Check it out:
Hmm... Kinda sad that we've come to this. Don't you think?
Check it out:
Hmm... Kinda sad that we've come to this. Don't you think?
No I don't think it is sad though I believe I will be in the minority on this one. The "under God" was only added in 1954 in a much less diverse era. I agree with the court that it could infringe on a citizen's beliefs (or non-beliefs) and has no place in a national pledge. Do you have to believe in God to be a good citizen? I don't think so.
Some will say this ruling puts religion down. I don't agree. It affirms that the Constitution is a religion neutral document and that America should be a religion neutral country where citizens are allowed to pursue their beliefs free from repression and intimidation.
What is sad to me is that people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will have a heyday with this material and be able to raise more funds in support of their various narrow-minded causes.
My first reaction to reading the MSN story is that it's a shame that the guy who brought this suit is so obviously using his daughter as a pawn for his personal legal agenda. Think he filed the suit after her very first day at school or waited a couple of days?
I have an idea Aim, how about you shut your mouth and let the mass media tell us what your opinion is. Fucking moron
You and the congressional morons who rushed out to the steps of the capitol (where the camera's could see them all better) should collectively gather take a deep fucking breathe and mellow the fuck out. Understand what the fuck is going on in the world around you before you begin prancing around like a faggot screaming they are trying to outlaw god.
btw the economics of america is a fucking mess, the war on terror is a war on domestic liberty, bush is attempting to find a new "evil empire" to reignite the military industrial complex, the world is growing weary of our imperialism, corporate wealth and corruption is growing obscene and the media and politicians are failing to keep it all under wraps and you are fucking worried that they are going to remove in god we trust from the fucking dollar bill!!!!! fucking idiot
Oh come on. It is pretty shallow. There's a great big forest here and this guy and this 9th circuit court are going... "hmmm, don't like that tree over there."
And, since it has bearing, I'm an atheist myself. I wonder if I should sue the Treasury next? I mean, having "In God We Trust" on our money is incredibly offensive to me and is causing me psychological damage just thinking about it.
I don't really see the controversy. Just take out "under God" and be done with it. Both sides should be happy then.
Having a bad day stupidity? haha
Uh oh. Looks like we need to trim the Declaration of Independence a little.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins. That is going against my belief that we come from little green men. I should sue, sue, sue!!!!!Originally Posted by Bub, Andrew
Oh... And how about the tragedy of 9/11 and when everyone was playing god bless america. I should sue, sue, sue.
And isn't Star Wars real? What it's fake!! I'll never be able to go out now. This has ruined my life. I should sue Gearge Lucas the bastard.
And... this site has consumed all of my time. Time that I'll never get back. Mark, you ruined my life because now I'm addicated to this site. I miss work all the time just so I can post all day, so you owe me missed wages. And I never socialize anymore, so you owe me for that. I know what I'll do. I'll sue sue sue....
Why? Are kids being made to recite the Declaration of Independance daily?
Why not simply remove the phrase "under God" (which was added in 1954)? Is there any good reason not to?
Aside from the fact that the protest against those two words is... silly. There's some very good reasons. But first, are you really this naive? No offense intended, but you realize how important those two words is to some people, right? St. Louis is a pretty religious city, look around you. Don't you know anyone who would get really bent out of shape about it? Haven't you paid any attention to the Prayer in School debate? As an example.Originally Posted by Mark Asher
Seperation of Church and State is really important, imo, but taking a stand over two words in the Pledge of Allegiance is not where the fight should be fought. It's superficial. It would just piss off too many people. Ahem, too many voters for any politician to get behind. That's why.
Besides, according to ABC News, the Supreme Court of the US has apparently previously ruled that "Under God" qualifies as an accepted cultural expression, not a religious one. If the case gets that far, expect it to get struck down.
Worse, they're made to endure a constant barrage of unalienable rights whose admitted source is the Creator. Unless you think the little Dianic Wiccan boy sobbing in Civics class is crying tears of happiness from too much pursuit of (Monotheistic) Happiness, then, yeah, there's a big problem with the DOI.Are kids being made to recite the Declaration of Independance daily?
I think there are much bigger fish to fry all around and I won't get worked up about this regardless. My personal take is that any overt endorsement of one religion over another by a governmental body is a bad thing.
Since the vast majority of Americans follow one monotheistic religion or another refering to 'one nation under God' can only be so offensive to so many people and isn't a clear endorsement of a state religion.
On the other hand, I tend to really have better things to do than worry about religion and find my political opposite numbers much more motivated by religious fervor rather than rational thought. This goes for Al Qaida and the Christian Coalition for whom diversity and tolerance are seductive evils that compete with righteous conformity for the souls of us all.
Despite that I really don't see the vestigal, almost neutered, references to Christianity in our governmental rituals as very offensive. Heck, I'd probably be much more offended about the lamed down appropriation of these spiritual symbols if I were a practicing theist. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's but he should keep his grubby hands off my God. Right? :)
From Scalia's half-prescient dissenting opinion in Lee v. Weisman, the 1992 case that ended school prayer:
Slippery slope! Slippery slope!The opinion manifests that the Court itself has not given careful consideration to its test of psychological coercion. For if it had, how could it observe, with no hint of concern or disapproval, that students stood for the Pledge of Allegiance, which immediately preceded Rabbi Gutterman's invocation? Ante, at 583. The government can, of course, no more coerce political orthodoxy than religious orthodoxy. West [505 U.S. 577, 639] Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). Moreover, since the Pledge of Allegiance has been revised since Barnette to include the phrase "under God," recital of the Pledge would appear to raise the same Establishment Clause issue as the invocation and benediction. If students were psychologically coerced to remain standing during the invocation, they must also have been psychologically coerced, moments before, to stand for (and thereby, in the Court's view, take part in or appear to take part in) the Pledge. Must the Pledge therefore be barred from the public schools (both from graduation ceremonies and from the classroom)? In Barnette, we held that a public school student could not be compelled to recite the Pledge; we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence - indeed, even to stand in respectful silence - when those who wished to recite it did so. Logically, that ought to be the next project for the Court's bulldozer.
Double negative! Double negative!Slippery slope! Slippery slope!we did not even hint that she could not be compelled to observe respectful silence...
Huh?Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins.
As for don't they have bigger fish to fry - if the case is in the courts, the case is in the courts. Even little fish have to get their day.
Of course the Declaration of Independence is not (nor was it intended to be) an official statement of America's endorsement of religion. It's just a letter, a list of grievances from the Continental Congress to King George, basically an inter-office memo that could have been entitled "Why we won't be sending you taxes any more." The text reflects the personal beliefs of the drafters and is fairly specific to their circumstances. Unless we are going to pass a law saying that anyone working for the government has to be an athiest, you'll have to live with it.
The Constitution, by the way, is much more religion-neutral.
I'm changing my stance then. Let's ban the daily recitation of the Declaration of Independance on the grounds of cruel and unusual punishment towards children.Originally Posted by Erik
Just remove "under God". Is that really a bad thing? I'd prefer to remove the pledge entirely, since I don't really like the idea of making children recite a pledge every schoolday.
Maybe it should be changed to:
"under God, Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha"
Saying the pledge every day in school always bothered me. Not that I have a problem with the pledge, and certainly not the "Under God" part, but it just seems a bit much. Got on my nerves.
I usually mumbled the pledge before classes. I was never awake at that time. :lol: So shoot me!
BTW I ahve no problem with 'under God'. Since I'm a God fearing guy, I wouldn't want something like 'under no God' or just a blank capitalist state that beleives in nothing but money (which it already seems to be).
My summary of the obligatory histronics everyone on Fox News is having:
Legalistic bent, tack 1: "Mentioning god in the pledge of allegiance clearly does not meet the coercion requirement that the Supreme Court laid down in previous decisions. There's nothing coercive about everyone but you in a school reciting the pledge every day."
Legalistic bent, tack 2: "Mentioning god in the pledge of allegiance cleary does not establish religion under the criteria specified by the Supreme Court. As you can clearly see by everyone going completely apeshit about this, it's a totally innocous and meaningless expression of community."
Everyone else: "I don't like the establishment cause. Can't we use government to advance our religion just a little?"
Personally I'm going to take the initiative and stay one step of the atheists. I'm here to help! Anyone who'd like to get rid of there God covered money can send it to me for disposal!
'My first reaction to reading the MSN story is that it's a shame that the guy who brought this suit is so obviously using his daughter as a pawn for his personal legal agenda. Think he filed the suit after her very first day at school or waited a couple of days?'
Does this somehow invalidate the logic of the decision?
'Oh come on. It is pretty shallow. There's a great big forest here and this guy and this 9th circuit court are going... "hmmm, don't like that tree over there."'
Perhaps the government should never make small decisions?
'Yea, and how about when I go to a baseball game and we have to endure the Pledge of Alligence before the game begins. That is going against my belief that we come from little green men. I should sue, sue, sue!!!!!'
It's an entirely voluntary, non government-sponsored event, and as such, is not covered by the establishment clause.
'Aside from the fact that the protest against those two words is... silly.'
Perhaps you'd prefer "Under Xenu?"
' Since I'm a God fearing guy, I wouldn't want something like 'under no God' or just a blank capitalist state that beleives in nothing but money (which it already seems to be).'
Right, because the only alternative to not choosing a favored religion, or group thereof, is government sponsorship of atheism.
For everyone's reference, schools can still mandate that children recite the pledge all they want, as long as the offending snippet "under God" is not included. The effectiveness of mandating allegiance pledges of children at preventing a later turn to traitorous communist is obviously non-existent, mind you, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
Oh yes, I have a blog now!
Not that anyone should care, technically.
Big whoop. I mean we have terrorists with crosshairs on America and big companies raping there employees, and a recession that won't end. There's more important matters than a stupid pledge most people forgot (including me) :oops: .
The guy who started this case is an idiot. Its like those people who were against prayer in school (and won!). Why bother. Are they THAT offended by it? And then making it apolitical issue makes it even more stupid. Lets vote on it. Stupid.
.....aaaaaaaaaand, providing an example of category Everyone Else: mtkafka!
Ok, so now I'm curious why they added the "under God" bit in the first place. Apparently it was inserted only as recently as 1954.
At dinner the other day, a buddy of mine noted that Australia got England's criminals, and we got England's religious misfits. He was wondering if Australia got the better deal. ;)
And for *your* reference schools cannot mandate that children recite the pledge at all (a moment of silence is the alternative) AND they can still use the offending snippet "under God" too. Because the Court that made this decision has no real enforcement of it's decision, that would require the Supreme Court.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
And again (according to ABC News this evening) the Supreme Court considers "Under God" a cultural colloquialism and not a religious expression, and therefore not a Constitutional issue.
Put that in your Blog and smoke it.
Alan, it was stuck in there as part of the Red Scare (McCarthy, et al) during Eisenhower's first administration.
'And for *your* reference schools cannot mandate that children recite the pledge at all (a moment of silence is the alternative) AND they can still use the offending snippet "under God" too. Because the Court that made this decision has no real enforcement of it's decision, that would require the Supreme Court.'
There was a decision invalidating mandatory pledges? I'll be damned. Do you know the case? And federal circuit court decisions *are* binding, unless the SC accepts the case for review. I'm not sure how decisions are handled in-between the initial decision and submittal before the SC (which doesn't accept the vast majority of cases.) I'd be surprised if they didn't take this one, though, as the 7th ruled the other way.
'And again (according to ABC News this evening) the Supreme Court considers "Under God" a cultural colloquialism and not a religious expression, and therefore not a Constitutional issue.'
Individual justices have stated this as an aside in other decisions, or in interviews, but there's never been an official determination of this.
I don't. My only source is the ABC News telecast at 5:30 CST today. In there Jennings reported that the Pledge is not mandatory and that you can observe a moment of silence. I also recall a Newsweek MY TURN column on the subject wherein a 17 year old girl lamented how she was made fun of for conscientiously objecting to reciting the pledge... even though that was 100% her right. It was the Pledge she was talking about, not School Prayer. Anyway, there probably wasn't a case because it's never been mandatory, therefore never contested.Originally Posted by Jason McCullough
No word was mention about the SC save their opinion on the subject. I recall, I could be misremembering here, the news report saying the "Under God" thing was rendered a colloquialism during the School Prayer decisions.And federal circuit court decisions *are* binding, unless the SC accepts the case for review. I'm not sure how decisions are handled in-between the initial decision and submittal before the SC (which doesn't accept the vast majority of cases.) I'd be surprised if they didn't take this one, though, as the 7th ruled the other way.
Jennings did report, as a specific point - and I'm sure about this, that this ruling changes nothing in practice and that "Under God" at this time is still part of the PoA.
Also, the Pledge should be changed but they're focussing on the wrong words. Take out "Indivisible"... because ever kid says "Invisible" and that can lead to severe misapprehensions about our great land.