Federal judge declares Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

Before the phrase "under God" was added in the 50's, students in school were conscientious and did as they were told.

But since "under God" was added, we have observed a slow degradation of the morals of this nation's youth. Children have been corrupted by being forced to say the words "One Nation Under God". My God, it can be the only explanation! In the 60's we saw those who had learned to recite the pledge with "under God" start to rebel against the teachers. We saw sexual promiscuity. Disruptive behavior. Long hair. Tye dye. Patchouli oil. In the 70's and 80's this got worse and worse with wedge shoes, bell bottoms and disco music. The revised pledge with "under God" has influenced and rendered worthless countless resulting in the sorry state of schools today: where guns, violence, and metal detectors are routine.

If only we had not added "under God" to the pledge! None of this would have happened and our schools would have been safe and secure places for our children to learn. Thank God for atheists and Liberals who posess the wisdom to stop this scourge before it can lay waste to future generations. Oh, if only the Supreme Court will see the human devastation caused by the addition of the words "under God" and not overturn the decision! Oh the humantiy! Oh, wait. It was the 9th Circuit Court? MUHAHAHA!
 
It seems to me that the pledge is meaningless in school. School students are under the age of 18 and thus cannot enter into any contract. Inasmuch as saying it creates a verbal contract, the contract is worthless, thus the pledge is worthless (when said by school-age kids).
 
The following words were spoken by the late Red Skelton on his television program as he related the story of his teacher, Mr. Laswell, who felt his students had come to think of the Pledge of Allegiance as merely something to recite in class each day.

Now, more than ever, listen to the meaning of these words.

"I've been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you.

If I may, may I recite it and try to explain to you the meaning of each word?

"I " me, an individual, a committee of one.

"Pledge " dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.

"Allegiance " my love and my devotion.

"To the flag " our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever
she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given
her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody's job!

"United " that means that we have all come together.

"States " individual communities that have united into 48 great states.

Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love for country.

"And to the republic" a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

"For which it stands, one nation" one nation, meaning "so blessed by God"

"Indivisible" incapable ofbeing divided.

"With liberty" which is freedom -- the right of power to live one's own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation.

"And Justice" the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

"For all" which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.


He continued:
"Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country
and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance...

UNDER GOD

Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said
that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?"
Click to expand...
 
But, but, listening to it might influence them at some later date, causing them psychological trauma. Who knows .... It might brainwash them into ..*shudder* believing in God and *oh the horror* Going to church.


Heaven forbid, they might even start respecting something for a change.
 
The Other One said:
If the words were: "One Nation under Allah" the Libs would find it diverse and multicultural, but atheists still might be offended and think it was better said with "One Nation bowing to Mecca"
Click to expand...


It probably wouldnt just be the atheists. Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc would all probably be somewhat offended. But again my point was why not insert your own deity of choice if you really want to. Or dont use the phrase. Either way
 
With the words "under god" in it, it is unconstitutional to be required to recite it. Period. Always has been. Is it "required?" That's a thornier question.
 
Not in my high school. We were allowed to sit but some teachers did frown upon it. My 10th grade NSL teacher specifically said we could not be required to by law. But it can be disrespectful to sit or not say it to some.Some schools may require it
 
When I was a wee lad I lived in a wee town in SW Wisconsin. We had some odd demographics for a small town - 60% Catholic, 30% Luthern, 5% Jehovah's Witness, 5% "other". The JW kids did not stand for the pledge, did not participate in birthday parties, christmas parties, halloween, sex ed, anything fun. They did not get made fun of past the 2nd grade. Everyone else just knew they didn't do that stuff for one reason or another and just left it alone.
 
.... It might brainwash them into ..*shudder* believing in God and *oh the horror* Going to church.
Click to expand...
the church does a good enough job in the brainwashing department. after all, you do have to swear allegience to God and JC by the age of what, 13? an age that is well know for being able to make informed decisions.

why such a commotion about the removal of two words that werent supposed to be there in the first place? i dont get it.
 
Spot said:
why such a commotion about the removal of two words that werent supposed to be there in the first place? i dont get it.
Click to expand...

The various churches are very jealous of their perceived prerogatives. I'm not so sure that the average members are. Atheists have only started becoming that way over the last ten or so years (in my experience) as th US becomes more and more "The United States of the Offended." I was in junior high when I decided that it was all a crock, so I stopped saying the under god part (late sixties). I geuss we weren't required to say the pledge at all, but that would have been frowned on, I think.
 
PostCode said:
Actually, I can believe you wrote this, actually.
Click to expand...
The post, yes; the article, no.

I probably could have written the article, though, if I had been awake for about 20 hours beforehand and was having a pleasant day.

***

Now some people have raised the issue of it not being required in school. Here's my comment on that. When I was in the first grade and they taught us how to say this, they told us, stand up and say this. They didn't tell us it was optional, that we had any choice, that we could not say certain parts that made us feel uncomfortable. And what fresh-faced first grader is going to question the teacher like that when they don't even know the significance of what it is they're being told to say. I was never aware of anyone who didn't stand up and say it when it was time to do so. I was never aware of anyone complaining about it, either.
 
Professur said:
But, but, listening to it might influence them at some later date, causing them psychological trauma. Who knows .... It might brainwash them into ..*shudder* believing in God and *oh the horror* Going to church.


Heaven forbid, they might even start respecting something for a change.
Click to expand...

Then have the school systems provide earplugs. Then everyone can stop fussing that the government did nothing about it.

I just don't understand why it's such a big deal. All through middle and high school the kids didn't give a shit about the pledge. They'd stand there and talk to people around them....so if the kids don't care, why is everyone fighting about it?
 
The Other One said:
If the words were: "One Nation under Allah" the Libs would find it diverse and multicultural, but atheists still might be offended and think it was better said with "One Nation bowing to Mecca"
Click to expand...

Hmmm...Since "Allah" is the Muslim word for 'God', then I can't see how anyone claiming to believe in one God would be offended. I don't see how anyone claiming to be an atheist could complain either, given their lack of belief in a supreme being...
 
Gato_Solo said:
Hmmm...Since "Allah" is the Muslim word for 'God', then I can't see how anyone claiming to believe in one God would be offended. I don't see how anyone claiming to be an atheist could complain either, given their lack of belief in a supreme being...
Click to expand...
An atheist is not someone who merely has a lack of belief in a supreme being. That's an agnostic. An atheist is one who believes that there is no supreme being. In other words, believes against it. So yes, it would be an atheist who would complain in that situation.

Say, that reminds me. What does a dyslexic agnostic insomniac do at night? He lies awake wondering if there really is a dog.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Hmmm...Since "Allah" is the Muslim word for 'God', then I can't see how anyone claiming to believe in one God would be offended. I don't see how anyone claiming to be an atheist could complain either, given their lack of belief in a supreme being...
Click to expand...

While I agree about the Allah part (their god is the god of Abraham too) I feel I can speak to the atheist question. Understand first that I really don't care so much myself. The reason many atheists don't like the words in there is that it's a defacto requirement to swear on something you hold to be non-existent. A similar for instance: I've been required on a couple of occasions to testify in court over the years. When asked to swear on the bible I explain that I will be happy to do so if it makes the court feel better but it really means nothing to me. There are contingencies in place, but once the judge had me swear on it anyway. Given my disbelief, did the judge really expect me to be more likely to tell the truth? Is my testimony somehow less trustworthy given my lack of faith? Is the pledge less binding when I say it because I don't swear to a non-existent (IMO, if it makes you feel better ;) ) deity?

The simple fact is that American society is heavily biased toward the christian faith and now these people (at least the noisy ones) want to complain that it's not biased enough. Who can blame the atheists for figuratively shooting back. Remember when this used to be America?
 
Quick question:

"For which it stands, one nation" one nation, meaning "so blessed by God"

Since when does the phrase 'one nation' have anything do do with being blessed by God?
Last I checked, Nation meant: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
 
unclehobart said:
I actually agree with it. 'Under God' was added in 1954 during the whole 'commie red hiding under every bed' phase of Americana as a direct rebuff against said Communism. It was not part of the original pledge and therefore has no protection in antiquity or tradition.
Click to expand...

:grinyes:
 
JJR512 said:
An atheist is not someone who merely has a lack of belief in a supreme being. That's an agnostic. An atheist is one who believes that there is no supreme being. In other words, believes against it. So yes, it would be an atheist who would complain in that situation.

Say, that reminds me. What does a dyslexic agnostic insomniac do at night? He lies awake wondering if there really is a dog.
Click to expand...

An Agnostic has no idea & makes no claims either way.

An Atheist has no belief & espouses no need for one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top