Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional.

[thaiboxerken]

The 9th district court decided to stand by it's initial decision that the Pledge with "under God" in it is unconstitutional to recite in public schools. I agree!

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_21_1785991%2C00.html

This one is being pushed to go to the Supreme Court. Dang theists want to push god very badly.

[Scorpy]

"We feel strongly that the words 'under God' do not push religion on children, but reflect this country's history," Gordon said.



Bahahahaa! These people are sooooooo transparent. If it's not about religion but only about history then why refuse to recite the pledge without the words 'under God'? What's the big deal? The original pledge didn't have those words in it. Removing them would only make the pledge MORE historically accurate.

Attorney General John Ashcroft has said the Justice Department would "spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge their allegiance to the American flag."

Nobody is stopping anybody from pledging allegiance to the American flag. It's nobody's fault that some people won't recite the pledge unless it affirms their belief in God as well. That's their choice.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Scorpy



Bahahahaa! These people are sooooooo transparent. If it's not about religion but only about history then why refuse to recite the pledge without the words 'under God'?

Well, some people think "under God" is an homage to the beliefs some of our founders had. Of course, you are technically right that "under God" itself is a modern convention.

Personally, this is more trouble that its worth. Too bad each side is too entrenched to just say "you know, the pledge sucks anyway, lets dump it."

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, some people think "under God" is an homage to the beliefs some of our founders had.
Are you speaking of the same founding fathers who put separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights?

Some kind of homage.

[thaiboxerken]

"Well, some people think "under God" is an homage to the beliefs some of our founders had."

Yes, ignorant and biased people.

[J3K]

Ya know, I could really care less. Why all of the controversy over the words "under god." I have said that pledge since kindergarten, and the fact that it says "under god" in it has never meant much of anything to me. I have always looked at the pledge as just something for people to pledge loyalty to their country. But the fact in the end is, most kids just don't care. I think it's just too much crap over something so little.

Originally posted by J3K
Ya know, I could really care less. Why all of the controversy over the words "under god." I have said that pledge since kindergarten, and the fact that it says "under god" in it has never meant much of anything to me. I have always looked at the pledge as just something for people to pledge loyalty to their country. But the fact in the end is, most kids just don't care. I think it's just too much crap over something so little.

Here's a clue: Not everyone feels that way.

[Brown]

Originally posted by corplinx
Of course, you are technically right that "under God" itself is a modern convention.There are some who would dispute that these words are of modern origin:It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.This is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

I find it noteworthy that Lincoln, in one breath, referred to the whole nation as a "nation under God," and in the next breath, declared that the deity did not have any official standing in government. Lincoln emphasized the word "people" when he said "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Furthermore, Lincoln's concept of the meaning of "under God" was very likely quite different from that held by, say, Mr. Ashcroft.

[J3K]

sundog,
You are right, most adults don't feel that way. But I have heard arguements about how kids of different religious beliefs shouldn't be forced to say "under god" in the pledge. The fact is simply, very few kids care about what the pledge says. Call us unloyal, oh well, I guess that's why we are kids. We aren't getting all worked up over what a pledge says, because it is a very small thing to get so much attention.
Odds are though, with the high level of christians in our country, the "under god" will remain. I won't lose any sleep over it like some though.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by J3K
sundog,
You are right, most adults don't feel that way. But I have heard arguements about how kids of different religious beliefs shouldn't be forced to say "under god" in the pledge. The fact is simply, very few kids care about what the pledge says. Call us unloyal, oh well, I guess that's why we are kids. We aren't getting all worked up over what a pledge says, because it is a very small thing to get so much attention.
Odds are though, with the high level of christians in our country, the "under god" will remain. I won't lose any sleep over it like some though.
The fact that it is so important to some people to keep it in there is, in my eyes, perfect justification for wanting it out.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Brown
There are some who would dispute that these words are of modern origin:This is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.


Apparently not his granddaughter.
From: http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...(edited to make the word indivisible bold

[Richard G]

This will be before the U.S. Supreme Court shortly, and it will be struck down.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
"Well, some people think "under God" is an homage to the beliefs some of our founders had."

Yes, ignorant and biased people.


The founders are deists in this case...

But Christian in other cases.

;)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes, ignorant and biased people.

Even though I am faithless and realize fully why under God is inserted, I still think its a nice addon in that it reminds me of those creator given inalienable rights the founders by large believed in.

Ignorant and biased? yes you are. Your ad hominems become you.

----
This is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
....
----


Whenever Lincoln said any good stuff, he was not a theist. Whenever he did any bad stuff, he was a theist.

This is how some atheists operate.

[Oso]

Originally posted by corplinx
Even though I am faithless and realize fully why under God is inserted, I still think its a nice addon in that it reminds me of those creator given inalienable rights the founders by large believed in.But it's not an 'addon', it replaced what the author, Francis Bellamy, thought was one of the most important words in the pledge. This is what he said in 1892.To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.This word 'indivisble', which he valued so much, was the very word that was replaced by 'under god'.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Oso
But it's not an 'addon', it replaced what the author, Francis Bellamy, thought was one of the most important words in the pledge. This is what he said in 1892.This word 'indivisble', which he valued so much, was the very word that was replaced by 'under god'. Not replaced. Just shifted to the right.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Brown
Not replaced. Just shifted to the right. My bad, but it felt so self rightious when I typed it. I gotta quit hittin' the sauce.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, some people think "under God" is an homage to the beliefs some of our founders had. Of course, you are technically right that "under God" itself is a modern convention.

Personally, this is more trouble that its worth. Too bad each side is too entrenched to just say "you know, the pledge sucks anyway, lets dump it."

Wasn't it Jefferson who re-wrote the bible to take out all the miracles? He couldn't have been too attached to the religion of Christianity.

Anyway if the government wants the kids of this country to give allegiance to the country, make them proud of it. Don't make them memorize words to brainwash them into a country that won't even give them healthcare. I personally "had" to say it going to school, and now I look back... and look at each word and the meaning behind them all together.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller

Don't make them memorize words to brainwash them into a country that won't even give them healthcare.

At least they won't be brainwashed into thinking government should provide healthcare. Very ironic coming from a country whose citizens love to hop the border and pay.

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. You say you are faithless, and yet you believe in the "creator" god. I'll tell you what, if you provide evidence that a creator-god exists, then I'll agree with you. Right now, I could care less if the founding fathers of the USA were fundamentalists or not (which they weren't), the fact is that the government should not endorse religion or gods. Only those that believe in "god" seem to think that this god in the pledge is ok. You only care about the freedom of christians and not other people.

[subgenius]

How about Tom Delay and others willing to whore out the Constitution in the name of instituting religion:

Congress could remove federal courts' jurisdiction to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn an appeals court decision that bars children from reciting the Pledge in school, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday.
....
Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the Supreme Court will overturn the appeals court's decision and make congressional action unnecessary.

But he said if that doesn't happen, the two options open to Congress are a statutory change to limit jurisdiction, as Mr. DeLay laid out, or amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030306-701839.htm

Amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.
How about the other way around you idiots?

[DialecticMaterialist]

The scary thing is if that if your child can be forced to sit through a religious ceremony, like the Pledge, as long as he or she "does not have to participate", that same child can technically be forced to sit through a Church or religious sermon/prayer, as long as he or she does not "have" to participate in the prayer.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Anyway if the government wants the kids of this country to give allegiance to the country, make them proud of it. Don't make them memorize words to brainwash them into a country that won't even give them healthcare.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you incapable of feeling good about a country unless it gives you stuff?

[Agammamon]

Yes, I am incapable of feeling good about being part of this country unless it does something for me.
That is the point of the whole "government FOR the people, by the people" thing. Our government is a tool for the benefit of its citizens. We don't owe any loyalty to the country except insofar as it provides us with what we need and want.

[thaiboxerken]

The Nazi's forced patriotism in the Germany as one time.

[Oso]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Yes, I am incapable of feeling good about being part of this country unless it does something for me.
That is the point of the whole "government FOR the people, by the people" thing. Our government is a tool for the benefit of its citizens. We don't owe any loyalty to the country except insofar as it provides us with what we need and want.
What he said.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Agammamon
Yes, I am incapable of feeling good about being part of this country unless it does something for me.

Wow. Sounds like a horribly inflated sense of entitlement to me.


That is the point of the whole "government FOR the people, by the people" thing.

Well, actually, it's not all that clear just what the point is. It's too vague, and that's why I never cared much for it. Next thing you know, people will be using it to justify all kinds of absurdity, like the government providing health care.


Our government is a tool for the benefit of its citizens.

And why is that particular "tool" necessary for health care? Do you think health care would be unavailable without it?


We don't owe any loyalty to the country except insofar as it provides us with what we need and want.

We don't owe any loyalty to the country, period.

----
I'll tell you what, if you provide evidence that a creator-god exists, then I'll agree with you.
----


Thaibicker,

If you prove that there is no such creator(s), then I'll agree with you.


----
Right now, I could care less if the founding fathers of the USA were fundamentalists or not (which they weren't),
----


LOL.

They are deists when you want them to be, and theists when you want them to be.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
LOL. You say you are faithless, and yet you believe in the "creator" god.

Way to put words in my mouth. No I don't beleive in a creator. I didn't say I did either. I have respect for the idea of creator given rights that some of the founders had.

I have come to the conclusion that instead of just happily not caring whether or not there is a god, you are a rabid/bitter antitheist. Go away.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by corplinx

Way to put words in my mouth. No I don't beleive in a creator. I didn't say I did either. I have respect for the idea of creator given rights that some of the founders had.

And yet, these creator-given rights only exist in countries where the government allows them.

[Troll]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

The fact that it is so important to some people to keep it in there is, in my eyes, perfect justification for wanting it out.

That's an odd logic to apply to things isn't it? I mean many people want to keep abortion and gun laws as they are and even loosen them up a bit. They feel strongly about those two things. Should we just ban those things because of their strong beliefs?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I have respect for the idea of creator given rights that some of the founders had.

Yes and one of these rights given is freedom of conscience, to have the government not influence or pressure people to believe or disbelieve in Him, to have people make up their own minds on the issue without government interference. Thus the very belief in God they are basing their arguments on undermines keeping God in the Pledge or having the government promote theism.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

And yet, these creator-given rights only exist in countries where the government allows them.

I don't disagree.

[thaiboxerken]

Way to put words in my mouth. No I don't beleive in a creator. I didn't say I did either.

Yes, you only agreed with the idea of a creator. Silly me for jumping to conclusions.

I have respect for the idea of creator given rights that some of the founders had.

I don't. I have respect for the seperation of church and state.


I have come to the conclusion that instead of just happily not caring whether or not there is a god, you are a rabid/bitter antitheist. Go away.

I'd rather stay here and voice my opinions. Yes, I am an antitheist and I think the world would be much better off without religion. However, the exclusion of god from government protects the religious freedoms of all people.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]

I'd rather stay here and voice my opinions. Yes, I am an antitheist and I think the world would be much better off without religion. However, the exclusion of god from government protects the religious freedoms of all people.
I vote stay.
Maybe religion is good for "some of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time."
It seems like there's a lot of people who "just can't handle the truth." Or perhaps more kindly, can't handle the wonderfully complex nature of the universe without a simple answer.
Its the SOBs that don't tolerate others beliefs/lack of beliefs that are the problem.
And thus the utter beauty and wisdom of seperation of church and state.
The same ones who want to blur that line here rail against Muslim fundamentalism when the problem is the institutionalization of that religion in the respective governments.
They (the fundies here) want us to become so much like the ones they hate.
Rather ironic.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yes, you only agreed with the idea of a creator. Silly me for jumping to conclusions.


"I still think its a nice addon in that it reminds me of those creator given inalienable rights the founders by large believed in"

Nowhere in there says I agree, it just says it reminds me of a belief many of the founders had.

I come here for intelligent dialogue and I appreciate the opinions and analysis of many people who I don't see eye to eye with. Jedi, Sub, Unique, Shanek, Victor; none of them do I see eye to eye with. I love posting in Subgenius' threads most of all. He is intentionally provocative and that is a good thing.

That said, none of the people I have disagreed with on this board have stooped to dishonesty. Welcome to my ignore list troll.

[corplinx]

The sad thing is, the only other person on my ignore list is muscleman. :)

[subgenius]

" creator given inalienable rights "
Actually I like the part that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." , as I think those principles are obvious to any thinking person.

----
Way to put words in my mouth.
----


That is what ThaiTalker does.

After that, he'll tell you he has you on ignore. ;)


----
I have come to the conclusion that instead of just happily not caring whether or not there is a god, you are a rabid/bitter antitheist.
----


Ken is a self-proclaimed (not in real life though I imagine!) anti-theist. Something in their psychology (of people like him, of course...) feels the need for the hate, and moreover, then they brainwash themself into thinking their behavior is rational behavior!

----
I don't. I have respect for the seperation of church and state.
----


Then please Ken, give me all of your money.


----
Yes, I am an antitheist and I think the world would be much better off without religion.
----
(emphasis mine)


What is that Cyndi Lauper song... Oh yes:

"I see your true colors, shining through..."

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Whodini

Ken is a self-proclaimed (not in real life though I imagine!) anti-theist. Something in their psychology (of people like him, of course...) feels the need for the hate, and moreover, then they brainwash themself into thinking their behavior is rational behavior!

Psychic too eh?

I just had to write this is a separate post.

The scary thing about what Thaiboxerken said is that he said:

"Yes, I am an antitheist ..."
(emphasis mine)

Notice that the suffix is theist and not theism.

That is why people are afraid of some materialists and atheists and super-duper skeptics.

Is it rational to be anti- some human beings?

Ken?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken#2

Psychic too eh?


Where there is smoke there's fire...

Someone who disagrees with all uses of the Chinese word qi...

:)

What's up? How are things going? Is work OK again? I have a lot of projects here, all going on at once, kind of like you did last Monday (?- can't remember).

Send me an email and let me know what's up!

Let's finish our gangsta rap collaboration ASAP.

Homie G.

[J3K]

did anybody read what thai said? he said he was wrong. So now he becomes evil, put on ignore lists, and whodini gets to be immature and make post after post dissing on the guy. He made a mistake, geez.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by J3K
did anybody read what thai said? he said he was wrong. So now he becomes evil, put on ignore lists, and whodini gets to be immature and make post after post dissing on the guy. He made a mistake, geez.
People should get beat up for stating their beliefs--They Might Be Giants

J3K,


----
did anybody read what thai said? he said he was wrong.
----


Really? Where did he say that he was wrong for saying he was "antitheist"?


----
So now he becomes evil, put on ignore lists,
----


I don't think he is evil really, just slightly confused.


----
and whodini gets to be immature and make post after post dissing on the guy.
----


Wait, I'M the immature and evil one? He was the one who admitted to being antitheist!

[J3K]

I'm sorry about the comment towards you whodini. you are dissing on him for his beliefs, which is immature, but not what I was talking about. Sorry for mentioning your name.
I was talking about corplinx getting all mad because thai made a mistake and thought he said he believed in a creator. Well thai assumed and we know what they say about assuming. But I think it's just a little much for corplinx to go getting so upset over a simple mistake.

----
I'm sorry about the comment towards you whodini. you are dissing on him for his beliefs, which is immature, but not what I was talking about. Sorry for mentioning your name.
----


Ah, ok. No problem. :)

[Stormraven]

I heard - I know not from where - that the reason cited for adding 'under God' to the pledge in the '50s was to differentiate it from the Soviet's version of a pledge.

Anyone know the truth of that?

[Oso]

Originally posted by Stormraven
I heard - I know not from where - that the reason cited for adding 'under God' to the pledge in the '50s was to differentiate it from the Soviet's version of a pledge.

Anyone know the truth of that? Could well have been something like that. Francis Bellamy, the author of the pledge, was socialist. In 1891, the year before he wrote the pledge, he was pressured into leaving his church because of his socialist sermons.

In 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to add 'under god' to the Pledge of Allegiance as recited at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus. If they knew of Bellamy's socialist leanings, which in 1951 was equivalent to godless comunisum (I know, I was there), adding 'under god' would keep it from being criticized as the work of a socialist.

Don't know anything about a Soviet pledge.

[subgenius]

It actually was proposed and pushed by a congressional rep from here in Michigan, I'm ashamed to say, in the McCarthy insanity.
A blatant violation of the Constitution, as inspired of a document as there is.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Troll

That's an odd logic to apply to things isn't it? I mean many people want to keep abortion and gun laws as they are and even loosen them up a bit. They feel strongly about those two things. Should we just ban those things because of their strong beliefs?
Not just because of their strong beliefs.

The addition of the words "under God" are clearly in violation of the first amendment. The addition should never have happened, and the Supreme Court should have stopped it once it did.

Instead, the Supremes, back in the cold war-mainc 50's, decided it was OK to leave this in because it is "de minimus", only a very tiny infraction that doesn't really matter.

And yet it clearly does matter to a large number of theists who vigorously wish to keep those words in. Therefore, the existing supreme court decision is nonsense and should be overturned.

[Oso]

Originally posted by subgenius
It actually was proposed and pushed by a congressional rep from here in Michigan, I'm ashamed to say, in the McCarthy insanity.
A blatant violation of the Constitution, as inspired of a document as there is. Not to rub it in in but, yeah, and his name was Louis C. Rabaut. The following is a little more info, but first I'd like to repeat your words subgeniuos...
...the Constitution, as inspired of a document as there is.

I think that sums it up nicely, thanks. I'm not sure there's another document ever written that is more deserving of our respect.

At its annual meeting the following year, on August 20, 1953, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus repeated its resolution to make the amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag general and to send copies of this resolve to the President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, and to each member of both Houses of Congress. From this latter action, many favorable replies were received, and a total of seventeen resolutions were introduced into the House of Representatives to so amend the Pledge of Allegiance as set forth in Public Law relating to the Flag. The resolution introduced by Congressman Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan was adopted by both Houses of Congress, and it was signed by President Eisenhower on Flag Day, June 14, 1954, thereby making the official amendment conceived, sponsored and put into practice by the Knights of Columbus more than three years before.

[subgenius]

Oso:
Thanks for the history lesson. From my recollection there was something else weird about Rabaut, and the circumstances of passing the law, which I'll try to dig up.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Not just because of their strong beliefs.

The addition of the words "under God" are clearly in violation of the first amendment. The addition should never have happened, and the Supreme Court should have stopped it once it did.

Instead, the Supremes, back in the cold war-mainc 50's, decided it was OK to leave this in because it is "de minimus", only a very tiny infraction that doesn't really matter.

And yet it clearly does matter to a large number of theists who vigorously wish to keep those words in. Therefore, the existing supreme court decision is nonsense and should be overturned.

Nicely stated. This is the problem as I see it. First we are told that it really doesn't refer to any particular god, and that the comment is not significant, just a reflection of our history. But then, suggest removing it and there is massive outrage. All for this insignificant comment.

Heck, I wonder if there would be similar outrage if someone tried to remove the "liberty" from "with liberty and justice for all"?

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Nicely stated. This is the problem as I see it. First we are told that it really doesn't refer to any particular god, and that the comment is not significant, just a reflection of our history. But then, suggest removing it and there is massive outrage. All for this insignificant comment.

Heck, I wonder if there would be similar outrage if someone tried to remove the "liberty" from "with liberty and justice for all"?

But it DOES refer to a specific god. The word 'God' is capitialized which makes it a proper noun refering to a specific entity, and there is only one god that goes by that name - the Judeo-Christian god. Besides, the men who put 'under God' in the pledge where monotheistic Christians who believe their god is the one true god. Who else would they be refering to?