Federal judge declares Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional

Gato_Solo said:
I don't see a problem with that, ash. I'm not shinto, but I bowed when I enterd my dojo. It has to do with respect for the beliefs of others.
Click to expand...
Was said dojo an independent entity where you had a choice in the matter wether to enter or a government exclusive entity where participation was mandatory?
 
ash r said:
i have been made to stand for the pledge before. i was not made to say it, but i was still meant to stand for it, which i still believed was wrong.
Click to expand...


Mebbe you could sue your old school district for the pain & suffering put upon you by being required to participate in an unconstitutional activity causing personal hardship and years of subliminal emotional problems.

I don't think 100 million dollars would be unreasonable!

Wait---not actually saying the pledge will probably only get you 50 mil....
 
unclehobart said:
Was said dojo an independent entity where you had a choice in the matter wether to enter or a government exclusive entity where participation was mandatory?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.
 
ramirez.gif
 
Hmm. I always thought it was activism that warped the original pledge in the first place. If it was an original line, then I would call removing it activism... but it wasn't.

The original from 1892:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

changed in 1923 because 'my' flag could be thought of as a foregin immigrants birth flag.:

I pledge allegiance to my the
Flag of the United States,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

tweaked again one year later to:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Dwight added 'under God' in 54 because:

"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."


Lets face it... we keep dicking with kind of stuff all the time. Were due for a new age face to it all.
 
How about a conservative that doesn't begin every thought with 'the Bible sez...' ? It would be bliss.


Gato, I don't have a problem with religion. It in and of itself is a fairly harmless, and quite often is, a helpful entity and extention of life... but you yourself have said that it isn't religion that is the problem, but the thought, word, and deed of its followers. The melding of religion into the supreme law of the land makes it more of a weapon rather than an affirmation to be used and abused by the seedier element that is always in attendance.
 
I know two ladies that are ticked that 'under God' was removed.


Katrina
Rita


In fact, the founders opposed the institutionalization of religion. They kept the Constitution free of references to God. The document mentions religion only to guarantee that godly belief would never be used as a qualification for holding office—a departure from many existing state constitutions. That the founders made erecting a church-state wall their first priority when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution reveals the importance they placed on maintaining what Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore have called a "godless Constitution." When Benjamin Franklin proposed during the Constitutional Convention that the founders begin each day of their labors with a prayer to God for guidance, his suggestion was defeated.
Given this tradition, it's not surprising that the original Pledge of Allegiance—meant as an expression of patriotism, not religious faith—also made no mention of God.
Click to expand...
Source

It goes on to talk about how "In God we trust" was added to currency in 1955 by Good'ol Ike and added E plurbus unum to the official motto.
touches on the Knights of Columbus, the Cold war vs the "Athiest Russians", etc etc...

"Expression of patriotism" say it all... you can as easily be a patriot if you don't believe in God as if you do.
 
MrBishop said:
"Expression of patriotism" say it all... you can as easily be a patriot if you don't believe in God as if you do.
Click to expand...
You're going to hell for that you know...
 
I'd be willing to back a liberal Supreme Court Justice as long as they don't read stuff into the Constitution. Since "Liberal" & "not reading stuff into" is an oxymoron, lets hire conservatives.
 
Well...the conservative are 'adding stuff to' the Constitution, why not let the liberals 'read that stuff' ? ;)
 
Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Ammendment

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. "
 
Say, wasn't the DOMA put into law exactly as spelled out in the Constitution? Thus nothing has been "read into" the Constitution. No judges or activists or nothing. As fas as FMA goes, before it could become part of the Constitution, the FMA would need to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the United States House of Representatives and the Senate, and then ratified by 38 (three-fourths) of the state legislatures. Exactly as prescribed by law.
 
unclehobart said:
How about a conservative that doesn't begin every thought with 'the Bible sez...' ? It would be bliss.


Gato, I don't have a problem with religion. It in and of itself is a fairly harmless, and quite often is, a helpful entity and extention of life... but you yourself have said that it isn't religion that is the problem, but the thought, word, and deed of its followers. The melding of religion into the supreme law of the land makes it more of a weapon rather than an affirmation to be used and abused by the seedier element that is always in attendance.
Click to expand...

If they remove 'Under God' from the pledge through the legislative branch, where they're supposed to, this wouldn't be an issue. The judicial branch had their chance when the phrase was added, and did nothing. Now...after 51 years, they want to jump in, and do the job? That's pure, unadulterated bullcrap. Once a law is on the books, and been overlooked for a certain amount of time, then it's been accepted, and considered permanent by the court system, until changed, or repealed, by the legislature. Once judges start removing laws on the books that have not been repealed after a certain time, it's wrong. Now...let's get back to that pesky pledge...

1. Nobody is forced to say it, except at a citizenship ceremony for immigrants.
2. Standing up when others say it is called respect. If you(not particularly, mind you), or anybody else has a problem with showing respect for others who are saying it, then why complain when your own beliefs are disrespected? That was my whole point to ash r.

Did you know that a citizen is supposed to stand, and place their hand over their heart, when the National Anthem is played? How many people actually do that?
 
Gato_Solo said:
Did you know that a citizen is supposed to stand, and place their hand over their heart, when the National Anthem is played? How many people actually do that?
Click to expand...
:wave:

Everyone at all the football and volleyball games I've covered this season seems to do it as well.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Did you know that a citizen is supposed to stand, and place their hand over their heart, when the National Anthem is played? How many people actually do that?
Click to expand...
Moi aussi.
:wave:
 
Gato_Solo said:
Did you know that a citizen is supposed to stand, and place their hand over their heart, when the National Anthem is played? How many people actually do that?
Click to expand...

Always do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top