say, the Knights of Columbus is something different from the one written into the US Code -- and a court couldn't tell them that it's unconstitutional for them to write it any way they want.

But yeah, OK... the Pledge codified in US federal law has been found unconstitutional.

Originally posted by The Prohacker
Congress I beleive is vote against the ruling now...

Christ whats next ruling our money is unconstitutional...

If it is I'll take it :D :D :D

I'm an athiest, so I think it's ridiculous that they talk about seperation between church and state, and then have me recite the pledge. The under God part is the only part I find offensive, especially considering it wasn't even in the original pledge, which proves that a change in the pledge wouldn't kill anyone.

So, what happens next, since they ruled it unconstitutional? Is it actually going to change?

Edit: And I've always found the money situation interesting. They sure talk a lot about God for being a country that supposedly has seperation between church and state.

Originally posted by NSyncVillage
So, what happens next, since they ruled it unconstitutional? Is it actually going to change? Well, for one thing it's only a District Court, so the ruling would have no effect at all outside that district. Congress was named among the plaintiffs in the original suit, and it seems like they are pretty much up in arms about it, so probably it will be appealed to the Circuit Court... then, depending on what happens there it might end up in front of the Supreme Court eventually.

Originally posted by JayC
Uh... no, the pledge wasn't "created by government." It was written by a Francis Bellamy, who never had any connection with any government (by the way, he was reportedly a socialist and wrote the document to express the views of his brother, who had himself written a couple of socialist utopian novels), and first appeared in a kid's magazine in 1892. Organizations like the Knights of Columbus, the American Legion, and The United States Flag Association, none of which are connected to the US government, then adopted it, and each wrote their own modifications.

Uh.. ok, I didn't know if the government had created it or not and I didn't feel like looking it up. But the government did adopt and endorse it and they even changed it to include "under God," which is not separating government from church.

And laws are not the only thing that can be unconstitutional. Acts can also be unconstitutional, like firing someone because they are a certain race or denying freedom of speech.

Thanks JayC, I was have a dispute with my brother over whether he'd have to say the "new" version in school from now on. :) He's only 11, so...yeah.

Originally posted by mindboggle
And laws are not the only thing that can be unconstitutinal. Acts can also be unconstitional, like firing someone because they are a certain race. Well... I don't think that would be termed "unconstitutional" in any legal parlance, but I see your point. If you were to do that, you'd probably be in court for violating the law (for example, perhaps the 1964 Civil Rights Act), not for violating the constitution. For other occurances, someone might be said to be violating someones "civil rights," which are granted by the Constitution or its Amendments; but I wouldn't think you'd hear someone being tried for "civil rights violations" be said to have done something "unconstitutional."

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that acts of the government can be unconstitutional, I don't think the acts of any individual would be properly called that.

Ok question for you Americans.

I have been all over your beautiful country every state in the union except Hawaii.

It seems from this vantage point that you are bombarded with this patriotism since birth. The Country, the pledge, the flag. Since Sept 11 the flag waiving has increased 100-fold.

Has it got to the point that if you ever spoke out against your governments policies that you would be considered anti American??

Are you heading back the McCarthyism days???

Is the next generation of Americans going to be so brainwashed that they will believe that their country or government can do no wrong.
This is an honest question from someone looking in from the out side. It looks that way from here.
Cheers
:)

Originally posted by JayC
Regardless of what an editor chose to put in a headline in an attempt to grab attention, it doesn't seem to be what the court said, and I'd be sure that the phrase "the Pledge or Allegience is unconstitutional" doesn't appear in the written ruling.

The courrt overturned the 1954 Act of Congress that added "under God" to the pledge, saying the words violated the basic Constitutional tenet of separation of church and state, and said that the text of the pledge as currently written into federal law "impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God." If people just choose to say it on their own, the court would have nothing to do with it, but it's written into federal law and that's where the problem lies.

To put it in as general a statement as "the Pledge has been ruled unconstitutional" is more sweeping than the reality, which could more accurately be put "the placement of this particular text in a federal law is unconstitutional."

If there were more people like you within the USA, we would be a much happier nation. Why, you spent some time reading the facts before you stated anything. I'm glad there is another person reading and listening.

mike

Originally posted by JMD
Ok question for you Americans.

I have been all over your beautiful country every state in the union except Hawaii.

It seems from this vantage point that you are bombarded with this patriotism since birth. The Country, the pledge, the flag. Since Sept 11 the flag waiving has increased 100-fold.

Has it got to the point that if you ever spoke out against your governments policies that you would be considered anti American??

Are you heading back the McCarthyism days???

Is the next generation of Americans going to be so brainwashed that they will believe that their country or government can do no wrong.
This is an honest question from someone looking in from the out side. It looks that way from here.
Cheers
:)

very good question, from my point of view I think you might be right. For example the "american taliban" there is a small problem, he is not being charged in a federal court ( which is correct), nor in a military court ( which I think he should ), he is in a military tribuneral court( sp? ), now that's wrong, those courts litterly vote in the favor of what the acting president dictates. the only high ranking offical that made it around that was the Nazi Submarine and Naval Admiral Durnitz (he was also 3 or 4 th in command of the Nazi ), he only got away with it because in his defense were american admirals that stated he practiced his art of warfare cleanly.

Beond that case, there are other problems that we are seeing. Alot of protectionism is starting ( that lead into the great depression ).

Mike

Originally posted by JMD
Ok question for you Americans.

I have been all over your beautiful country every state in the union except Hawaii.

It seems from this vantage point . . . . . . . . And which vantage point would that be?
Where are you that you have visted all the states (except Hawaii)?
I get the impression that you dislike mankind in general. That would lead me to believe you wouldn't travel amoungst them much.

Just my views. We all have em.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
And which vantage point would that be?
Where are you that you have visted all the states (except Hawaii)?
I get the impression that you dislike mankind in general. That would lead me to believe you wouldn't travel amoungst them much.

Just my views. We all have em. LOL WHAT???

I was a long haul truck driver before my career change that’s how and the vantage point would be next-door Ontario Canada.
And as far as disliking all mankind get a grip buddy lol.

Cheers



:confused: :confused: :confused:

This is the most ridiculous story I have every read in my life. First of all, the ruling was made in a San Fransisco court which is probably one of the most liberal courts in the nation (meaning the decision will shortly be shot out of the water). Second of all, if you actually read the excerpts from the decision in the article, it is absolutely ridiculous. RIDICULOUS!

A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical ... to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god

How does the phrase 'under god' equate to 'under Jesus'?

That irked Sacramento-area atheist Michael Newdow, who said that his daughter, an elementary school student in the Elk Grove Unified School District, was being indoctrinated in beliefs by the U.S. government.

If his daughter is honestly that stupid - in that her religious beliefs are based on phrases that are included in the Pledge of Allegiance and on money, then he has other problems to deal with.

Finally, what precedent are they trying to set? I live in VA, and all students are required to observe a minute of silence in which students are allowed to quietly meditate, or "pray". The ACLU filed suit and guess what? The Supreme court decides not to hear the case. Now this does not mean that they would uphold the law, but my 2 cents says that justices like Scalia are going to use this case (since I'm sure it will be fast-tracked into the supreme court), to end the debate (for now at least).

I also recommend reading, The Collapse of the Common Good: How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines our Freedom (phew...long title!) by Philip K. Howard. It is a must read if you have lost faith in the legal system like I have.

Originally posted by MadSkilage
How does the phrase 'under god' equate to 'under Jesus'?


I also recommend reading, The Collapse of the Common Good: How America's Lawsuit Culture Undermines our Freedom (phew...long title!) by Philip K. Howard. It is a must read if you have lost faith in the legal system like I have.

your 2 statements reply

Under god means within the time it was placed as meaning under a christain / jewish god. They might have not stated it but that is what it is.

It's good that this law has come foward, we need more seperation of the church and the state. the church has it's own mandates and it does not deal with the general population.

Now in reference to loosing faith in the law. I'm sorry to here you have lost faith, be never fear you will gain it back.

Since I don't know you I will use myself as an example. I am the neighborhoods worst nightmare, I'm up at all hours, if I hear the dogs barking at 4am I will look out to see if there is a problem, when I do jog at 1 am and see a car that is not of the area I write down the plates, if I see someone that's not part of the nieghborhood at 2 am I call the cops, I know that my nieghbors don't like that I know what whom and where everything in my vision is happening. I've also files complaints agaist my nieghtbors for noise problems in my area if it's after 12 midnight. ( hey I pay huge taxes 5 digits), I've had people towed from my driveway, yes they dislike me but I've always protected and fought and won for my rights. I also know that since I moved into the area nobody has been robbed, 5 different suspects ( of other areas in my town ) have been caught when they were parked in there cars. my parties are the biggest hit besides the mayor of the town and everyone of my nieghbors is invited and they do show up ( well all but 1 ).

if you don't fight to exersise your right's, then don't waste your time complaining, and if you complain then do somehting about it. I fight every day for my right to live in a good area and damm if I will let the quality of my life get worsten.

side note : in NJ, driving is not a right, it's a privliage. even NY people seem to know that, How bad is it by you ?

Mike

Ok, so should the Constitution be ruled unconstitutional because it includes the phrase, "in the year of our Lord"?

Exercise my rights? Ok, I'll go spill hot coffee on myself, start smoking, and then drive with Firestone tires so that I can earn me some cash the legal way.

What does it hurt by having the phrase in god we trust, or under god, or a prayer before the supreme court will hear a case.. Its tradition.... It doesn't favor any certain relegion, yes this country was founded under a judaho(sp) christian background, but the word god doesn't refer to just jesus...

If people are this worried about a few words christ whats next??

Originally posted by MadSkilage
Ok, so should the Constitution be ruled unconstitutional because it includes the phrase, "in the year of our Lord"?

Exercise my rights? Ok, I'll go spill hot coffee on myself, start smoking, and then drive with Firestone tires so that I can earn me some cash the legal way.

in reference to "in the year of our Lord " You might be right, but I believe that since the arguement is what is a student made to repeat daily in school and a pledge, your arguement might not hold. but anyway the pledge is still valid just not the "god" part. focus on the exact issue here, it's the bringing of religion into our government, the goal is to stomp it our, the only reason the USA survives as is does because we don't mix them all the time. we try very hard to keep them seperate.

the hot coffee debate is something part myth, last known public verdict the stettlement was about $ 480,000 ( i myself think that coffee should be at about 160F not 185F)

start smoking, ( I am a smoker ) if you want to smoke that's fine but don't do it around me at a resturant marked non-smoking becasue it does bother me while eating, but don't complain at the same time if someone is smoking in a place marked smoking. also you have to understand that the tobbaco lobby has played dirty a few times so they might get what they deserve.

don't get me started on the firestone issue. bunch of f*&^(* stupid moronic drivers in my state that pack there suv's and don't even know what there tire presure is. then you got them flying down the turnpike doing 85, I'm not even sure that those tires are rated for that spead. Does anybody read there owners manual. heck I spent more time buying a great set of tires for my car ( I drive a volvo and wanted better rain type tires becasue we get a huge amount of wet leaves and rain in the fall and volvos are heavy cars ) than I did researching for a new tree to plant. (30 hours for the car tires and about 10 hours to find this nifty plant that can withstand freezing in NJ. an orange tree (shrub really, never seen anything like it, getting it this month from the nursery, think of a big thorn bush that has oranges, just amazing)

Originally posted by The Prohacker
What does it hurt by having the phrase in god we trust, or under god, or a prayer before the supreme court will hear a case.. Its tradition.... It doesn't favor any certain relegion, yes this country was founded under a judaho(sp) christian background, but the word god doesn't refer to just jesus...

If people are this worried about a few words christ whats next??

those phrase have a spirtual meaning that there is a spiritual supreme being. if you are an american we have laws to protect us from religious prosecution ( just ask that woman in NY that her husband got a divorce from, her husband ( for spite) via thier faith had her marked as a worthless woman, She was divoute in her faith and could no longer marry within her community's faith. She took the husband to court, they proved it was a spite attack, and her faith accepted her back ( i'm keeping the faith's name out of it on purpose ) ) and religious interfering with other faiths.

in NJ back in the 80's we had a town that stated NO MTV, the towns leaders happened to be all from the same faith ( that faith was practice in another town ) and imposed there views, it took them about 1 year to get MTV.

Also I happen to believe in God, but I would personally perfer that the statement read from " in god we trust " to " in the gods we trust " Also where in the heck does it state that I have to be under God, If anything God should be by my side not above me. get the picture I'm presenting, religion causes problems when mixed with governments.

mike

p.s. what's next .... remove driving privalages from people that do not have fast reaction times and move the driving age to 21.

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
And which vantage point would that be?
Where are you that you have visted all the states (except Hawaii)?
I get the impression that you dislike mankind in general. That would lead me to believe you wouldn't travel amoungst them much.



He was just talking about people like you...

go have a joint... you'll get your wings faster than any god will give you and is much cheaper too... Above all, is not as deadly as religious fanatics and false moralists like you.

You can quote Shrub as much as you want, your attitude will make you fail... amen