´Under God´ in Pledge ruled unconstitutional

[nalani]

s4 - I respect that you have an opinion but I have to address your question as to "what would it hurt if an atheist had to say "Under God"? since they don't believe in the first place, it shouldn't have any meaning to them at all." The difference is standing for what you believe in. It really is just that simple. Do you remember that girl from Columbine who was shot in the head because she wouldn't denounce God? She didn't step down from what she believed in. It's the same for an atheist, just on the other end of the spectrum. Now again, I need to stress that I'm just addressing your question and not agreeing with the suit .. I still think it was and is a complete waste of time..

The rest of your post was, unfortunately in my eyes, invalid and unreasonable arguements ... apples and oranges.

 

[HomeLAN]

Originally posted by nalani
Hey HomeLAN ... I think we outta sue the currency dudes for having "In God We Trust" on money ... how bout it? We'll split the money then sue again cause they gave us money with "In God We Trust" ... we'll create a viscious cycle! MUUHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

Nice idea, but you're talking about suing the government. I don't have 4 or 5 years to spend on it. And that's sort of my point.

Speaking of points, I agree with s4's. Why should it bother you? If you don't want to say it, don't say it. This a-hole's kid wasn't being made to say it. He sued so she wouldn't even have to hear it.

Last time I checked, there is no constitutional protection against being offended.

 

[unclehobart]

I've read the judicial writ on this one. The problem stems not from forcing god upon atheists... but rather forcing a pledge of monotheism upon all. Most of our Indian and Island cultures as well as a few minor religions have a polytheistic system. An afirmation to a single uber god to the exclusion of all others is a no no.

 

[samcurry]

Na and homie you would be to late on the currency issue this same retard that is going to waste our tax dollars cause he doesnt want to hear the word god is also sueing because its on currency.."IN GOD WE TRUST"
This guy is a complete loser and needs to get a real job and life. I wish i sat beside him in a cube all day.
better yet id send him subliminal messages on his computer, "loser" "GOD" "satan"
He would wish some GOD would take him when i was done.

 

[nalani]

Originally posted by HomeLAN
Speaking of points, I agree with s4's. Why should it bother you? If you don't want to say it, don't say it. This a-hole's kid wasn't being made to say it. He sued so she wouldn't even have to hear it.

I took s4's point to mean the everyone should just say it whether they meant it or not ... that's why I addressed his comment ... personally, I don't, or try not to, say anything that important unless I mean it.

Additionally, the pledge of allegience never bothered me ... I don't say it because I don't want to. If anyone else wants to say it, that's their right. If the dude doesn't want his daughter to hear it, he better get one hella supply of ear plugs and a lifetime of prepaid therapy cause that little chica is gonna hear a lot of crap worse than the pledge of allegience, that's for damned sure.

 

[nalani]

Originally posted by samcurry
Na and homie you would be to late on the currency issue this same retard that is going to waste our tax dollars cause he doesnt want to hear the word god is also sueing because its on currency.."IN GOD WE TRUST"

heeeeyyyy .. that was my idea! *folding my arms and stomping off the way my kids used to*

 

[[b]]

i like the pledge just the way it is. if somebody don't like doing the pledge then they can get the fuck out of the country. nuff said.

The beauty of America is that if you don't like it, you can change it. The big problem is nobody wants to get off their duff and do anything. Then, when one person stands up and tries to change the status quo he gets told, if you don't like it leave the country. Well where in the hell is he supposed to go?

America does have a lot of things going for it, but it's time for changes. This is a good step in the right direction.

., theres something i wanted to tell you. you say its about time? its been like this for a while. in the 50's kids had to pray in schools. thats been taken out of schools. also just so you know everyone on here: noone said you had to stand up for the pledge. if you dont like the way its worded dotn stand up for it.

I don't know about you, but the school I went to required that everyone stand for the pledge or be sent to the principles office. I'm a patriot, but I don't believe in god. My government (which was founded on religious freedom) should not bring god into my pledge of faith to it.

so the school system where they spend the Majority of their time should step in and do some moral raising too.

Schools should not teach morals.

q: isn't one of the founding principles of the us supposed to be the seperate church and state? in which case the mention of god in the pledge of allegiance is surely against that prinicples?

Yes and Yes.

WHOA THERE NELLY. Don't even go there. What else began happening in the 70's? Oh yea, BOTH PARENTS left the home to work full time. We began allowing our 11 year olds to come home to empty houses. They, in turn, discovered a freedom never before attained by children. Too much too soon. If you want to see this country return to it's Truman days, put a parent home to watch over their children & all this will come to an abrupt stop. If you want prayer, after school until supper seems okay with me. Let us quit worshipping the almighty dollar & return to worshipping the deity of your choice. Your children with inprove with the act.

As far as "if you don't like it, leave". Piss off. We are a nation of freedom chasers until our little slice of heaven gets stepped on, then it's monotheism or die. Fuck off. You want to believe, it's your choice. I fail to believe, it's my CHOICE. Do not force an atheist, or a buddahist, or an Islamist to pray to your god.

Agreed.

I respect that you have an opinion but I have to address your question as to "what would it hurt if an atheist had to say "Under God"? since they don't believe in the first place, it shouldn't have any meaning to them at all." The difference is standing for what you believe in. It really is just that simple.

Well, for one, by saying "under god' I'm not standing up for what I believe in. This isn't about being PC, this is a direct violation of the founding principles of our government. It really is just that simple.

i suppose the next thing you are going to tell me is that we have to elect a black president next time to be fair to give a colored a chance so only blacks are eligible to be elected next time to fill a quota. how would you like to have black presidents for the next 200 years to be fair to everyone? since most of congress is white, then i guess we need to elect an all black congress to go along with it.

What does that have to do with anything? This is along the same line of thought that causes people to think that if we allow gay people to get married we might as well start letting people marry goats. One has nothing to do with the other.

If a black person ran for president on a platform I believed in, I'd vote for him/her.

since gays aren't getting their fair share of adoptions from now on gays get preferential treatment in the adoption line to make up for them being slighted.

No special treatment, only equal.

get off of it man, this political correctness and affirmative action shit needs to be put to an end.

Agreed 100%

 

[Guest]

i don't think that some kid whose parent does not want them to say under God should have to say those words if it really bothers them

on the other hand, i don't want the pledge changed for the rest of us that do believe in God just because some crybaby wants to make a big deal over it

nan: you can say that my post was full of shit, but the truth of the matter is that America is fucked up. how do you think it got that way? in the 1950's would we have had kids doing crack? America is fucked up because we have no values. what if people did have to say "Under God" if they didn't want to. would they rather salute Adolf Hitler? I think people are forgetting about the people that fought so that we could have the country the way we wanted to have it. Those people believed and fought for this country and they believed in God. you think we are doing all those who worked so hard to form this country a service when all we do is listen to some fuckhead that doesn't like the word God in our pledge?

 

[[b]]

Believing in America and believing in God are two different things.

Your post is the exact reason why there needs to be a clear and absolute separation between church and state.

Religion and Government are not the same thing.

Removing "under god" does not lesson your freedom to worship god. But it does keep our government from lording it over those who choose not too.

By removing "under god" from the pledge you allow the government to assume a more neutral position.

The basic principles by which our lawmakers must abide when making new laws should be unbiased.

This is something absolutely necessary for a government born out of religious freedom to have.

By saying "under god" or even hearing "under god" as part of a pledge citizens make to be loyal to their government, they are subconsciously subjected to the association that god and America are one.

This is not the case.

 

[samcurry]

What really gets me abot the whole thing is this. How old is this guy? mid 40's or so. and all of a sudden after all his time here he decides it not right to hear the pledge?
And how old is his daughter. why did it take him this long to decide that it wasnt good for her to hear the pledge? I think he is just another fucked up super ultra liberal that is sue happy. He prolly doesnt get enough attention at work or home so he decides "hey I can sue the whole country " I dont have to hear this.

Well there are alot of things i dont like seeing or hearing but you know what, Im not gonna sue some one over it. Its like TV if i dont like it i turn the channel. But i sue as hell aint gonna sue the networks because i cant find a show i like.Hmmm I dont like the pricing of import cars, lets sue the automaker. Im sure i could twist words enough to make it appear unconstitional.
Unfortunately this country has made it to easy to sue. Hell any idiot can become an instant millionaire nowdays. Look at the stupid idiot that spilled hot coffee in her lap. McDonalds made her a millionaire. Why? because she was only smart enough to get an attorney. But she wasnt smart enough to not drink hot coffee and drive.
This kinda shit just IRKS me. Mainly because we as americans are gonna have to pay for all the court cost and support his sorry ass when he loses his job.

 

[Guest]

i got an idea. why don't we who want under God left in the pledge just go kick the sumbitches ass and have survival of the fatest?

 

[[b]]

There is a difference between the type of lawsuit he brought against the school and the lawsuit brought against McDonald's by the lady who was too stupid to drive and drink coffee.

He's not getting any money out of this.

A lawsuit is defined as a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law whereby an individual seeks a legal remedy.

Sue, which means roughly the same thing, has also become synonymous with lawsuits for profit.

The examples that you site would leave someone to believe that you're using sue in it's second meaning (a lawsuit for profit) and comparing to the lawsuit this man has filed. You can't think of the two on the same level.

This man has petitioned his government as provided by our constitution and our laws and (so far) has won.

That is the beauty of America.

i got an idea. why don't we who want under God left in the pledge just go kick the sumbitches ass and have survival of the fatest?

Now there's some good, wholesome, christian moral values for ya.

 

[Guest]

darn right

 

[samcurry]

, I agree with you on the differences between the words. I should have been more clear. I meant to use those as examples as to how easy it is to file a lawsuit in this country. Wether it be for something serious or ridiculus.

Still looking for speculation What really gets me about the whole thing is this. How old is this guy? mid 40's or so. and all of a sudden after all his time here he decides it not right to hear the pledge?
And how old is his daughter? why did it take him this long to decide that it wasnt good for her to hear the pledge? I think he is just another fucked up super ultra liberal that is sue happy. He prolly doesnt get enough attention at work or home so he decides "hey I can sue the whole country " I dont have to hear this.

 

[HomeLAN]

Originally posted by {b}
There is a difference between the type of lawsuit he brought against the school and the lawsuit brought against McDonald's by the lady who was too stupid to drive and drink coffee.

He's not getting any money out of this.

Wait for the book deal. In addition, this loo-loo is an attorney. My guess is that all the free publicity is giving him a woodie.

A lawsuit is defined as a comprehensive term for any proceeding in a court of law whereby an individual seeks a legal remedy.

Sue, which means roughly the same thing, has also become synonymous with lawsuits for profit.

Symantics.

The examples that you site would leave someone to believe that you're using sue in it's second meaning (a lawsuit for profit) and comparing to the lawsuit this man has filed. You can't think of the two on the same level.

Sure I can. Who do you think pays court costs like the judge's salary and the light bills? I'll givbe you a clue. It starts with "m" and ends with "e".

This man has petitioned his government as provided by our constitution and our laws and (so far) has won.

That is the beauty of America.

Too bad he couldn't find a meaningfuyl cause to sue.

i got an idea. why don't we who want under God left in the pledge just go kick the sumbitches ass and have survival of the fatest?

Now there's some good, wholesome, christian moral values for ya.

Agreed. s4, you're starting to sound like you need to be medicated.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Good points !

Let me make it clear that I don't have a problem standing in respectful silence while some preacher at a privately financed event like a pro-football game, dinner, wedding, etc, leads everyone else in prayer. It is the right of people who stage the events to have prayers or not. The problem with having "under God" in the pledge is that it was put there by the government, and it is being recited in the government financed school system.

I don't even know why we have a pledge of allegiance. I looked up the history of the pledge, and it wasn't written until 1892. It was written by a private citizen (who was a socialist, btw), but was later adopted by the public school systems across the nation. I don't know what gave Congress the authority to change it in 1951. It's like having them pass a law to change the words to the Star Spangled Banner. It doesn't make sense.

I think it's significant that the pledge was adopted at the same time we were beginning to adapt our school systems to the Prussian model. They needed something for the children to chant every morning as part of their socialization. For the past hundred years our school system has been attempting to indoctrinate our kids with one ideology or another. That is the real problem. The pledge is just a symptom. What's being fought over isn't freedom vs tyranny, it's just which ideology will win the right to indoctrinate the children. One thing is certain You can't indoctrinate children with the ideals of liberty; it's a contradiction in terms. Liberty requires teaching them to think for themselves. What we need is a separation of education and state, and we need it for the same reason we need a separation of church and state.

 

[freako104]

Originally posted by ris
disclaimer: i know very little about the pledge of allegiance, constitution etc. please excuse my ignorance if my q is therfore stooopid.

q: isn't one of the founding principles of the us supposed to be the seperate church and state? in which case the mention of god in the pledge of allegiance is surely against that prinicples?

ris, that wasnt a stupid question. in fact its a good one. now i know many will jump down my throat about this, but in truth there is no real separation of church and state. as i said earlier in this thread, its the gov't shall make no established religion. thats why the aclu and people for the american way say there is one. and to an extent i agree because the separation of church and state allows the freedom of religion whereas not having them separate may not allow and also may violate the first amendment as there is no established religon.

 

[nalani]

Originally posted by s4
nan: you can say that my post was full of shit, but the truth of the matter is that America is fucked up. how do you think it got that way? in the 1950's would we have had kids doing crack? America is fucked up because we have no values. what if people did have to say "Under God" if they didn't want to. would they rather salute Adolf Hitler? I think people are forgetting about the people that fought so that we could have the country the way we wanted to have it. Those people believed and fought for this country and they believed in God. you think we are doing all those who worked so hard to form this country a service when all we do is listen to some fuckhead that doesn't like the word God in our pledge?

First of all, I did not say that your post was full of shit. Do NOT put words in my mouth. Neither did I say that America was not phucked up or we should salute Adolph Hitler. Do not look for an argument that isn't there.

 

[Gonz]

It began in 1892 as international peace pledge
By Kurt Jensen[/siz]

The Pledge of Allegiance was around for 50 years before the federal government got involved in it.

It was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, 37, a Baptist minister from New York. Bellamy was the chairman of the National Education Association's committee for the observance of the 400th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' landing. He also was an assistant to the editor and owner of The Youth's Companion, a popular weekly magazine of the time.

Bellamy built the anniversary celebration for schoolchildren around a flag ceremony, and he built the flag ceremony around his Pledge of Allegiance, which was published in The Youth's Companion on Sept. 8.

It wasn't even exclusively for the flag of the USA, says John Baer of Annapolis, Md., who wrote a history of the Pledge.

''Bellamy wanted it as an international peace pledge, so he hoped that all the republics . . . on their peace day, would put a white border around their flag and recite it as a pledge,'' Baer says.

The wording of the original Pledge has been amended twice. The first time was in 1923-24. The American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution wanted to make the Pledge mandatory in schools.

''They thought it was too international,'' Baer says, so they changed ''to my flag'' to ''to the flag of the United States of America.''

''Under God'' was added by Congress in 1954 after a two-year campaign begun by the Knights of Columbus, a Roman Catholic service group.

Congress got involved first in 1942, when it passed a law making the Pledge part of the official flag-raising ritual. Congress also changed the original salute -- a military salute to the forehead followed by a stiff right arm with palm up -- to the hand over the heart.

For those who think it's PC to remove "under god", wasn't it PC to put it in, in the first place?

http://usatoday.com/usatonline/20020627/4228712s.htm

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Gonz
For those who think it's PC to remove "under god", wasn't it PC to put it in, in the first place?

What I like most, though, is that the conservatives are frothing at the mouth over a pledge that was written by this peacenik who was kicked out of his church for being a socialist. A history that I read this morning claimed that he originally wanted to echo the slogan of the French revolution in the pledge (equality, liberty and fraternity), but decided that Americans wouldn't go for it. *snicker*

Here's the link: http://www.vineyard.net/vineyard/history/pledge.htm

If this guy were around today, he'd probably be somewhere to the left of Hillary Clinton.