the pledge of allegance, uncontutional?

[Brain]

ok, for those of you who are not amreican, or have not kept up with national news heres the scoop

a few days ago, the ninth circut court of appeals decided that the pedge of alegance violated the first amendment  due to two little words
under god

if you are unfamilliar with  the constitution, the first amendment  deals with (among other things) the fact that there should  be a seperation of church and state. the court, somehow construed under god as an attempt to impose a state religino(what the first amendment was originally written to protect against)

i just wanted to get some reaction on this, both forign and domestic

my personal opinion: what the FUCK were they smoking/high on?

and sorry about the numerious mispellings

[jn.loudnotes]

Remember the terrorism debate thread a little while ago?

If I were to post much here, this would turn into one just like that...with Ace posting his Republican views...and me being the minority liberal backed by the European observers.

So...my only reaction is that every member of the House and Senate is a hypocrite.  They blandly denounced it without any logical rationale...because its the politically correct thing to do.  I just wish some of them could have at least displayed their real feelings...

The pledge itself is not sacred, only the ideals that it represents

[*DAMN Hazard]

Personally i dont see the big deal. I think this was all started up by a paranoid parent. but seriously, do they really think that by saying "Under God" its gonna brainwash their children? By saying that little phrase does it tell them to change their religon. I think its a moral thing but if they dont believe in god they should just say "under (wutever god they worship)" or just skip that part and pretend they have a cough or something. I fail to see how this violates their rights and im not just saying this because im american.

[*NADS Capt. Anarchy]

this all hapened because some lame-ass liberal who hate our glorious government decided he was gonna throw a pissy fit when his son cam home and proudly stated the pledge of allegiance for his daddy.

[Brain]

Personally i dont see the big deal. I think this was all started up by a paranoid parent. but seriously, do they really think that by saying "Under God" its gonna brainwash their children? By saying that little phrase does it tell them to change their religon. I think its a moral thing but if they dont believe in god they should just say "under (wutever god they worship)" or just skip that part and pretend they have a cough or something. I fail to see how this violates their rights and im not just saying this because im american.

loud, you forgot to mentsion almost every major ?newspaper in america denoucing the ruling as well. also you should have heard the argument from the decenting judge, he ?was making the point that ?if we follow the logic of the deision, we would have to remove the phrase ' in god we trust' from our money

you are correct haz, this was started as a lawsuit by an athiest who ddint want his 2nd grade daughter exposed to religion in school

news flash the judge who made the ruling, has put it on hold

i leave you know with a little wisdom from jay leno
"at this rate, pretty soon the only time that someone will be able to say god is when little jonny is screwing his teacher"

[*DAMN Hazard]

Seriously i think the problem is that people are trying to be too politically correct. seriously if that woman lived in my town i would leave her a letter that said stfu. While other countries are dealing with more important things americas government is focusing on something that shouldn't be blown out of proportion. instead of finding a more efficient way to run the country our officials are thinking about this crap. it angers me.

[Bondo]

Loud, you must remember it was Bander, you and I against Ace, Grifter and I think blackhand. ?Then it went on to talking about how Bob did this to Ahmed or something or other.

Anyway, I really don't see why Under God needs to be in there, but I could really care less, I used to say the Pledge of Allegence from like Kindergarden to 3rd grade but I don't think I've said it since. ?I don't think it is really a violation of religion, but as I'm Christian I guess I may not be in a position to be offended.

Two final closing remarks, our goverment isn't glorious and Jay Leno isn't funny.

[TeeEfSix Goku]

Well.....look.Schools and bush have a stick up thier ass so they take it out on us christian folk.Plain and simple.

[Jeb]

Mb you'd like the views of a athiest on this one...  
For me personaly, i don't hate religion, i think its a great thing. however, one can not deny that it violates the constitution. Alot of the senators are screaming Bullshit based off tradition, but those words were put into the pledge in 1954 durring the red scare. in a time that people were conservative, and scared of a religionless society (like comunism). So i don't think it should matter to much if it is removed. I don't have any personal problem with the words "under god" in anything, i mean, who is it hurting by saying that. I also think that the religious republicans will have the ruling overturned, since many of them are tightwads, who don't want anyform of change.
jebbsy
ps. If parts of this don't make sense, just know, i'm drunk, and its hard

[Brain]

well, in my quest for even more information on theis subject, i have found out that the 9th circut  cvourt of appeals is the most overturned appeals court in the country, so more than likely, this ruling is getting shot down.

i feel that it is also my duty to remind everyone of why the first amendment was added in the first place. to prevent the government from establishing a government religion(like the church of england) or requiring that a certian positon can only be held by someone with a certian religion

while some ppl may view  the words under god as a attempt supreme court after supreme court has made it clear that these 2 little words, while religious, are not a significant threat to the atheist establishment.

reigion(or at least belief in a highrte being) is inexorably intwined in our society.wh hold these truthes to be self evident that allmen are created equal and are endowedby their creater with certian inaliable rights...


more on this later i have to go now

[Grifter]

Well... I'll chime in here too I guess.

First, while I hate most things about the Congress... I disagree with Loud here about them being hypocrites... they are the ones that put "under God" in the pledge in the first place... so it would be hypocritical of them to support the court's ruling... not defend the pledge.

Second, I'm really, really tired of the PC crap.  Anyone that doesn't understand that seperation of church and state doesn't mean an athiest state, just doesn't understand his history.  Back in the day... many of the people that came to America were fleeing the wrath of the CHURCH.... be it the Catholic Church... The Curch of England... etc.  Governments were very tied to some of the "The Church"'s... to the point where the organizations became politically powerful....  It's not the belief that causes it... but the political agenda's of the organizations that was screwing things up back then.  So the first amendment was there to make sure that we all had religeous freedom.... that there would never be a "Church of America".  Now, some 200+ years later... people take the words and twist them to their own needs.  

What will be hypocritical will bee when the high court of the land rules on this.... since "In God We Trust" is written in that courtroom, for all to see.

What's next... it comes off the money too?  Maybe the poor bastards that think it's wrong should refuse any money from now on too.... stand up for that principle!!

Here's the first amendment for those of you that have never actually seen it....  I know that saying "under God" isn't prohibiting the free exercise of religeon... but is the word "God" actually establishment of religion??  That must be what the court of appeals thinks....


Amendment I


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[Bondo]

I'm fine with religious things like the words Under God being present in society, but I really really really wish Congress would stop enforcing their religious moral codes on the country.  Nearly every victimless crime is a crime because they find it immoral by their moral code.  It is unconstitutional and needs to stop.

That means the following among others need to be decriminalized.
"Statutary" rape, prostitution, poligamy, and drugs.

Oh, and homosexuals should have every single right that heterosexuals have.

[jn.blackhand]

"one nation under god, multiple gods and dieties, or lack there of depending on your faith" doesn't quite sound right.

honestly, if saying "Under God" bothers you that much, move to Canada. It's a nice place.

[Jeb]

Grifter, you don't honestly think that the majority of religoius views in goverenment are catholic?
And being a athiest, i don't really care if god is mentioned in the pledge, i think that posting the 10 comandments in public schools is completely wrong. On the other side of the debate over the pledge, it won't really effect our lives if the god reference is taken out of it

[jn.loudnotes]

Bondo's phrasing his point better than I am but I feel the same.  Here I go...

Another purpose of the first amendment in most interpretations, regardless of how it was originally phrased 200 years ago, is to prevent people from being harassed based on their religion.  Congress has reaffirmed that intent through other laws, for example those that illegalize discrimination based on religion, etc.

And therefore, I think the court is perfectly in line on this ruling.  How can you argue that it would not cause some sort of discomfort if not outright abuse for an atheist to be forced to proclaim their love for their country (which may be very strong) along with their loyalty to a God in which they do not believe?

The "in god we trust" symbolism is questionable as well, but at least it does not force anyone to proclaim belief contrary to their own.  Our money states that the government is basing the value of currency on faith, which is true.  Arguably that faith should not be in God, but again there is no one hurt by that assertation.

However, that the primary method of pledging allegiance to the USA requires also accepting that that nation is below a non-existent god (or one of many gods) is offensive.

Furthermore, as Hazard mentioned, he would have sent a letter to the little girl were she living in his community.  There have been people who took it to the next step and have sent hate mail to the family already.  And thus how exactly would this girl not be suffering abuse in school for having different beliefs if the entire country is so violently outraged that she might think differently from them?

Being half-Christian and half-Jewish, my religious views have always been very flexible, based more on morals than worship.  There are some of you that would argue that I am immoral because of this.  

But regardless of that, I fail to understand why our soceity attempts to instill its majority's views on the rest, while claiming to be accepting those feelings.

Religion simply isn't the same as politics.  Majority does not always rule.  If we abolished mention of God from government and all its buildings, etc. we would be far from a god-less state.

Rather, all forms of religion could flourish on their own, and no group would have any reason to feel as if others were imposing their will upon them.

Without having been in their detractors positions, the predominantly Christian leadership of this country would have atheists and polytheists pledge their allegiance to one God.  This is already the case, and has been since 1954.  Isn't it time we modernized our way of thinking?

I read in my local paper a letter to the editor where someone offerred the traditional complaint of "if you don't like it, go live in some other country that has freedoms, etc."  I thought the purpose of our freedoms was to be able to achieve change  - so that our nation might long endure.

Grifter, the Congress is hypocritical by your rationale every time they repeal a law.  Times change - laws should too.  What I found hypocritical was that they passed near-unanimous resolutions of solidarity in supporting God's place in the pledge.  It was entirely political posturing - and further offensive to those who would like to see the government stop endorsing God and leave that role to the citizenry.

I appreciate those of you who actually read through this.  Finally I would like to leave you with my reaction to a typical statement in this case.

example:

this all hapened because some lame-ass liberal who hate our glorious government decided he was gonna throw a pissy fit when his son cam home and proudly stated the pledge of allegiance for his daddy.

Is it possible to love the US but not God?

[jn.loudnotes]

Thanks blackhand for echoing the person in my newspaper while I was typing my manifest

honestly, if saying "Under God" bothers you that much, move to Canada. It's a nice place.

Again, isn't one of the main ideals of the US that we can achieve democratic change?  

Your rhetorical question can be reversed.  

If it is so important to you to say "under god" in school or have it on your government buildings, why don't you move to Pakistan?

[Jeb]

Religion is a personal practice that should be practiced on personal time.

[Brain]

?Now, some 200+ years later... people take the words and twist them to their own needs. ?

exactly grift.
nowhere in the declaration of independance, constution, or in the bill of rights will you find the phrase 'seperation of church and state'
i do believe that some people were making the argument thst making teachers(government employees) say under god, is a form of 'religious test'. my response to these people is thus, do you have your heads shoved so far up your asses that you cant even see the simple solution and FAKE A COUGH! oh wait...you're a dumbass...a lawsuit is the ONLY course of action!

the freedom of america is a simple, you have the freedom to state your opinion, you can assemble in peace, you can even swing you fist around in the air, and guess what, if you are in the minority your rights are PROTECTED BY THE US GOVERNMENT. you do not, however, have the freedom to not hear what you do not agree with, and you do not ?have the right to turn your minority views into a veto of the majority. nowhere in ANY histoical document(us consstitution, delcaration of independance, bill of rights) or court cases have you been given such a right. to the athiest who started this whole mess i have one thing to say, stop over reaching your rights, cuz you are starting to abuse mine!
and remembet the right for you to swing your rights around stops at the tip of my nose
(yes i realize i modified the saying, but hey, i was making a point)

[jn.loudnotes]

First of all, I hate it when we write posts at the same time...because I doubt Brain read mine.

Secondly, Brain, what rights of yours are being infringed upon?

The right to say "god" in your pledge of allegiance? ?
The right to worship during public school? ?
The right to impose your religion on others? ?
The right to declare your religion in a place of government?

Funny....I don't remember any of those in the Constitution. . .

And you can fake a cough all you want...but what if you want to declare your love of country with everyone else, without having to declare love of god in the same breath?

[Brain]

Without having been in their detractors positions, the predominantly Christian leadership of this country would have atheists and polytheists pledge their allegiance to one God. ?This is already the case, and has been since 1954. ?Isn't it time we modernized our way of thinking?

if i remember correctly the us government has been traditanally been prodestant  instution, not christin

and wow, i had  3 ppl post while i was writing my last rant