for those who want the pledge changed

G

Guest

Guest
Nearly nine in 10 Americans believe the phrase "under God" should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance, and most believe it is acceptable for the government to promote religious expression, as long as no specific religion is mentioned, according to a Newsweek poll.

source: http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/29/poll.pledge/index.html

take that and stick it in your pipe and smoke it :headbang:

i was just reading another article. i suppose you want to change the words to God Bless America too. there is a word for wanting to do away with everything we hold sacred and dear: it's called communism.
 
Originally posted by s4
take that and stick it in your pipe and smoke it

I wouldn't care if I were the only person in America who believed it should be taken out, I'd still be right.

i was just reading another article. i suppose you want to change the words to God Bless America too.

You're missing the point. It's not what the words are, it's whether the government is using the words to promote religion. Leave God Bless America just like it is, just don't force school children to sing it in government schools. Private schools can do whatever they like.

[/QUOTE]there is a word for wanting to do away with everything we hold sacred and dear: it's called communism.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a godless communist, I'm a godless capitalist.

Capitalism is the economic system that results when the government is limited to the protection of individual rights. You explain to me how 00000002.121453
 
Originally posted by Ardsgaine
Capitalism is the economic system that results when the government is limited to the protection of individual rights. You explain to me how

Oops. Not sure how that got sent... anyway, to continue.

Explain to me how it is consistent with individual rights to have the government forcing children to recite a pledge of allegiance, much less one that includes a reference to God? Don't say that children aren't being forced. They are certainly forced to go to school, they are taught to obey their teachers and if the teacher says to stand up and recite the pledge, then it's a rare student who will refuse. Most will simply conform. They're not given an education that would teach them why liberty and justice are important. They're simply taught to chant the words, as if that could fix the values in their mind, but without understanding, the words are just empty slogans.
 
So i suppose that when the next president is sworn in that should be changed? That would be weird. Or when your in court "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you god"
How many things will have to be changed to make people happy? At this rate we might as well scrap all of it and start over. Sorry, i just dont see rewriting all this as a way to help a "few" people get over their fears of hearing the word god. All this social/physcological BS drives me crazy. I mean really is that the most imprtant thing in their life? Look around people your fellow man is jobless, foodless in need of help. BUT no we worry more about the people in a different country than we do our neighbors and friends. But i suppose its more correct to do that. better yet lets just not worry about them at all and concentrate all our time and efforts on changing the words of the pledge, or take "in god we trust" off the currency. Where is our priorties here?
 
Originally posted by samcurry
So i suppose that when the next president is sworn in that should be changed?

Yes. The oath of office itself contains no reference to God. It simply says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

It is currently taken with one hand on the Bible, but that is an obvious violation of the establishment of religion clause. It would preclude any non-Christian from being president. A man's oath should be good enough, god or no god.

That would be weird. Or when your in court "do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth so help you god"

That's already been changed in many courts.
 
WASHINGTON — The Senate cemented its unanimous vote to condemn a federal court ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance with a Thursday morning recitation of the Pledge, preceded by their daily morning prayer.

After the Pledge, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle thanked the Senate chaplain, Rev. Lloyd Ogilvie for his prayer, saying "We are one nation under God."

In his morning prayer, Ogilvie said, "There is no separation between God and State ... In gratitude, we declare our motto: 'In God we trust' ... It is with reverence that, in a moment, we will respect our commitment to you in the Pledge of Allegiance. Help us to savor those words ... May we never lose our sense of awe and wonder over the privilege of living in this religiously free country ... As we declare our convictions, we affirm that patriotism, we affirm that we are one Senate united under you, in God we trust."

The Senate voted 99-0 on Wednesday to condemn the 9th Circuit Court's decision that the Pledge is unconstitutional because it includes the words "under God," just hours after the ruling was made public. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., was in the hospital at the time and unable to vote.

On the House side Thursday, most of the chamber assembled to pledge allegiance "under God" during morning business. On Wednesday, about 100 members gathered on the steps of the Capitol to pledge their allegiance and immediately followed the recitation of the pledge with a chorus of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America."

Congress added the phrase "under God" to the pledge in 1954. The court ruled that its inclusion amounts to a government endorsement of religion in violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause, which requires a separation of church and state.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

"Wrong decision" was the White House response to the court's ruling.

"The president's reaction was that this ruling is ridiculous," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, who said President Bush was informed of the San Francisco court's ruling while attending the G-8 summit in Calgary, Canada. "The Supreme Court itself begins each of its sessions with the phrase, 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'"

"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," he added.

Congressional reaction was sharp, immediate, and unkind.

"Just nuts," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said.

"Stupid, stupid," echoed Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

"Disgraceful," said Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga.

"Political activism run amok," decided Sen. George Allen, R-Va.

"I've been searching for a nice way to put it since I first heard about this ... There isn't. This is idiotic," said Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.

The Senate's unanimous resolution was accompanied by vows for further action to overturn the decision, possibly even through constitutional amendment.

Legal experts said the ruling was based on good-faith interpretations of legal statues, and is largely, though not entirely, immune from attack.

"Only two things can change this opinion — a reversal by the entire Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment if the Supreme Court agrees with this interpretation," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

The case was brought by Michael A. Newdow, a Sacramento, Calif., atheist who objected because his second-grade daughter was required to recite the pledge at the Elk Grove school district. A federal judge had dismissed his lawsuit.

Newdow, a doctor who holds a law degree and represented himself, called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with."

Newdow told Fox News that proponents of the pledge have threatened his life.

"We have a lot of God-loving people that seem to think killing other people is the way to deal with things you don't agree with," he said.

The decision will affect only the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington state, which the 9th Circuit Court covers.

Though no word has been made of an appeal yet, many believe the case could be heard by the United States Supreme Court.

"I think the pledge is a good thing for the country and I hope we keep it," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo. "[T]his is a normative thing, it is not a religious question ... and I would hope that in the future that would be the view of the court."

"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

SOURCE: http://foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56322,00.html
 
w00t..... I gues the 9th circuit court is full of looney idiots. Imagine that.

Ards, unfortunately for a long time now we have not been able to just take a mans oath. Look at what bill clinton did with that oath.
 
In a survey taken today, 9/10 Americans want fries with that.

Sorry, 100% doesn't make something right. It makes it popular. Mass appeal got the Salem Witch Trials going. Mass appeal is dangerous. Use your brain & not your emotions.
 
Originally posted by samcurry
Ards, unfortunately for a long time now we have not been able to just take a mans oath. Look at what bill clinton did with that oath.

So what you're saying is that Clinton didn't swear on the Bible, and that if he had he would've told the truth?

I don't know if Clinton swore on a Bible or not, but I'm pretty certain that even if he had sworn on ten Bilbes he still would've lied his ass off.

What I'm saying, Sam, is that when a man takes an oath, it is a bond. An oath is sacred because it is a pledge of honor. It doesn't require a Bible to make it more sacred, and for those who do not believe in the Bible, it would only have an opposite effect. By asking them to swear on the Bible, you are asking them to lie at the outset, to pretend that they hold the Bible sacred when they do not. A man like Clinton, who has no honor, will not be bound by any oath, because there is nothing that he holds sacred.
 
Originally posted by Gonz
In a survey taken today, 9/10 Americans want fries with that.

Sorry, 100% doesn't make something right. It makes it popular. Mass appeal got the Salem Witch Trials going. Mass appeal is dangerous. Use your brain & not your emotions.

well said gonz. didnt mass appeals also lead to things like Mcarthyism? although gonz you do have to remember that this is a democracy and that peoples opinions no matter what that opinion maybe is whats important. sam, what you said about swearing on the Bible is very true that a person not bound to the Bible will only be lying but also note that if a person becomes president and is sworn in and says they arent bound to the bible, that many christians will be up in arms and there will be a strom of controversy. as i said in the other thread about this topic, i think its nice that it is taken out to an extent although i feel that a person who does believe in any god no matter what god that maybe, should be allowed to pray to that god no matter where they are. its in the first amendment. just dont make others do it.
 
whoops it was ardsgaine that said what i agreed with about the Bible and being sworn in. sorry about that.
 
Originally posted by freako104

although gonz you do have to remember that this is a democracy and that peoples opinions no matter what that opinion maybe is whats important.

Actually, it's a constitutional republic. What matters most is what the constitution says, and what matters second to that is what is right. The Constitution is there to protect our rights from the whims of the majority. We have majority rule only because it is an expediency to prevent civil wars, not because the Founders believed that the majority would always be in the right.

if a person becomes president and is sworn in and says they arent bound to the bible, that many christians will be up in arms and there will be a strom of controversy.

If a man runs for office without it being known that he is not a Christian, then my guess is that he's either done some major dissembling, or we're talking about a time in the far past or far future where it doesn't matter to the voting public whether you're a Christian or not. If he's been lying about being a Christian and suddenly refuses to swear on the Bible at his inauguration, then there should be a storm of controversy because he got into office under false pretenses. But if the public didn't care about his religion enough to find it out before his inauguration, then why should they care afterwards?
 
Ards i am not sure if clinton did or not. But like i said We havent been able to take a man at his word for years. Especially a politician. Now they say shit just to hear themselves talk.
It is a rare thing when we can actually trust someone anymore.


So if
"Sorry, 100% doesn't make something right. It makes it popular. Mass appeal got the Salem Witch Trials going. Mass appeal is dangerous. Use your brain & not your emotions."

100% of congress had voted this into effect would that have made it right? No, there has to be a line.
 
Originally posted by samcurry
Ards i am not sure if clinton did or not. But like i said We havent been able to take a man at his word for years. Especially a politician. Now they say shit just to hear themselves talk.
It is a rare thing when we can actually trust someone anymore.

Oh, I agree. Honor seems to be out of fashion these days, particularly among politicians. Making them swear on the Bilbe won't change that, though.
 
Back
Top