I was just reading about a federal court ruling that just ruled the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional. in the article in talked about the part where it says "one nation (under god)" being unconstitutional because some atheist father complained that his child shouldn't have to say that. in a 2-1 vote this federal court ruled in favor of the father and prohibited says the pledge of allegiance in schools in the approximately 9 states that this court had jurisdiction over. I just wondered how people felt about this. Do you think that they are taking a perfectly innocent pledge of allegiance too far with this ruling, or do you think they are right to rule that way?

[ 06-26-2002, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe ]

Its about time.
"...one Nation under God" was added to the pledge in the early 1950's, a full 60 years after it was created, no doubt this was done by some well meaning but misguided religous Americans who probably thought everybody should acknowledge and worship god like they do.

Considering the bill of rights, it should have never been added to public school routine in the first place. It has nothing to do with "anti-religion" but the seperation of church and state. If someone wants religion in their child's schooling, then send them to a private church school or teach them at home. Public schools should neither condone nor condemn religion or god in anyway.

Just my opinion. I salute that father for standing up to the religious minority that would plaster their beliefs all over our state institutions. And I salute that Judge for doing the right thing and upholding the high ideals my nation was founded upon.

BTW I'm all for the ORIGINAL pledge w/o the religious addition in schools.

I have to say that not haveing anything about "God" in the pledge is a good idea. I am sure a lot of christan people will get upset if the ruleing stands. I can almost hear Pat Robetson and Jerry Falwell makeing asses out of themselves again ala sept 11. They should consider how they would feel if the pledge said "One nation under Satan" instead of "under God". That is probably the feeling many american children who dont follow christianity feel at haveing to say "under God". If they keep their religon out of my face , I will keep my lack of religon out of theirs.

I always wondered how that was legal. Glad at least one state struck it down. Not that it will ever happen here in NC.

I just treat it as part of the pledge. I think that a lot of people are getting worked up over nothing, it is just the pledge of allegiance, for crying out loud! "One nation, under god" won't hurt anybody, will it? I think that I am against the father dude for doing this, if his son doesn't want to do it, doesn't want to say "One nation, under god", he can just sit down and not say the pledge at all, if he hates saying it so much. The separation of church and state is put there to keep them from teaching religion at public schools, not for saying the pledge of allegiance.

Wrongo Willard, if your pedging to your nation AND god I think theres some religious connotations there...I've always thought it unconstitutional and I yes I want "In god we trust" off our coins.

Why not under Satan, Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, or even Brahmin? Why not MAN? "In Man we trust" would feel better, as money is worldly and thus 'unholy.' The pledge of allegience came after the constitution, and thus, the existing law stands over it. I don't believe in God, I shouldn't have to pledge allegience to God, it's in direct violation of my constitutional rights.

Right on!! This is exactly how I feel about this subject.

In America it is your constitutional right to choose your own religion. OR not to have one at all if you so choose.

Im 37 now but when I was 9 and 10 years old I was late to school EVERY day because I hated having to say the Pledge of Alleigence. I was raised in the Church of Christ. I was taught that praying to ANY idol was a sin. Pledging my "alleigence" to a flag was the same as being forced to worship a false idol in my eyes--and I was only 9 and 10-- in the school where I was forced to do this.

In the two years that I went to that school only NOT late ONE time. Well after the first few days in that school anyway. When I realised what they were forcing me to do I was only ever actually on time ONCE. Having a repeat experience of that made me never want to say the Pledge of Alleigence again.

I understand the need for the government to have a patriotic nation but infringing on constitutional rights is NOT the way to get one. Im just as patriotic as the next guy and maybe moreso. I completely disagree with flag burning asa form of political expression. Anyone who burns the flag needs to get the F*ck out of the country. Forcing me to do something that is against my religion is as bad as the flag burning.

[ 06-26-2002, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]

Hmm I guess peopel do not understand what the intent of the founding faterhs was. They all belived in God. What they did nto want was a state sponsered religion such as in ENGLAND where the King was the head of the church. They did not want the percicuton to take place as it di din England. The idea was that in Aermica you could choose your woen religoon and not have to worry that you would have problems for it. It was not to ban religon. Prior to the constitution in soem parts of the country if you did nto belogn to a particualr church youwre not allowed to vote in the local elections, own property in that town and so forth. That was what they wanted to prevent.

To teh case in point what I do nto understand is that if you do nto belive in God what difference does it make to you if it is in there it shoudl nto effect you anyway. Oh to answer the question President Esienhower added the phrase "under God" by executive order.

[ 06-26-2002, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Lanthir ]

errrr well said, drink another one

<font color=pink>Hmm, i saw this on the news not an hour ago! It is his daughter who is uncomfortable saying it, it seems...

But i agree with Jahanna and Chewbacca; it never really made me uncomfortable, but i could never help wondering how the strong atheists(sp?) felt about it. Thats as far as im gonna take this one [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>

Well said! The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the free exersise thereof;"
As far as I know there are NO laws stating that the pledge MUST BE SAID IN SCHOOL. It is voluntary to say the pledge!!!!!!!! Since the pledge is voluntary (you can say it or NOT say it) how can it be a violation of anyones rights?
I know someone will bring up the esteem of someone that doesn't wish to say the pledge with "under God" in it. To that I say what about the esteem of the people that want to say "Under God"? Are not their rights just as valid?

Personally I don't really care what the 9th circut court of apeals ruled. I'm going to say the pledge when ever I Want too! with the phrase "Under God" in it, if you don't like it too bad! If you do like it too Bad! I don't say the pledge of allegance for any human on this earth but me! And I answer to no human on this earth for any pledges that I make, they're mine and mine alone to make!

Yeah, hopefully the other states do the same. I too am waiting for the day that they take "In God We Trust" off of the coin. Never could understand how a nation promoting freedom of religion could put such things on currency anyway. Well the school thing came way too late for me anyway I guess, hate to suffer though all that eventually I ended up uses the coming in late method as well. Though still today it seems you have to endure the forced ceremony elsewhere it angers me the way people look at me when I refuse at sports events, graduations and such.

To address the wording of the main topic, just because you don't want "under god" or "in god we trust" on something doesn't mean that you are non-religious. Just that you are supportive of free thought and the right of.

[ 06-27-2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Orion ]

FINALLY! How would christians feel if they had to say one nation under Vishnu, Zeus etc.

<font color="snow">Pardon me for asking, but what is the pledge of alleigance? Is it like pledging yourself to America or something like that? Do you have to do it? </font>

No one ever said you HAVE to say the pledge, There are no laws making anyone say the pledge under penalty of law. And if the pledge said Zeus I'd just leave that part out.

Basicly that's what it is, and you do NOT HAVE to say it!!!!!!!!!!

<font color="snow">Do you have to say it everyday? Would it be considered disrespectful if someone did not say it?

I believe that it is unfair to get a child to make a pledge like that. They are too young. Wait until they are teenagers before making them swear their lives away :/</font>

<font color="6699FF"><font color="yellow">Scholarcs,</font> The Pledge of Allegiance is usually recited by school children at the beginning of the school day. The class stands up and the teacher leads them in a pledge to the flag.

I gave this topic a lot of thought last night, and I have to admit that I even surprised myself with my answer.

I looked at it from several different perspectives.

First of all, <font color="yellow">are we REALLY <font color="white">"one nation, under God"?</font></font> Not anymore. Non-Christian religions are becoming more numerous and more vocal. For many, many years, it was taboo to proclaim any religion that deviated greatly from Christianity. Mormons, Jews, and Catholics were acceptable..but anything past that was really "pushing your luck". That has changed dramatically within the last 25 years, so the pledge is no longer accurate.

Second point - <font color="yellow">Will Christianity be adversely affected by removing the "offending reference"?</font> Once again,the answer is NO. Christians could still add it if they wished while non-beleivers are offering nothing more than meaningless "lip-service" at best. AFA non-believer simply choosing NOT to state the pledge at all....I cannot agree with that. It looks good on paper, but if a student chooses to NOT recite the pledge, he/she will be "marking" themselves and setting themselves up for possible retaliation. Retaliation that may even receive the "implied consent" from the teacher since they may feel that the Pledge is a show of patriotism and SHOULD be recited by all children.
<font color="white">Orion</font> mentioned the "disapproving stares" he/she recieves at ballgames for not participating in the pre-game prayer. It would be even worse when school children (who can be quite cruel towards other anyway) are involved.
<font color="yellow">Example:</font> A little over a year ago, I saw a video of a high school chorus group doing a "recital" (or whatever you call a community event where they sing several of the songs they have practiced all year long). One of the members in the chorus was a pagan. She and her mother (head of the local pagan church) had objected strongly to Christian Hymns being included in the groups presentation. She also cited the "separation of church and state". I disagree with that interpretation, but it was a moot point. When the presentation took place, the pagan girl refused to sing the hymns. She was physically attacked by the "Christians" in the group. They pummeled her with their fists and pulled her hair. All of this was captured on video and shown on the local news.

So tell me, do you REALLY think it would be safe for a 5th grader to "sit out" the Pledge of Allegiance?? Sooner or later, he has to go to the playground, and you can bet there will be some kids waiting for him there.

Don't misunderstand me....as most of you know, I am a very devout Christian. But the kind of ignorance and intolerance mentioned above is simply inexcusable. Not only does it NOT reflect the love that Jesus Christ showed to everyone - and that He EXPECTS modern day Christians to do also - it also puts Christianity in a very bad light and simply adds justification to the various criticisms leveled by atheists, agnostics, et al. It gives us a very negative image that is difficult to overcome.

Finally, <font color="yellow">why did Dwight D. Eisenhower feel it was necessary to add the phrase after so many years?</font> According to one report I heard last night, he stated that he did it so that "children all across America will be calling to and acknowledging the Almighty every single morning before starting school" {paraphrased}.

That IS a direct violation of the "separation of church and state". That is an example of the President trying to impose a specific religious belief on the entire nation.

So I have to say that I do not oppose removing the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't completely agree with it, but I have to agree with the opposition in this case.</font>

Cerek, yet again you have hit paydirt. I believe your comments sum up the legal and ethical aspects of this case quite well. As for people being tolerant of one another's choices, it has gotten considerably better, yet it is still risky to stand out in a crowd in re one's religion. The government of our nation, a polyglot of cultural and religious backgrounds, MUST remain neutral on matters of religion if it is to honestly represent all the citizens equably.
BTW, Cerek, should you choose to run for public office, you've got my vote!

I don't the believe "God" in the Pledge has been defined, has it?

It does not say "One nation, under the Christian God", does it?

Can it mean any God that applies to you?

If it IS a big deal, shouldn't "In God We Trust" on our American money be removed. Maybe it should read "In Gold We Trust"! ;)

I don't really care, but the US government should not split hairs. If there is a division between Church and State, it should be all or nothing.

I think there are bigger problems for the American people and our Government to worry about right now.

Like the budget, a possible stock market crash, and other more important issues.

Mark

Well, Mark, the Christian God is usually called God. If it was an undefined god it would have to be in A god we trust.

Yes, but when you write god with a capital letter you mean the Christian god. If it was just any god, then maybe they should write in plural. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Ooops! Sorry, I kinda knew that, but I think it was filed way back in my brain. Thanx for the correction guys!

Mark

Americans might have to say the pledge every morning before school with the god stuff in it. but at my primary school i had to sing hymns (sp) before school started. if you didn't sing then you'd be singled out and told off by the teachers in front of everybody. I wasn't religeos and so where my friends.

also how come nobody could say hallaluyah! (really bad s/p) i mean everyone singing always missed off the first H entirly and said the y as a J!.

<font color=skyblue>Some of you from other places besides the U.S. probably are wondering what the words are to our pledge. See below.
</font><font color=white>

Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all. </font>

[ 06-27-2002, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

I think if the crafters of the constitution wanted goverment institutions to promote religion, specificly by the acts of creating and interpreting leglislation, that they would have mentioned religion more than once in the bill of rights.

[URL=http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html]http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/preamble.html[/UR L]

Here is a link the constitution in its entirty. It seemed so much longer when I had to memorize it in grade school.

No religion is established by law, aka goverment and Religion is way more diverse than the word God.

Considering religion is free to the people, the opportunity for religion in private schools is still available. It became potentially even more available just today with the validation of vouchers by the supreme court.The voucher system makes goverment money available to private schools, even if they are religon based.

Alas, Today the court that made this decision put their ruling "on hold".
My president and leglislation nearly messed themselves with rhetoric. I think its mostly a clever ploy to gain "religous right" votes preceding an crucial election year that could shift the balance of power in the 2 party system.

Perhaps the people who want to include god in their pledge can do so if they want, but the non-religous original version should be the one that is read by the school leader. Its only fair to all the other religions/philosophies that dont include God in thier viewpoint and people like me who would prefer to let thier children decide about religion without it being a ritualized aspect of being patriotic.

Being patriotic has NOTHING to do with religion. Hence the first amendment of the costitution. Religion is above and beyond public goverment endorsment. Thats what those three words added to the Pledge amount too.

I expect this ruling to be upheld in the end, considering thats the legal precedent set concerning the 10 commandments in the courtroom and the sheer logic of this interpretation of the constitution.

[ 06-28-2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

if it was "one nation under satan" then all the christian kids would be complaing and make it changed, they wouldnt just say it. thats how all other religions (or lack of religions) feel about it

Good post Cerek, It's my understanding that Congress wrote the pledge into a law, stating that this would be the official pledge. Now if Dwight D Eisenhower signed an exceutive order adding the words "under God" then it IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL the first amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no laws establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" It says nothing about an exectutive order, I bring that up because what is being argued in the courts is the "letter of the Law" not the "Spirit of the Law". I'm all for making all exctutive orders unconstitutional, but I believe the US Supreme Court has allready ruled on that issue.

[ 06-28-2002, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Chewbacca,
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law establishing religion,or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not the gov't. or the President and because it's the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law that is being argued in this case, it might not be upheld. (asmueing "under God" was added by excutive order as has been stated)

Just a bit of history. When Ike signed the bill adding "under God", he said: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." So it's pretty clear that Congress and the Pres meant to establish a state sponsorship of religion.

Those who think that kids can just sit it out or omit the "under God" part should read this thread about what happens in the real world when you reveal your unchristianity:

http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/cg...;f=10;t=009448

Red Skeleton once said "Yes, though we do say Undergod in the Pledge we shouldn't ever have to call it unconstitutional just because of that... If they do... well then, that'll be the day our great nation comes crumbling down from underneath us"

and now i have a quote from our dearly beloved Shizit. The most popular underground band on EARTH acoording the the dowload counts at mp3.com

Dear Government,

I thought it would interest you to know that I have completely lost faith in your ability to represent my interests or the interest of the American people. It is apparent to me that the only interests you represent are those of large corporations and that you have totally alienated yourself from the majority of the populace. You only want to please the few and damage the many.

Now, I realize that you have heard this sort of criticism before, so I'll spare you the dissident rhetoric and direct your attention to a more pressing point: my former faith in your abilities to get your act together were the only things that were keeping you safe. You see, all your various attempts to sedate my frustration and misdirect my attention have failed. The only thing that was keeping me in line was the hope that one day you would have a paradigmatic shift in your attitudes towards the people who look to you for representation and actually start doing your half of the social compact this country was founded on. My hope for and faith in the system was, if you will, a kind of political "Soma", keeping me forever dreaming of a savior, a great man who would fight for the people, along side the people, not just one man. Now I've woken up and I see around me a sleeping giant lying restlessly under the skin of the nation.

So when it comes down to you staring into the barrel of whatever assault rifle I get my grubby little proletariat hands on and you find yourself asking "What are you? A communist insurgent? A Muslim terrorist?" you will be faced with a most chilling answer: "No sir, I am the fruit of your labors." I guess hope is a hard habit to break, because I'm finding myself hoping that this letter will be a wake up call for you. But I also know oppression, imperialism and plutocracy are hard habits to break too, so I'm not getting my hopes up too high. See ya 'round.

Sincerely,
A revolution waiting to happen

P.S.

Let's bring the plutocracy down!
Let's bring it down!
I don't care any more, I want fuckin' war
Taste of blood in mouth and I'm left wanting more
I'm tired of being the political prophylactic king
It's time for some real ■■■■■■■
Revolution, ■■■■ the sight seeing
It's time to stop wanting and time to start being
Strong
How long, not long
I say ■■■■ the right, it's time to be wrong

THIS COUNTRY'S HIT BOTTOM!!!


>_> God Bless America?

Oh whoops i guess you can't say that any more...

In God We Trust? OOps gotta re-print all the quarters too!

Damn let's just bring down the wraith upon us as soon as we can, right? Is that what you want?

it's true what they say!

Pro is the Oposite of Con!

Hence Congress is the oposite of Progress!

:D Hooray for Congress!

And by the way I was being Sarchastic... -_- yet sadly truthfull...

Actually an act of congress made "under god" part of the pledge, An effort to weed out aethist communists during the mcarthy era.
Regardless, whether it was by the leglistlative branch or the executive powers doesnt make it right, correct or equitable to all.

[ 06-28-2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Actually a act of congress made "under god" part of the pledge, An effort to weed out aethist communist during the mcarthy era.
regardless that still doesnt make it right.</font>[/QUOTE]I've heard it both ways now as an act of Congress, and as an exectutive order. Being right, or constitutional aren't neccesarily the same thing :D Look at the Dred Scott decision, it was an constituional decision, but it was not a right decision. If the additions to the pledge came about because of an act of Congress, then it would be a constituional decision. If the additions came because of an exectutive order then it would not be a constitutional decision.
Some words of advice to anyone worried about what others think, or say, when you do or don't say the pledge: If you knew how little other people really THINK about you, you wouldn't let it bother you. Talk is cheap. :D

Actually the whole pledge of allegiance idea is unbiblical:

Matthew 3:33-37:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not
break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell
you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by
the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of
the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even
one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,'
'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

So here's Jesus telling you not to make pledges or oaths, because to do so comes
"From the evil one".

Just a few points I've heard about this dispute....

The phrase "under God" was added during the cold war as another effort to place US apart from the Godless Communists. Another way to show our superiority. This being moral superiority.

Should the phrase "endowed by our Creator" be removed from the Constitution? Is it possible for that reference to a higher power in the Constitution itself to be un-Constitutional? Should we avoid teaching the Constitution because of that reference.

The Supreme Court has previously found that the use of term god is generic enough not to be considered unconstitutional.

Finally, the 9th Circuit court is the most overturned court in the system. Appeals of their decisions are over-turned 75% of the time.

Evil deeds are evil deeds, no matter whether you commit them in the name of freedom or Communism.

Just remove the “endowed by the creator bit”.
There’s simply no need for it anymore, it’s a little piece of reactionary rhetoric that discriminates against agnostics and atheists.
There really is no justification for keeping it like that

Thats only beacause they are wacky liberals.

QUESTION to all Americans:

This bit about 'liberty and justice' for all. Was that put in after the Civil Rights act was passed? It can hardly have been before, surely, as that would make a mockery of the whole thing?

Ooh, and I can't wait to see what you guys have to say to Dramnek's EXCELLENT point regarding the quote from Matthew. Stick that one in yer stoogies and choke on it! [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-29-2002, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

It always strikes terror into my heart whenever any entity, state or individual, claims god given support for THEIR own particular existence, actions, whatever in preference to someone else's. That kind of thinking has got more human beings killed..... Somehow the idea that YOUR country, YOUR way, YOU as a person are more special, more right, have god on your side. It's wholly sickening childish, irresponsible, dangerous crap. Pass the sickbag, Alice.

Religious rhetoric. Huh. All this 'God is on our side' stuff. Yeah right. How can anyone make such claims, whether they're a polician, media pundit, or fanatical right wing fundamentalist? How the hell do they know? Do they have a direct line to the almighty's thinking or something? And that goes for Americans, Muslims, Jews, Irish and anyone else who thinks their actions are somehow legitimated by a higher power. (The list is endless, the above are just examples.) What utter cock it all is.

[ 06-29-2002, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

I'm not really sure adding "under god" to the pledge can be considered an evil act. I was justifying the addition in my statement, simply saying it was added for propaganda reasons.

Just remove the unwanted portion? Sorry, doesn't work like that. Rhetoric or not, it is part of the Constitution of the United States of America and it is the document against which all our laws are judged. Take out that one line and someone will want to take out another and another until there is nothing left. The Constitution is the Constitution and not subject to alteration, only to interpretation.

God Save The Queen!