• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Court: 'Under God' In Pledge Is Constitutional

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ebaycj said:
Could not care less, as long as children are not "forced" to say it in the pledge (i.e. they may omit "under god" if they so desire with no negative consequences of any kind).
Click to expand...

That isn't the way it works in general. Anyone who objects to saying 'under god' may choose to not say the pledge at all. That's what happened to me, and many others I have met throughout life. Either you are part of a religious America, or you're not...there is often no in between.
 
Harvey said:
The thankfully EX-Traitor In Chief and his criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, torturers, war criminals, war profiteers and general incompetents sold their lies in the name of their ooga booga deity as justification for their crimes.
Click to expand...

You just had to get that in there.
 
Should be "one nation under Gods", not God, so as to include all the different Gods people might believe in, or the fact they might believe there is more than one God.
 
It should be "the Gods" since monotheists are an affront to the Lords of Kobol.

"Under God" = "patriotism"? Someone needs to buy that judge a dictionary.
 
MotF Bane said:
You just had to get that in there.
Click to expand...

I didn't "have to," appropriate to the topic, especially since it's true.
icon8.gif


SlickSnake said:
Should be "one nation under Gods", not God, so as to include all the different Gods people might believe in, or the fact they might believe there is more than one God.
Click to expand...

That denies equal rights to those of us who don't believe in any ooga booga diety. Man needs a god like a fish needs a pogo stick. ()🙂
 
Harvey said:
I didn't "have to," appropriate to the topic, especially since it's true.
icon8.gif




That denies equal rights to those of us who don't believe in any ooga booga diety. Man needs a god like a fish needs a pogo stick. ()🙂
Click to expand...

You mean the equal rights (that you have) that were conveyed from a constitution that was built on a foundation of rights that were endowed to us by our creator?

You mean the equal rights that are conveyed from the same foundation that conveys all citizens a presumption of innocence until judged differently in a court of law?

If I were you, I would piss on your equal rights. Since I am not, I am inclined to agree with you,,,,on the equal rights thing.
 
Harvey said:
I didn't "have to," appropriate to the topic, especially since it's true.
icon8.gif




That denies equal rights to those of us who don't believe in any ooga booga diety. Man needs a god like a fish needs a pogo stick. ()🙂
Click to expand...


you dont take solace or amusement in teh thought that everytime you fuck, even when no one else is around, god is up there snickering at you?

I sure do 🙁
 
Atomic Playboy said:
I'm agnostic, and I've never really cared that God appeared in the pledge or on currency. I am shocked at the stupidity of the rationale of the court in this case however; God is an appeal to patriotism? That is fucking absurd. Just say that having God in the language causes no harm and can be used secularly since it is not defined as a God of any one specific religion. Trying to argue that the word God itself is patriotic... ridiculous. That's a judge that ran out of justifications.
Click to expand...

It makes more sense when you consider the effect of the ruling on their promotability.

A reminder that the judges are people - and sometimes corruptible. Who appointed them?

I'm not saying that's what happened because I don't have enough info - there can be other explanations, but it's one.
 
Since no one is compelled to say the pledge or the offending phrase, I don't get my undies in a knot over a god being mentioned. It is a stupid and grossly immature clause so I just don't say it during the pledge.
 
Zargon said:
you dont take solace or amusement in teh thought that everytime you fuck, even when no one else is around, god is up there snickering at you?
Click to expand...

I've got to think about how I'd manage fucking with no one else around. I've always found it much easier to accomplish with the company of at least one woman. 😎

If your alleged god really needs to watch, I guess I could send her a video. Better yet, maybe she'll join the fun. :sneaky:
 
Some of you guys crack me up. I'm all for separation of church and state, power and religion mixing is generally a bad thing. Still, I just don't see an issue with having "in god we trust" on a coin or "under God" in the pledge, it's not government establishing a religion as much as it's simply government reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of the people. As long as everyone is free to believe and worship (or not worship) as they please, putting something like that on a coin does not equate to government establishing a religion.
 
Ozoned said:
You mean the equal rights (that you have) that were conveyed from a constitution that was built on a foundation of rights that were endowed to us by our creator?

You mean the equal rights that are conveyed from the same foundation that conveys all citizens a presumption of innocence until judged differently in a court of law?

If I were you, I would piss on your equal rights. Since I am not, I am inclined to agree with you,,,,on the equal rights thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't quite follow your post, but if the rights were 'unalienable' and 'endowed', where were they the day before the Declaration of Independance was signed?

Oh, ya, they were 'alienated', or something, by another government.

Apparently, whatever one guy thinks are 'unalienable' and 'endowed', another guy might think there are fewer, or more, such rights, and it matters which guy makes the call.

Indeed, about the same time, the same basis was used for the King's authority for HIS power - which allowed him to violate those very same rights.

Whether you think or not the rights are 'unalienable' and 'endowed', it's pretty clear they're a political, secular policy to recognize and respect them.

It's fine for you to vote for laws that respect rights you think are 'unalienable' and 'endowed', but that should be the basis for your vote - not the basis for making the government religious. It's one thing for you to pass a law against murder for religious reasons, and quite another for you to pass a law that murder is illegal and stating in the law that it's for religious reasons.
 
PrinceofWands said:
That isn't the way it works in general. Anyone who objects to saying 'under god' may choose to not say the pledge at all. That's what happened to me, and many others I have met throughout life. Either you are part of a religious America, or you're not...there is often no in between.
Click to expand...

So many don't get the idea of the importance of what's 'official' mattering if they are part of the majority. 'No big deal'.

So if most of the country is white, and the official national pledge refers only to whites, that's ok because non-whites can just not say that part of the pledge, right? No big deal.

An official pledge is not supposed to illegitimately exclude a portion of the populaiton.

Passing a religious reference in it was an Unamerican concession to the cold war IMO.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
Yeah, pretty much this.

I have a hard time trying to understand how "under God," specifically, is an "appeal to patriotism," though. Seems like the judge doesn't know what the terms "god" and "patriot" mean.
Click to expand...

Yes you don't see. The judges were schooled to a fact of life. If you want christian soldiers in your army. Cutting those words out of the pledge is not smart. As the Judges were taught that lesson . Look at the power god has . People will actually Blow themselves up and others in gods name . The US government has relooked at the power of god in government and decided its a tool they can use.
 
"God," in reference to the Christian deity.

Nope, absolutely nothing religious about that.😀



Yeah well, I always left out the "under God" part, even when I didn't even think much about what it all meant. (Of course, I don't think it was until late high school that I even considered what the pledge meant. Until then, it was just a mindless thing started in elementary school, when the teacher said "Repeat after me" and then we got on with stuff that mattered a bit more.)
 
Double Trouble said:
Some of you guys crack me up. I'm all for separation of church and state, power and religion mixing is generally a bad thing. Still, I just don't see an issue with having "in god we trust" on a coin or "under God" in the pledge, it's not government establishing a religion as much as it's simply government reflecting the opinion of the vast majority of the people. As long as everyone is free to believe and worship (or not worship) as they please, putting something like that on a coin does not equate to government establishing a religion.
Click to expand...
Conservatives see separation of church and state as no one established state religion, whereas progressives see separation of church and state as government everywhere and religion banished to private rooms without windows or exterior walls. Preferably under ground. To progressives "Under G-d" has the same affect as "Under Satan's hairy ass" would to conservatives, so I can see why they are upset. I don't care, but I can see.
 
Craig234 said:
So many don't get the idea of the importance of what's 'official' mattering if they are part of the majority. 'No big deal'.

So if most of the country is white, and the official national pledge refers only to whites, that's ok because non-whites can just not say that part of the pledge, right? No big deal.

An official pledge is not supposed to illegitimately exclude a portion of the populaiton.

Passing a religious reference in it was an Unamerican concession to the cold war IMO.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY! It was railroaded through by a religious special interest who took advantage of a bad world situation to accomplish theocratic goals that had been blocked for two-hundred years previous.

Ask someone that agrees with the pledge and they'll say it's fine. Ask someone who disagrees but hasn't been affected and they won't care one way or the other. Ask someone that got his/her ass kicked on the playground for 5 years because of it and they'll explain EXACTLY what's wrong with it...in great detail...with plenty of support.

Yet somehow it's the people that already agree with it that we cater to.
 
theamericans075 said:
Why do conservatives insist "under god" in this stuff is some sort of ancient tradition, when it was only added during the red scare.
Click to expand...

Does it matter when it was added? I'd bet that the vast majority of people want it in there. Like it or not, this country is largely founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, with recognition that everyone should be able to freely believe or not believe as they feel. As long as no belief is being imposed on anyone, I don't have an issue with something like "in God we trust" on money. I'm also fine with not having it on there, if that's what the people prefer. It's a reflection of the people, not an imposition of some religion.
 
I don't see how everyone being able to freely worship as they want is a Judeo-Christian belief, given how the bible tells to deal with non-believers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top