CNN TV: Appeals Court Finds Pledge Unconstitutional

[shiner]

Originally posted by: nord1899

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: nord1899
prohibiting the free exercise thereof

By including the word "God" in the pledge, you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion by non christian-judeo worshipers or atheists. They are now required to observe the christian-judeo God. And yes, the pledge was required when I went to school until 96 when I graduated. No idea on any punishment for it though. And I always just mumbled it anyway.

How is saying God prohibiting the free exercise of religion by non christian-judeo worshipers? I can understand your poitn about athiests, but they can choose not to say it. As I said earlier, the pledge refers to God, it does not name him/her or say the Christian God. It could be Allah, it could be Jehova, it could be Yahweh, it could be Bill the plumber. whatever you choose to worship as God is God.

Islam gives their deity an actual name Allah, they do not refer to the deity as God. Atheists don't believe in God. I'm not familar enough with Hindu, Shintoism, etc... to know exactly what they do.

Schools are a government run institution. And the pledge is directly tired to the government. So by forcing kids to say a pledge that is pointedly in favor of the christian-judeo deity, you are restricting their rights to practice religion. And yes, kids in school are forced to say it. So essentially you have the government forcing kids to make a pledge to the US government with references to a christian-judeo deity.

How does that not violate the 1st amendment?

Muslims don't call their deity God huh? Here are a few quotes from the Quran for you:

"O you who believe, you shall remember God frequently; glorify Him day and night. "

"Glorify God day and night: When we eat anything, we shouldn't be like animals; we must reflect on God's creation of the food we are eating - the flavor, our enjoyment due to the senses God has given us, the perfect packaging of the banana or the orange, the varieties of sea foods created by God, etc. - and glorify Him as we enjoy His provisions. When we see a beautiful flower, or animal, or sunsets, we must glorify God. We must seize every possible opportunity to remember and glorify God, so that God may be our God. "

"In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. There is no other god besides God," the moment you wake up every morning. If you establish this good habit, this is what you will utter when you are resurrected. "

From a Islamic web site:

In as many times as we have been on the internet or in a discussion or a chat group, we almost always run into someone who feels offended that we use the word "God" when we talk about the One and Only God (Allah in Arabic).

It is surprising to notice that most of these Muslim brothers and/or sisters do not know that the word "Allah" is the Arabic word for the word "God". Many of them believe that "Allah" is the name of the Muslim God. They do not realize that the word "Allah" does not belong exclusively to the Muslims and that it has always been used before (and after) Islam by the Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians when they speak about God.

Talking to English speaking people about God using the word "Allah" is very much the same like speaking to Arabic speaking people about "Allah" using the word God. It makes all the sense to show respect to the people and their language by speaking to them in the language they use.

Insisting on the use of the word "Allah" which is the Arabic word for God immediately creates the illusion that "Allah" is a whole different deity than God of the whole world. It creates a god that belongs ONLY to the Muslims, and takes the universality of Islam out of it.

From a Hindu web site:

As a universal formulation Hinduism accepts all formulations of Truth. According to the universal view there is only One Reality, but it cannot be limit ed to a particular name or form. Though Truth is One it is also Universal, not an exclusive formulation. It is an inclusive, not an exclusive Oneness - a spiritual reality of Being - Consciousness - Bliss, which could be called God but which transcends all names. The different Gods and Goddesses of Hinduism represent various functions of this One Supreme Divinity, and are not separate Gods.

As for the athiests? Nobody is forcing them to say God. I don't recall seeing public floggings because someone didn't say the word God.

 

[Gaard]

I was thinking along similar lines. People are saying "Yeah, but this phrase means this and this phrase means that." Kind of reminds me of "Yeah, but serious consequences means this or serious consequences mean that."

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maladroit
Oh and since mentioning god is such a significant problem that plagues our society, lets spend billions to reprint every piece of currency. Cause for god's sake (whoops i said it again!), we don't want to offend anybody!

So you propose to continue to honor the legacy of fear in our country that the the addition of the words"Under God" represent? A time when Americans were frightened to speak their minds out of fear of being persecuted. The Words "Under God" were added to flush out Commies more than to honor an all Supreme Being in case you don't know your history

Sorry but I don't see this legacy of fear you keep referring to. Do people seriously believe that they will be "persecuted" for omitting words/not believing in god in today's society? I don't buy that for a second.

No but they did when those words were added.

but they don't anymore.

that's my point.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maladroit

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maladroit
Oh and since mentioning god is such a significant problem that plagues our society, lets spend billions to reprint every piece of currency. Cause for god's sake (whoops i said it again!), we don't want to offend anybody!

So you propose to continue to honor the legacy of fear in our country that the the addition of the words"Under God" represent? A time when Americans were frightened to speak their minds out of fear of being persecuted. The Words "Under God" were added to flush out Commies more than to honor an all Supreme Being in case you don't know your history

Sorry but I don't see this legacy of fear you keep referring to. Do people seriously believe that they will be "persecuted" for omitting words/not believing in god in today's society? I don't buy that for a second.

No but they did when those words were added.

but they don't anymore.

that's my point.

Good for you.

to quote Rietz

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

In 1953, Congress passaed a law adding the words "...under God..." to the pledge of allegiance. The primary motivation behind it was to further distinguish the US from the godless commies in the Soviet Union. That seems to be about as clear-cut as it can get. Unfortunately, it had to be an arrogant jackass that brought the original case, so most people pay little attention to the real argument.

 

[SuperTool]

grep -v 'under God' PledgeOfAllegiance.txt 🙂
Sounds good to me 😀

 

[MemnochtheDevil]

Sorry but I don't see this legacy of fear you keep referring to. Do people seriously believe that they will be "persecuted" for omitting words/not believing in god in today's society? I don't buy that for a second.

If you mean by persecuted set apart, treated differently and marked as strange, very much yes. Here in the conservative midwest people get violent over this kind of thing. You can be sure kids and parents would mock a family who declined to take part.

We had a graduation prayer fight and court case in a small town near here that caused a huge mess for awhile. Those people are labeled as clearly as if they were wearing scarlet letters now.

 

[skyking]

Whether or not a kid is heard by a teacher for not saying it properly is not the point. If a child has personal beliefs that are counter to the phrase, and they choose not to say it, the nearby classmates WILL know.
Parents send their kids off to public school, trusting that the religious beliefs taught in the home can remain personal and private, under the constitution. If their children are encouraged to prostletize, that is a choice they have made. If they choose to hold their beliefs close, that is a right that is at the very core of our society.
Now this child's differences in worship are out in the open, and why??? Because 50 years ago congress changed a perfectly good pledge to fit an agenda.
It was not out of respect for a majority of the people that it was done, and it will not and did not affect their beliefs one bit. If it did, then that is really sad, that a simple pledge or lack thereof would bolster or undermine something so powerful as their worship.
Change it back, and forget about it. it was a mistake in the first place.

 

[flavio]

"The measure of our freedom can be found in the distance between church and state"

Glad to hear the pledge will be changed.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: maladroit
I don't care whether it says under god or not. That's not my issue. My issue is with people making issues about bullshit that in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter at all.

If it doesn't really matter, you won't mind if we take it out then.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: maladroit
I don't care whether it says under god or not. That's not my issue. My issue is with people making issues about bullshit that in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter at all.

If it doesn't really matter, you won't mind if we take it out then.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: skyking
Whether or not a kid is heard by a teacher for not saying it properly is not the point. If a child has personal beliefs that are counter to the phrase, and they choose not to say it, the nearby classmates WILL know.
Parents send their kids off to public school, trusting that the religious beliefs taught in the home can remain personal and private, under the constitution. If their children are encouraged to prostletize, that is a choice they have made. If they choose to hold their beliefs close, that is a right that is at the very core of our society.
Now this child's differences in worship are out in the open, and why??? Because 50 years ago congress changed a perfectly good pledge to fit an agenda.
It was not out of respect for a majority of the people that it was done, and it will not and did not affect their beliefs one bit. If it did, then that is really sad, that a simple pledge or lack thereof would bolster or undermine something so powerful as their worship.
Change it back, and forget about it. it was a mistake in the first place.

Well said.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: maladroit
I don't care whether it says under god or not. That's not my issue. My issue is with people making issues about bullshit that in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter at all.

If it doesn't really matter, you won't mind if we take it out then.

i won't mind. i just think it's a stupid issue to waste the court's and other people's time on. the only reason i started ranting in this thread is because i was bored at work. but since i don't care and i'm not at work anymore, i'm done...

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Separation of church and state only means that the government cannot establish a state religion. Need an example to help get it through your skull? Here you go. If the government were to come out and say that the religion of the USA was Baptist and everyone had to be Baptist that would be unconstitutional.

Keep in mind youre dealing with a several century year old document, that seriously needs a little modern revamping. Back in those days, there were no atheists. Back in those days, semi-automatic handguns and assault rifles didnt exist either, but because of the constitution we have to fear getting shot too.

Personally, I think that freedom of speech is highly overrated because it forces me to listen to garbage spewing out of liberals. Further, the freedom of the press was instituted when press outlets were focused on the truth and not the best liberal spin to have greater readership/viewership, particularly on network news and in the New York Times or the LA Times.

Yep, time to eliminate both of those.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: maladroit
I don't care whether it says under god or not. That's not my issue. My issue is with people making issues about bullshit that in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter at all.

If it doesn't really matter, you won't mind if we take it out then.

so true🙂

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Oh good grief....first off how do you get that it's referring to a Christian God? God is God is God is God no matter what religion you worship or what name you call him/her. Second....how are schoolchildren being punished for not saying it?

God is not "God" no matter what religion you believe. The only religion that I know of that refers to thier diety as "God" are Christians. Jews have Yahweh, Muslims have Allah, Buddihsts have Budda, Hindu's have Ganesha, many religions have several gods, which would make "under god" incorrect, and athiests have no gods, which also makes under god incorrect for thier religion (if you want to call it that).

Go back and read EDiT's post about getting sent to the principle's office for not saying the pledge.

Allah is the name of the Muslim God. If you look at some Muslim writings in English, Allah is their God -- plain and simple. So, it is far from unreasonable to think that a Muslim cannot connect the word "God" with "Allah". I could understand the consternation over the Pledge if it said, "One nation under Yahweh".

The essential problem here is that the Founders intended the language to only apply to the federal government so that the individual states were free to practice their police power as they saw fit, according to the desires of the state's citizens. However, with the misguided application of the 14th Amendment, suddenly the restriction became a national one, completely abrogating the intent of the Founders in drafting it.

If you look at the history of the U.S. and the colonies before that, you see that the entire intent was to guarantee religious freedom and the exercise thereof, not freedom from religion! The liberals in this country are expressly construing the Constitution to give us freedom from religion, far from the intent when this country was founded and in the history of this country up to about fifty years ago.

While the addition of "One nation under God" was a late one, it was merely a reaction to a movement based on essentially unconstitutional principles, namely the complete removal of religion from public life. Since that movement has coincided with a marked deterioration in morality and ethics in this country, I wonder about the motivations of those involved. Fanatical pursuit of anything is almost always wrong, regardless of the principles which initially created the movement.

 

[Konigin]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Supreme Court here we come.

Yeah, they will probably overturn it, as they should. Nobody is forced to say it.

 

[EdipisReks]

for those idiots who believe that this country was founded by christians for christians, why don't you go read the Treaty of Tripoli from 1797 that was signed by President Adams and ratified by congress? also keep in mind that the first 6 presidents were openly anti-christian, as were most of the original patriots such as Thomas Paine.

[edited for a type]

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Konigin

Originally posted by: Queasy
Supreme Court here we come.

Yeah, they will probably overturn it, as they should. Nobody is forced to say it.

i was, as were those in all of my elementary school classes. it's a pretty crappy thing to force on rational people.

[edited for a typo]

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Konigin

Originally posted by: Queasy
Supreme Court here we come.

Yeah, they will probably overturn it, as they should. Nobody is forced to say it.

What I remember from middle school, they would read it over the intercom and the teacher would ask as to rise and say it.
Now, we are certainly forced to listen to it, at the very least. And maybe asking is not the same as armtwisting, but for a kid who doesn't know any better, a teacher asking him to do something isn't exactly a voluntary thing. Also, I don't see why a kid or anyone should have to acknowledge a God in order to pledge allegiance to his country. Atheists, polytheists, and agnostics can be patriotic, and should be able to pledge allegiance without having to be intellectually dishonest.
The biggest travesty is to follow "under God", which divides people into believers and non-believers by "indivisible".
I think USSC will overturn it on appeal, but the 9th circuit decision is correct. USSC has been wrong many times before, as recently as 2000 😉.

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: SuperToolAtheists, polytheists, and agnostics can be patriotic, and should be able to pledge allegiance without having to be intellectually dishonest.

atheists, agnostics, and deists (not believing in a personal god) are the original patriots. the founding fathers were, in the majority, atheists, agnostics and deists.

 

[Red Dawn]

Honest question here. I wonder why it's so important to Christians that this country has to be a Christian nation? Why does religion even have to be a factor?

 

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Honest question here. I wonder why it's so important to Christians that this country has to be a Christian nation? Why does religion even have to be a factor?

because christianity is an evangelical, messianic religion.

 

[przero]

How about we just vote on it? Totally fair, huh. Oh, by the way any of you vote?

 

[EdipisReks]

i've voted in every election i've been legal for.

 

[przero]

That is the most important thing in this country - VOTE! So let's vote on the use of "under God" in the pledge? How many others vote?