Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality

[MillionaireNextDoor]

Atheism is a belief as well as Theism. There is no such thing as not having a belief; you either believe in something or believe in nothing. Both ways, you believe (even Descartes, famed for his disbelief, believed in a couple things, one of which was his existence).

Micheal is essentially asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of his belief; Atheism.

:disgust:

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmsclAs to the government having " NO right to inject it in the first place"; you're wrong again. The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954. The Supreme Court ruling that was the basis for the current definition of the "separation of Church and State" was handed down in 1971. Therefore, at the time the phrase was added to the Pledge it was completely within the government's right to do so as the new definition for what was and was not acceptable with regards to government and religion had yet to come into the picture. Sorry to burst your bubble. Thanks for playing, though.

So you are saying people should still be allowed to own slaves because it was legal in the past? Hey, ALOT of people supported slavery. And even though it was outlawed, I still can't see why the people that had slaves in the past can't still own them. It's like people are try to take away the slave owners' rights. :roll:

First, please explain to me how you're funding the phrase "under God". This should be truly interesting.

Are you so dense you can't figured it out for yourself, or do you just like playing twenty questions? Tax payers pay for the public schools. Just as I don't want my tax dollars going to churches, I don't want my tax dollars promoting invisible people. With the term "Under God" left in the pledge, schools cease to be a neutral ground for education, and instead show favoritism toward a particular religion. And let's not kid ourselves, God does not refer to ANY OTHER God in the pledge except for the Christian God. So let's not play semantics, and pretend it refers to God in general and includes all religions. Religion or religious references have NO place in schools. If you want to spread the word of the toothfairy on the corner, have at it. But it has no business in school.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
Atheism is a belief as well as Theism. There is no such thing as not having a belief; you either believe in something or believe in nothing. Both ways, you believe (even Descartes, famed for his disbelief, believed in a couple things, one of which was his existence).

Micheal is essentially asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of his belief; Atheism.

:disgust:

Hey genius, Michael is not asking for the term "Under God" to be changed to "Under NO God." He's asking to take it out all together. Is being neutral favoring Atheists? Give me a freakin' break.

 

[maziwanka]

Originally posted by: LemonHead
Who cares! I can't stand how many people get their panties in a wad over a stupid thing like this. It's no big deal! What a waste of taxpayers' money to run this stupid lawsuit through the courts! There are far more important things to tackle than this.

i agree

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmsclAs to the government having " NO right to inject it in the first place"; you're wrong again. The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954. The Supreme Court ruling that was the basis for the current definition of the "separation of Church and State" was handed down in 1971. Therefore, at the time the phrase was added to the Pledge it was completely within the government's right to do so as the new definition for what was and was not acceptable with regards to government and religion had yet to come into the picture. Sorry to burst your bubble. Thanks for playing, though.

So you are saying people should still be allowed to own slaves because it was legal in the past? Hey, ALOT of people supported slavery. And even though it was outlawed, I still can't see why the people that had slaves in the past can't still own them. It's like people are try to take away the slave owners' rights. :roll:

No, sorry, I said nothing about slavery. You said is was never legal. I proved that it was legal at the time. Whether it is now is open to debate. No need to put words into my mouth because of your poor reading comprehension skills and weak argument.

First, please explain to me how you're funding the phrase "under God". This should be truly interesting.

Are you so dense you can't figured it out for yourself, or do you just like playing twenty questions? Tax payers pay for the public schools. Just as I don't want my tax dollars going to churches, I don't want my tax dollars promoting invisible people. With the term "Under God" left in the pledge, schools cease to be a neutral ground for education, and instead show favoritism toward a particular religion. And let's not kid ourselves, God does not refer to ANY OTHER God in the pledge except for the Christian God. So let's not play semantics, and pretend it refers to God in general and includes all religions. Religion or religious references have NO place in schools. If you want to spread the word of the toothfairy on the corner, have at it. But it has no business in school.

No, what you're saying is fairly clear. I guess you think that they wouldn't be saying the pledge at all if they take the words "under God" out? Or are you really that upset at the half a second of class time it takes to say those particular words? I suggest you take a look into some of the things your tax dollars are funding. But you won't. Because you don't care about the tax dollars, you just feel that's a good platform to complain from.

 

[CPA]

If you don't want to say it, don't. It is not mandatory in Cali or any other state to say the Pledge in a public school.

If you don't want to use cash, don't. 99.9% of transactions can be made without using cash.

If you don't want to put your hand on the bible in court, don't. All courts have a non-denominational oath.


I agree with the other poster who said this is a big waste of money. There are way more important things that need to be attended to.

<----non-religious

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hey you got to throw the Fund A Mental Cases a bone now or then or they start up with that God Damned Martyr BS that's so God Damned annoying.

lol so true.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: LemonHead
Who cares! I can't stand how many people get their panties in a wad over a stupid thing like this. It's no big deal! What a waste of taxpayers' money to run this stupid lawsuit through the courts! There are far more important things to tackle than this.

Exactly. If you want to say it then say it. If you don't want to say it then don't say it. This is not a huge issue like fvcktards on BOTH sides of the fence are making it out to be. Seriously - grow up.

 

[azazyel]

I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

 

[nakedfrog]

It espouses a belief in a singular deity. It should not be there. It infringes on no one's rights to remove it. If it's all that important to you to have your kid say the pledge with "under god" included, have them say it at home. Those of us against it have no choice. Even if our kids don't say it, they still have to hear most of the other kids in the class say it.
It's inappropriate and doesn't belong.
It appears to me that it does not, in fact, pass the "Lemon Test." It advances religion, plain and simple. It is recited at essentially every public school across the US; that seems to be pretty evident excessive entanglement.

 

[Kristi2k]

Wow, lots of ignorant people here.

I'm glad for this ruling.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: azazyel
I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

You know, since they're mostly rooted in polytheistic Norse mythology, I'm half-surprised the right-wing fundies haven't tried to take care of that yet.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: azazyel
I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

That's quite a leap. The days of the week have been there for quite some time - 'under God' has been there for less than a half-century. It's one thing to change something that has been rooted in tradition, it is quite another to change something which has persisted for a bit around a generation.

 

[jeep02tj]

I am glad their not changing the pledge. the judges and laywers in cali overlooked the basics.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: CPA
If you don't want to say it, don't. It is not mandatory in Cali or any other state to say the Pledge in a public school.

If you don't want to use cash, don't. 99.9% of transactions can be made without using cash.

If you don't want to put your hand on the bible in court, don't. All courts have a non-denominational oath.


I agree with the other poster who said this is a big waste of money. There are way more important things that need to be attended to.

<----non-religious

I disagree. This is an issue with ramifications extending far beyond two words in a pledge - it extends to freedom of belief, the tyranny of the majority - the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Perhaps that doesn't mean very much to you, but as one of the central tenets which makes this country unique from others, I think it is very much indeed a central issue.

If you want to complain about wasting money, look directly at the drug war. We've spent hundreds of billions on it, all to achieve what - anti-drug commercials which make you want to use drugs after watching them?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: MillionaireNextDoor
Atheism is a belief as well as Theism. There is no such thing as not having a belief; you either believe in something or believe in nothing. Both ways, you believe (even Descartes, famed for his disbelief, believed in a couple things, one of which was his existence).

Micheal is essentially asking the Supreme Court to rule in favor of his belief; Atheism.

:disgust:

Hey genius, Michael is not asking for the term "Under God" to be changed to "Under NO God." He's asking to take it out all together. Is being neutral favoring Atheists? Give me a freakin' break.

yes, disturbing how even basic logic eludes some

 

[jyates]

I was a little disappointed that they didn't rule one way or the other but seemed
to skirt the issue by saying the father didn't have the right to bring the suit since
he doesn't have legal custody of her.

It's amazing what people will spend their money on (lawyers) when so many people
don't have enough to live decently on.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: jyates
It's amazing what people will spend their money on (lawyers) when so many people don't have enough to live decently on.

Well, spending money on others as opposed to one's self carries a heavy whiff of socialism, which is anathema to most people around here and in the US. Thus, it's one of those nice ideas that won't happen any time soon.

Oh, and I also agree with those who say that the technicality loophole was bull$hit.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: azazyel
I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

That's quite a leap. The days of the week have been there for quite some time - 'under God' has been there for less than a half-century. It's one thing to change something that has been rooted in tradition, it is quite another to change something which has persisted for a bit around a generation.

I actually don't see the difference. People don't want "under god" removed because it was a "recent" addition but instead to protect their kids from exposure to religion. What if in class the teacher says, "today is Wednesday which is named after the Norse All Father?" The kid comes home from class and tells their parents and they would freak. But why? Because the teacher gave religious significance to a word which most people didn't know had any? Or because religion was brought up in the first place?

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: Wuffsunie

Originally posted by: jyates
It's amazing what people will spend their money on (lawyers) when so many people don't have enough to live decently on.

Well, spending money on others as opposed to one's self carries a heavy whiff of socialism, which is anathema to most people around here and in the US. Thus, it's one of those nice ideas that won't happen any time soon.

Oh, and I also agree with those who say that the technicality loophole was bull$hit.

Because of the weight of Supreme Court's decisions, they very often skirt ruling on a far-reaching issue unless it is completely unavoidable.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: azazyel
I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

That's quite a leap. The days of the week have been there for quite some time - 'under God' has been there for less than a half-century. It's one thing to change something that has been rooted in tradition, it is quite another to change something which has persisted for a bit around a generation.

I actually don't see the difference. People don't want "under god" removed because it was a "recent" addition but instead to protect their kids from exposure to religion. What if in class the teacher says, "today is Wednesday which is named after the Norse All Father?" The kid comes home from class and tells their parents and they would freak. But why? Because the teacher gave religious significance to a word which most people didn't know had any? Or because religion was brought up in the first place?

That's an interesting example, except for one problem. They wouldn't be told that every single day and by most of the people in the class.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: MadCowDisease

Originally posted by: azazyel
I find it rather humorous that people get so up in arms about a simple mention of God. I mean what's next renaming the days of the week?

That's quite a leap. The days of the week have been there for quite some time - 'under God' has been there for less than a half-century. It's one thing to change something that has been rooted in tradition, it is quite another to change something which has persisted for a bit around a generation.

I actually don't see the difference. People don't want "under god" removed because it was a "recent" addition but instead to protect their kids from exposure to religion. What if in class the teacher says, "today is Wednesday which is named after the Norse All Father?" The kid comes home from class and tells their parents and they would freak. But why? Because the teacher gave religious significance to a word which most people didn't know had any? Or because religion was brought up in the first place?

That's an interesting example, except for one problem. They wouldn't be told that every single day and by most of the people in the class.

True, but ever since I learned all this it always makes me smile to know that Friday is named after the Norse god of fertility, Fry.

Edit: Thank god it's Fry's day.

 

[Wuffsunie]

Originally posted by: azazyel
I actually don't see the difference. People don't want "under god" removed because it was a "recent" addition but instead to protect their kids from exposure to religion. What if in class the teacher says, "today is Wednesday which is named after the Norse All Father?" The kid comes home from class and tells their parents and they would freak. But why? Because the teacher gave religious significance to a word which most people didn't know had any? Or because religion was brought up in the first place?

Not quite. That's religion in an intellectual context. They are simply learning information there. By having "under God" in your pledge, it is seen by some as forcing children profess or adhere to some kind of religion when they might not. Since the rest of the pledge is supposed to be taken seriously, truthfully, and to heart, by having a profession of the belief of God built into that, it is seen as forcing that belief on others. Your example would have been closer were it "today is Wednesday which is named after the Norse All Father, and so we must sacrifice a small goat to him" or something along those lines.

Originally posted by: Jzero
Because of the weight of Supreme Court's decisions, they very often skirt ruling on a far-reaching issue unless it is completely unavoidable.

Oh, I understand perfectly why they did it. It's still bull$hit IMO because it's just such a blatant dodge of the issue. It's using the power of bureaucracy to crush the issue instead of having to deal with it in any significant manner. It says that the considerable time and money involved were a waste because not every i was dotted and t crossed, he forgot to sign his name on line 2689, and file form X9J2 in triplicate with four different offices. When requirements have been fulfilled to their exacting standards and they've been essentially legally pinned to the ground with no way to wiggle out, maybe then they'll deal with his issue. If the power of the courts is so awesome as to require that kind of bureaucratic perfection before it can be utilized, the system should be changed to ensure that unless every and all exacting standards involved are met for issues this far-reaching, the cases never even reach that high. If it was so obviously flawed as to be thrown out that easily, it should never have made it that high in the first place. If this is a real problem amongst the courts, then the system needs a serious overhaul I think you can agree. But because it did make it that high, the issue should be addressed and not sidestepped. This feels like asking someone a question and then having them refuse to answer based on the fact that they don't like the colour of your shoes.

 

[JackBurton]

No, sorry, I said nothing about slavery. You said is was never legal. I proved that it was legal at the time. Whether it is now is open to debate. No need to put words into my mouth because of your poor reading comprehension skills and weak argument.

You want a weak arguement, how about the essense of your posts here:

Lovely thought. Now answer this: Does freedom of speech apply only to the vocal minority? Does the silent majority have less right simply because they don't scream as loud? You do realize that if "under God" was removed from the Pledge a large group of people would feel their rights were being impinged upon. Can you grasp that concept?

I shouldn't have even entertained your idiotic post in the first place, but I did, and I wasted waaaay more time than I should have pointing out something that should have been very easy to understand. Just because someone doesn't get what they want, doesn't mean you are taking away their right. I don't care what they "feel," it is a matter of law. I could "feel" that stealing is right, but it isn't. Do you understand the difference? I refuse to spend anymore time explaining something that should be pretty easy to grasp. But obviously, what is easy for some, is EXTREMELY difficult for others.

The facts are, the Supreme Court dodged the REAL issue by a technicality. The next time the Supreme Court will have to address it and make the RIGHT decision based on the law.

No, what you're saying is fairly clear.

Obviously not, because you are as clueless now as when you came into this thread.

I guess you think that they wouldn't be saying the pledge at all if they take the words "under God" out? Or are you really that upset at the half a second of class time it takes to say those particular words? I suggest you take a look into some of the things your tax dollars are funding. But you won't. Because you don't care about the tax dollars, you just feel that's a good platform to complain from.

Is that what you think this issue is about? Time? WTF? You are truely freakin' clueless. I refuse to waste anymore time debating this issue with someone that has a problem grasping the basic concept! Jesus Christ, what a freakin' waste of my time!

(And yes, I like using imaginary people's names in my statements. )

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
You know, since they're mostly rooted in polytheistic Norse mythology, I'm half-surprised the right-wing fundies haven't tried to take care of that yet.

Right-wing? I'm suprised the ACLU hasn't tried to sue every calendar maker for using religious names as days of the week.