What's everyone's opinion (in the US anyways) on this?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/pledge.allegiance/index.html

I think it's ridiculous. :)

WHO CARES? If you don't want to say the pledge don't say it - oh well- you're not hurting anyone. It's the government's fault. Constantly contradicting itself.

The words, "under God" were added in '54-ish and wasn't there the 'separation of church and state' then? If so, you'd think it would have been addressed then. If not, well, then my post has no point.

What happens when we have to change all currency because someone's offended by "In God We Trust".

We just all go find the guy and lawyer who started the lawsuit to do that and make em disappear

:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:
:uzi:

Originally posted by Joey
What happens when we have to change all currency because someone's offended by "In God We Trust".
That lawsuit is coming soon... if it hasn't been filed already.

Originally posted by Chicken
The words, "under God" were added in '54-ish and wasn't there the 'separation of church and state' then? If so, you'd think it would have been addressed then. If not, well, then my post has no point.

This is really much to do about nothing...

Most reasonable minds agree that when the founding father framed the ground-rules for their new country, the intent of the "seperation of church and state" phrase was simply to avoid having (or naming) an "official" church for the new country (as opposed to what was the case in England, etc.)

In other words, the "God" in "under God", can mean any deity from any religion, etc. (in other words, there is no "official" God defined by the US)....

This "issue" similar to asking, "What is your race?" in the US. Actually, your "race" is whatever you care to name... at least, as far as the Census Bureau is concerned, and most other "official" govenment bodies in the US.

Finally, someone has the balls to challenge the "under god" phrase. This phrase should NEVER have been put into the US pledge (WTF was Eisenhower smoking back then?). It's finally being corrected. Hopefully the ruling stays.

The ruling won't stand up at all.

With the entire congres and president behind it any judge to make such a decision must know the time it comes around for their jobs to be decided they won't remain.

The 9th cirrcuit won't over rule the judge, even though they ruled with only 3 judges present as I remember, and not a full bar.....

The surpreme court on the other hand prolly will over turn it.. Remember they prey before each session :D

"God save the United States and this honorable court."

The problem isn't the pledge in schools...

The problem is pledge in public schools..

Thats why public schools are simply a bad idea.

Originally posted by Studio64
Thats why public schools are simply a bad idea.

Public schools are one of the things that made America great, 100-150 years ago if you wanted to goto school your family had to be well off.. If your family didn't have money you didn't get an education...

Now, your atleast given a high school education which will help you be more productive as a citizen, and you may continue your education to college with aide from the goverment...

Public schools may have problems, but untill you or someone else finds a better alternative for everyone, its the best we got :D

Why is it that 500 people have to shut up so they don't offend 3 other people?

No matter what is said or not said, someone will be offended by it.

Originally posted by Hiccups
Why is it that 500 people have to shut up so they don't offend 3 other people?

No matter what is said or not said, someone will be offended by it.


The rights of the majority are not the ones that need to be protected, it is the rights of the minority and unpopular that need to be stood up for...

Originally posted by technoart
In other words, the "God" in "under God", can mean any deity from any religion, etc. (in other words, there is no "official" God defined by the US)....
It differs from race in one aspect: what if you don't believe in any God? That God exists?

While the issue might seem like a non-issue to many people, I'm not so self-centered as to not be able to see that atheists might have a problem with their children reciting, "...under God..." when they don't belive in the existance of God.

Does the phrase (and the words on the bills) fall under the 'separation of church and state' ? That will be argued. Obviously at one time it was thought that it didn't fall under that. It is going to be challenged now and most likely the Supreme Court will decide the answer to that question, not me.

I do think it is irresponsible for legislators to tell school districts to ignore the ruling as that will only lead to lawsuits being filed against the districts (read: your money going to pay for many court cases, lawyers, settlements, etc.).

There was a case in Cali not too long ago where the principal decided to hang the 10 Comandments in the hallway. I've nothing against the Commandments, however presenting in the form of the Commandments was irresponsible and led to lawsuits being filed against the district (read: your money again). The basic underlying message in the Commandments could have be reworded and represented in another forum as, 'the rules of the school' possibly, I don't know.

I am sick of people wasting money as if it doesn't matter. I'm also on break right now (a mere few days left), so I'm not at school. I wonder what our principal had to say about the ruling, as we recite the Pledge as a school every morning. She's the, "We're doing it anyway!" type, so I have to call and find out.

1) "In God we Trust" was tried to be removed from money in a lawsuit, the Supreme Court found that it didn't endorse a religion and therefore didn't violate the 1st.

2) The current decision on the pledge was so ludicrous the court of appeals stayed themselves on it. Here is a quote from the opinion of the court (more or less accurate):

"...it effectively establishes monotheism as the official state religion"

One wonders how monotheism suddenly became a religion instead of an adjective used to describe religion...

Originally posted by ChowSumDung
Finally, someone has the balls to challenge the "under god" phrase. This phrase should NEVER have been put into the US pledge (WTF was Eisenhower smoking back then?). It's finally being corrected. Hopefully the ruling stays.
Hey, I challenged it in the other thread about this. :D

Oh, and I read in the Washington Post that the VA Governor is requiring all VA public schools to have the poster with the words "In God We Trust". Talk about unconstitutional, that's even worse than the pledge and money.

Public school in this country is a joke. The government does a crap job in really educating people, but tries its best to indoctrinate students into "groupthink". That's why vouchers are such a good thing, bring capatalism to an industry that REALLY needs it.

And contrary to liberal public opinion, there is NO right to NOT be offended. The 1st Amendment was designed so that people COULD disagree and potentially offend others. It was SUPPOSED to be the ultimate nonconformists dream Amendment... now it's a tool used by the left to make cookie-cutter people.

Originally posted by bambenek
One wonders how monotheism suddenly became a religion instead of an adjective used to describe religion...

Monotheism is a religion, just like how a macintosh is an apple.

BTW, monotheism is a noun (not an adjective). Look it up.

Originally posted by ChowSumDung
Finally, someone has the balls to challenge the "under god" phrase. This phrase should NEVER have been put into the US pledge (WTF was Eisenhower smoking back then?). It's finally being corrected. Hopefully the ruling stays.

Probably get flamed but its people like you that has everything messed up.

I do hope it doesn't stick. People has to be low on money or very depressed to go around bringing up lawsuits. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mindboggle
Oh, and I read in the Washington Post that the VA Governor is requiring all VA public schools to have the poster with the words "In God We Trust". Talk about unconstitutional, that's even worse than the pledge and money.

I went to VA public schools! They were contemplating posting the ten commandments in all the schools here too. I wonder why that didn't work out :confused:

Oh, and btw, the VA Governor (Mark Warner) isn't the one that sponsored the bill. He just realized that fighting all of the crazy old conservatives here was futile.

Originally posted by TopDog21
Probably get flamed but its people like you that has everything messed up. I do hope it doesn't stick. People has to be low on money or very depressed to go around bringing up lawsuits. :rolleyes:

You have to fight for what you believe in. That's being a US citizen and a free-thinking person. If that's messed up, then I suppose you would like to live in a dictatorship. Putting god, zeus, mohammad, the sun god, or whatever deity in our US pledge is just plain wrong. The original US pledge was just fine.

I remember getting yelled at for not paying attention to the pledge in class. I dreaded that moment in the morning, I was never even half awake. Religion and government need to keep their distances.

For "In God We Trust" on currency, consider all the people that are injured or killed each day over the flow of cash... Might as well print it on firearms. Just seems a bit ironic. :D

You've got to wonder why the doctor/attorney filing this suit would have the time or interest to do this.

That said, the words "under God" should not be there. Neither should it be on state seals in court rooms, on money, etc. Contrary to what many were taught, the USA was not founded upon God or godly principals. Far from it! For example, the pilgrims stole, killed, etc. I hate to say it, but, unfortunately, the USA has always been founded more on greed, than any sort of deity figure. BTW, I'm not an atheist.

Also, recently in Tennesee, we had 2 counties that posted the 10 commandments in the court house. (This must be a popular thing now.) They were rightfully removed.

Originally posted by ChowSumDung


You have to fight for what you believe in. That's being a US citizen and a free-thinking person. If that's messed up, then I suppose you would like to live in a dictatorship. Putting god, zeus, mohammad, the sun god, or whatever deity in our US pledge is just plain wrong. The original US pledge was just fine. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


I don't believe I mentioned I would like to live anywhere else?
Not here to argue or to try and change you. :)

People has too much time on thier hands to look around to find things to complain/file a lawsuit over. :stickout

chris, as for what you said about killing, stealing, etc.

That has went on since the start of time. Because it was founded on Godly principals, doesn't mean everyone was perfect.

Posted by: chrisb BTW, I'm not an atheist
Sounds like it, but everyone is entitled to thier own belief/opinion. :angel:

Also, recently in Tennesee, we had 2 counties that posted the 10 commandments in the court house. (This must be a popular thing now.) They were rightfully removed

- Unless you were going in there, and by seeing it, it was giving you a mentral breakdown I do not see how/why it would bother you?

My apologizies for the bad spelling (if any), it is 4:17a.m., with no sleep. :sleeping:

Just my final thoughts, Have a great day :D

BC12

You've got to wonder why the doctor/attorney filing this suit would have the time or interest to do this.

The attorney that filed this suit is currently unemployed. He says that he filed it in his own behalf to protect his young daughter from religious zealots. I believe he is also the same attorney that filed the suit to get "In God We Trust" taken off of the money a few years ago.

chris, as for what you said about killing, stealing, etc.

That has went on since the start of time. Because it was founded on Godly principals, doesn't mean everyone was perfect.
BC12

It has nothing to do with perfection. I just get tired of everyone from Catholic priests to Baptist ministers to our own Government doing outrageously evil things under the auspices of "under God" when "God" had nothing to do with it.

FWIW, I studied Theology and was a preacher many years ago. I still believe in God; just not all of those silly rules that religions have.

Originally posted by chrisb
You've got to wonder why the doctor/attorney filing this suit would have the time or interest to do this.

That said, the words "under God" should not be there. Neither should it be on state seals in court rooms, on money, etc. Contrary to what many were taught, the USA was not founded upon God or godly principals. Far from it! For example, the pilgrims stole, killed, etc. I hate to say it, but, unfortunately, the USA has always been founded more on greed, than any sort of deity figure. BTW, I'm not an atheist.

Also, recently in Tennesee, we had 2 counties that posted the 10 commandments in the court house. (This must be a popular thing now.) They were rightfully removed.

I will have to respectfully disagree. Most of our founding fathers were free masons and believed that they were divinely ordained to protect the ideals of freedom, justice, etc. Although it can be argued that the impetus for the Revolutionary was the greed of the merchant class, I honestly believe that they did all that was in their power to create a moral and just government. It seems to me they did a pretty good job :)

for i in $deity; do echo "one nation, under $deity"; done

I still think it's pathetic that people can really be that offended by the word God.

Originally posted by Joey
for i in $deity; do echo "one nation, under $deity"; done

I still think it's pathetic that people can really be that offended by the word God.

I agree..

I say we have the guy who filed the court case monitored for 1 week, and see how many time he says hell... Because if there is a hell there must be a heaven and a god that created it :D

If he says something relegious like god, or heaven, or hell, then the case should be droped :D

I have mixed feelings on this, I have no problem with 'under God' being in the pledge of allegiance though I'm not really religious, but I think the point that Congress should avoid adding terms like that would be valid.

Did it ever say whether his child follows his beliefs or not? Isnt she still just a kid? Is he forcing his beliefs on her? Something else to think about too.

Originally posted by Hiccups
Why is it that 500 people have to shut up so they don't offend 3 other people?

No matter what is said or not said, someone will be offended by it.

Was it right for me, not being religious, to have to listen to the majority of my school lead a prayer in our auditorium just because I'm the minority? So a million people believe one way, the few thousand that disagree should shut up and take it?

Originally posted by Patrick-EV1


Was it right for me, not being religious, to have to listen to the majority of my school lead a prayer in our auditorium just because I'm the minority? So a million people believe one way, the few thousand that disagree should shut up and take it? Yes it was right. :rolleyes:
Yes you should shut up and take it.

I suppose we could have no laws, mostly voted by a majority, just to appease the few that think laws suck. :rolleyes:

Na, those who disagree should ignore it really. I suppose its a trivial argument. I seriously doubt very few kids have a problem with it being said, its the anal retentive parents who have the problems. I don't have a religion and I don't believe in a god but two little words don’t hurt my feelings one bit. Not to mention parents can opt to have their children not say it on top of that. Contrary to popular belief we all have this thing called free will. This is a majority rule country, which I'd say is doing a pretty damn good job at being fair and equal but people will always disagree. Sure we could remove all mentions of god or religion from the government, but would anybody who wanted to do that really get elected? More religious people vote than anything else. Hell... half the time in campaigns religion plays a big part in getting voters, so no one is to blame for this other than the people themselves. Again, contrary to popular belief this is a country run for the people by the people, and we the people put into power those who we want in with the ideals we think we want.

If you don't vote, like me, then you have no argument or any other say-so. If you voted for someone and lost then you can gripe a bit, but if you voted for someone, swayed by religion just a bit, then you need to keep that mouth shut :).


Ok that’s my rant for the day.

I didn't say the words "under God" bothered me. I consider it minor, and personally would not even consider suing. Yes, I don't think the words "under God" need to be there; but I also think there are many legal issues that are far more important and should be addressed.

Originally posted by bambenek
... [The] 1st Amendment was designed so that people COULD disagree and potentially offend others. It was SUPPOSED to be the ultimate nonconformists dream Amendment... now it's a tool used by the left to make cookie-cutter people.
And Affirmative Action is a tool used by the right to steal elections.

Anywho, the issue is not who it offends or how many. The question is: Should the words "under God" be in our Pledge of Allegiance?

The answer? No!

By having the words "under God," the state is endorsing monotheistic religion. It's not supposed to endorse any religion! It's really not that hard. And to make things easier, I've composed a new Pledge. Enjoy:

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

It seems to me like that is the best and most patriotic pledge I've seen. It shows our support for our commen beliefs and affirms our respect for everyone. No need for God or nothing in there.

As someone said (can't remember who) the fighters of WWII got along just fine without "under God."

Originally posted by Dogma

And Affirmative Action is a tool used by the right to steal elections.


Um...how could affirmative action be a tool of the right if they don't even support it?

First someone argue's the "under God" part, next someone will argue the "I pledge allegiance" part.

Majority rules. If you dont like, there's a choice of countries for you to go to. Majority wants the phrase to stay. If you dont like it, dont say it. Put cotton balls in your ears if you feel it's that bad. What about the rights of those who want it? For some reason you think YOU should have MORE rights than THEM and get rid of a phrase they want to keep?? Grow up and quit be so damned self centered.

How long till someone challenges putting your hand on the Bible in court and swear? Oh yeah, it was. You dont have to do it. Same with this, you dont have to say "under God".

Geez, this kind of junk is what's making the country go to crap. How long till there's a court case over the friggin color of traffic lights? Sound rediculous? Well it's not anymore rediculous than this case.. "oooh, I dont like the color red, so I will sue!" The phrase does you no harm. As for being athiest, love is a form of worship. How much do you love your ride, or money, or your house? If you have to, say "under the dollar" instead of "under God". That's not even the base for this lawsuit. I promise you it has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with someone finding a reason to file a suit and try to get rich..

Originally posted by Webdude
. . . . . . . . Majority rules. If you dont like, there's a choice of countries for you to go to. . . . . . :agree: uh-huh

Can anyone define, "democracy?" Government by the PEOPLE! Majority RULES! More people want it to stay in the pledge than those who do not.

Change the pledge because a few people don't like it and you change the meaning. I think that those who sue about this are as idiotic as the Mexicans who are suing the government for their relatives dying while trying to cross the border illegally. "We need drinking fountains in the desert because our illegal aliens are coming into your country and dying due to dehydration! Pizza delivery too, please."

"Take the evil word God out of your pledge of alligiance or I'll sue because I don't like it!" WTF?!! I don't like the fact that I got a damn speeding ticket today when I was going to donate blood, but I am fscking dealing with it, and so should all of you who fear the word "God" oh so much.

Majority rules.


I have to step in here. We do not live in a true democracy. We live in a representative democracy. You vote for the person whose opinions most closely mirror yours. Unfortunately, no one will ever agree with you on everything. But even that is not the biggest problem. If something is declared unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if the majority wants it or not. A good example of this would be your average criminal. Don't you think the majority of people believe once you have commited a crime, you don't have any rights? Guess what.....the judges say different....

The Senate was so outraged Wednesday that it passed a resolution 99-0 expressing full support for the Pledge of Allegiance

California Gov. Gray Davis said his state was "going to take decisive action to overturn this decision."

In this case though, looks like some judges will be put in their place and find they are not quite as invincible as they once thought.. Considering our reps voted 99-0 for the current version of the Pledge, looks like they are representing correctly.

I'm sure there may be a judge or two that are getting concerned about whether they made the wrong decision or not. Afterall, accidents happen up there..

Originally posted by Webdude
First someone argue's the "under God" part, next someone will argue the "I pledge allegiance" part.

Majority rules. If you dont like, there's a choice of countries for you to go to.

LOL... That's just narrow-minded ignorance. I'm glad that we live in a country ruled by democracy where the majority doesn't always rule.

I live in a neighborhood (about 100 homes) that allows dogs. If one person petitions the local government that our neighborhood should not be allowed dogs in it, what should the ruling be? Should everyone else be unhappy just to make this one person happy? No, he can kiss my back end and move out (or get run out).

Same thing, just a smaller scale. That's what "majority rules" means in case you didnt previously understand what it meant. I know some people have a hard time understanding simple terms like that.. and the only reason majority doesnt always win is because our reps are either misinformed or go crooked, and dont do their jobs right.

I see "democracy" mentioned a few times in here, yet I would like to point out that the United states is NOT a democracy, If you read the pledge it even tells you that.

The form of government in the US is Representative Republic.

If you don't believe that look at the election results and you will understand, the republic form of government allows rural areas to have an equal voice with the urban, it is a pretty good choice of government for such a vast country.

Originally posted by MBNapier
Don't you think the majority of people believe once you have commited a crime, you don't have any rights? Guess what.....the judges say different....

You believe the accused shouldn't have any rights? Yes! Now the government can instate all of the following:

[list=1]
Writ of habeas corpus
Bill of attainder
Ex post facto rulings
[/list=1]

I thought they were only good enough for medieval European justice, but I guess America can handle them too!

Oh yeah, there go the 4/5/6/7/8th Amendments! Wow, half of the bill of rights supports rights of the accused - the founding fathers must have been really out of line ;)

Although they have been given rights, I dont think violent criminals such as murderers and rapists should be allowed any rights.. However, I dont believe that non-violent criminals should lose their rights (such as those who couldnt pay their taxes).

Originally posted by MadSkilage


You believe the accused shouldn't have any rights? Yes! Now the government can instate all of the following:



The accused are not yet criminals, the convicted are. I do agree with webdude on this as well, only violent criminals.

Yes, I also think it is ridiculous, but when it was voted out, what can you do?

The Pledge should be a pledge to your country. This is not the Holy land, nor is it the Promised land. God may be looking over us but we are not the United States under God.

Let's just pledge allegiance to our country. It's simple.

@MadSkilage
That's the weird thing. Basically, Bush's lawyers argued something like if a recount was allowed, it would decrease the power of each individual voter whose vote was already counted and fit this into Affirmative Action. Many of the judges who had a track record of voting against Affirmative Action voted for this; this is why some people question the legitmacy of their ruling. If you have more questions, I'll try to address them. Otherwise see Jews for Buchanan by John Nichols and Supreme Injustice by Alan Dershowitz, two very good and informative books.