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