• 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.

Pledge of Allegiance Unconstitutional

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This is funny to me. The whole thing.

No, it's not unconstitutional. My only qualm with changing it would be that the poor sappy kindergartners who say it one way will all of a sudden have to say it another way. It's not like they know what they're talking about anyway.

I think we should just get rid of the pledge of allegiance. Altogether. We've still got the national anthem. Hmmm... we'll have to remove God from our patriotic songs as well, eh? That's a little harder to do.
 
Right on xirtam.

Star-Spangled Banner, fourth stanza:

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ?In God is our trust!?
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Blessed, Power, God, oh crap! This ain't PC at all!
 
The liberals are dead set on removing God from our culture any way they can. They can try, but when me and my future children say the pledge, you better believe we will be shouting "under GOD" when we say it. I expect as much from 90% of the people who say the pledge. The end result will be the removal of the pledge from schools and government altogether.
Click to expand...


u mean how many southerners hung on to great person for quite a while eh? great person great person great person! you'll just be doing it to be devisive, how nice. i suppose athiests should spend their time shouting There is NO GOD while you shout your little bit. if we thought like you we'd have been shouting it for quite some time now, but you see, we have more class. its absurd, and thats why it shouldn't be in the pledge. its something personal and not a part of governement.



😛


you see, your problem is that you see it as an attack on your culture when its nothing more then keeping religion out of government. it has nothing to do with culture.
 
The liberals are dead set on removing God from our culture any way they can.
Click to expand...


When you have nothing credible to back your argument, you spout garbage like this thinking someone will believe you have brains and are a loyal conservative out to save America from the evils of liberalism.

You are such a tool. If you think liberals are the blame, you are a freaking fool. This is the work of a disgruntled athiest who brought a suit in a California court. Nothing of that has a damn thing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

What planet do you come from? Please go back!
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
The liberals are dead set on removing God from our culture any way they can.
Click to expand...


When you have nothing credible to back your argument, you spout garbage like this thinking someone will believe you have brains and are a loyal conservative out to save America from the evils of liberalism.

You are such a tool. If you think liberals are the blame, you are a freaking fool. This is the work of a disgruntled athiest who brought a suit in a California court. Nothing of that has a damn thing to do with liberalism or conservatism.

What planet do you come from? Please go back!
rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

will agree with you here tripleshot...

 
"You are such a tool. If you think liberals are the blame, you are a freaking fool."

Sounds like the start to a good rap song. Run with it!
 
Originally posted by: Spagina
I've always seen "Under God" as a phrase that doesn't really support any religion. While the intentions may have been slated towards Christianity, many people are ignorant of the fact that many of the worlds major religions follow the same "God", just a different messenger. God is about as neutral as you can get when it cames to religion. It really doesn't endorse any religion AT ALL.

I don't know, I disagree with this, I'm definitely not a bible thumper, but this particular ruling reeks of liberal PC garbage. If your seriously and deeply offended by the words "Under God" then there are much deeper issues going on in your psyche.
Click to expand...

that's really not the point. watching the news stations show footage of children repeating the pledge of allegiance really made me open my eyes... it may not have been intended as such, but you're basically conditioning young children to believe in god. and i don't care how religious you are, i don't see how anybody can think that is right.

and i think you're forgetting about atheists. they don't believe in a god, remember?
 
Originally posted by: Spagina
I've always seen "Under God" as a phrase that doesn't really support any religion. While the intentions may have been slated towards Christianity, many people are ignorant of the fact that many of the worlds major religions follow the same "God", just a different messenger. God is about as neutral as you can get when it cames to religion. It really doesn't endorse any religion AT ALL.
Click to expand...



if its so all inclusive why not use the term Goddess? 😛 buddists don't believe in god😛 agnostics, athiests etc. the only thing you could possibly say is that it doesn't endorse one of the specific religions based on the bible. it does however affirm that god exists and that god cares, neither of which is universal at all. twist all you want, it was placed there with misguided intentions.

i don't have the quote with me, but the president that put it in intended that children recite it every morning to affirm their belief in an all mighty creator to keep us safe from communism😛 pretty sad really.
 
Originally posted by: Davegod75
hmm ...didn't the guy in court who was complaining about all this have to swear on the bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
Click to expand...

You don't have to do that anymore, which is quite smart of them as, for the majority of the world's population, swearing on the Bible means as much as swearing that they are a pink elephant or that religious nuts have any kind of intelligence whatsoever.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: Davegod75
hmm ...didn't the guy in court who was complaining about all this have to swear on the bible to tell the truth and nothing but the truth
Click to expand...

You don't have to do that anymore, which is quite smart of them as, for the majority of the world's population, swearing on the Bible means as much as swearing that they are a pink elephant or that religious nuts have any kind of intelligence whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You never have had to swear on the bible in court or to hold public office. It's always been an option for people to do so or not.

no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...
Article 6, US Constitution.
 
Originally posted by: Scipionix
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or Public Trust under the United States.
Click to expand...
Article 6, US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Right, just like you don't have to say the Pledge or the "under God" part.
Click to expand...

Yet children in schools ARE being made to recite the pledge, over and over, daily. It's entirely different here. Having a bible available to placate the religious in a court room (they have other religious texts available as well, BTW) is not the same as having your kids recite the pledge daily.

At any rate, who ever said I agreed with the practice of religious oaths?
 
There already has been an amendment to the Constitution regarding goverment and religion.
I apologize if someone has already posted this already

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

________________________________________________________________________

[[Page 25]]
________________________________________________________________________


ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE
SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL
CONSTITUTION \1\

__________

Amendment [I.] \2\

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.
 
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Yet children in schools ARE being made to recite the pledge, over and over, daily. It's entirely different here. Having a bible available to placate the religious in a court room (they have other religious texts available as well, BTW) is not the same as having your kids recite the pledge daily.

At any rate, who ever said I agreed with the practice of religious oaths?
Click to expand...

NOBODY is being made to recite it. If they are then the school administrators are lawbreakers. It is their right NOT to say a thing. Just as it is your right not to look at the White House Christmas tree, or listen to the President when he asks you to pray.
 
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
It is about time we did something about the Pledge. I quit saying it in high school because of the god part. Why do these people insist on pushing their religion on other people? The religious based messes in Iran, India - Pakistan, Ireland, just to name a few are reasons enough to keep religion as far from the goverment as possible.

I do not care what god\gods you pray to just keep it to yourself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I was waiting for this particular slippery slope argument! If we don't take out the "under God" that has been in our Pledge of Allegiance for 50 years, we'll be no different from Iran and Pakistan! Thanks for the larf! Now stop that.

Scipionix,

I am saying state sponsored religions lead to state sponsored religious intolerance of which Iran is good example.

 
Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
Scipionix,

I am saying state sponsored religions lead to state sponsored religious intolerance of which Iran is good example.
Click to expand...

The inclusion of the word "God" in certain government areas as it has been for two centures is a very tenuous example of "state sponsored religion" Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic state and was founded as such. Slippery slope arguments don't work most of the time and they simply fail in this case. What could possibly slip by leaving "God" as it has been for a long time?
 
I have lots to say on this topic, particularly concerning some of the historical misrepresentations I've seen, but after staying up until 3:30 am reading every single post in the thread I just don't have the energy.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make before I go to bed to return tomorrow.

AmusedOne, I just have to comment on your repetitive use of the quote from the Treaty of Tripoli. I've seen that quote used often by groups trying to infer that John Adams was not a religious man and that religion was not important to the founding fathers.

The pirates of the Barbary coast and of Tripoli (in what is now called Libya) in
particular were destroying U.S. shipping and holding as prisoners U.S. seamen in the
1790s. It was a serious problem and a series of negotiators were sent to try to put together
an agreement to improve it. On 4 November 1796, near the end of George Washington's second term, a treaty with the"Bey and People of Tripoli" was signed, promising cash and other considerations to
Tripoli in exchange for peace.

The treaty was not written by either of the founding fathers, George Washington or John Adams. It was written by a diplomat, Joel Barlow, who was leading the negotiations with the Muslim pirates. Barlow was considered to be a deist, though he had served as a military chaplin at one time.

You and others always leave out a portion of the treaty that shows it's real purpose, which was not to serve as a basis for our government being non-Christian, but to appease the Muslims who viewed us as a nation of infidels who would want to overthrow them in order to force our Christianity upon them.

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Barlow just needed to make it very clear to the Muslims of Tripoli that they need not fear a religious war from the U.S. Adams understood that, as did the members of the Senate.

If you want to quote founding father John Adams, try this one:

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble
bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity".
President John Adams

Or this one:

"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and
religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
John Adams, address to the militia of massachusetts, 1798

Just one other thing, I would never try to predict what the US Supreme Court might do with a case, but it would seem awfully hypocritical of them to let the ruling of the lower court stand when the US Supreme Court's call to order reads:

"Oyez, Oyez, Oyez All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme
Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention,
for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court." 😀


 
Nice post montanafan. That's a better explanation of that treaty than I gave. Good call on the Supreme Court call to order too.

Our nation was founded on Christian moral and religious principles, and only the most foolish or conniving could deny that. But those moral and religious principles are not themselves necessarily concerned with belief. Ours is a secular nation with a Christian foundation, however much people don't like to hear that. While that means that the separation of church and state is very important and should not be violated, I still don't understand why any mention of "God" by the government in any way needs to be stricken.
 
Originally posted by: montanafan
If you want to quote founding father John Adams, try this one:

"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble
bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity".
President John Adams
Click to expand...

Nice, but he never said that. Religious Right activist and "One Sided Wall" BSer David Barton made that up for his "America's Godly Heritage" video. It has no basis in fact, and the cite used turned out to be an author's own words, not those of Adams. Barton was busted for many false Founding Father quotes in his works. This is but one of them.

See here for more

As for the Treaty with Tripoli, the context is not important here. What is important is that the entire US Senate ratified it with that wording. They obviously did not object. Nor did Washington or Adams. If you're such a religious man and have such a belief that your country is a Christian country, you do not agree to wording to the contrary, no matter who it appeases.

As I said, you can attempt to minimize it all you want, but you cannot escape that very important fact.
 
Originally posted by: Scipionix
Nice post montanafan. That's a better explanation of that treaty than I gave. Good call on the Supreme Court call to order too.

Our nation was founded on Christian moral and religious principles, and only the most foolish or conniving could deny that. But those moral and religious principles are not themselves necessarily concerned with belief. Ours is a secular nation with a Christian foundation, however much people don't like to hear that. While that means that the separation of church and state is very important and should not be violated, I still don't understand why any mention of "God" by the government in any way needs to be stricken.
Click to expand...

Really? Please draw any parallel between the bible and the Constitution.

Please show be where any of the Bill of Rights is espoused in the bible. In fact, our Constitution and ideas of individual liberty are anathema to anything in the bible, and 180 degrees from any traditional Christian thinking prior to it.

Our country has it's foundation in the Age of Enlightenment, which was, for the most part, a rejection of Christian ideology at the time
 
Wow, this topic obviously means a lot to some people. It's amazing how many replies there have been in the 14 hours since this thread started.

Well, many of my thoughts on this topic have been stated by others, so I'll just try to stick to the facts for now. Some of this has already been pointed out, but I thought I'd summarize a few things for those who don't want to wade through all these posts.

1. This is a Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court decision. That means that it is binding (i.e. law) only in the Ninth Circuit, which covers 9 states. (Weird how that number works out, eh?)

2. The losers in this case (i.e. the government and school officials) have to decide whether to drop the case, appeal to the full Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, or appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court does not have to hear this case. That's right, even if appealed, the Supreme Court Justices do not have to tackle this issue at all if they don't want to. There are numerous ways to justify this (I'd bet on the issue being unripe). So those of you depending on the Supreme Court to rule the way you want them to, may be totally out of luck. I think somebody's going to lose $20...

4. Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

5. There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution. Of those, the first 10 (a.k.a. The Bill of Rights) were adopted at the time of the original Constitution. That means that in the last 200+ years, only 17 Amendments have been added. There's a heck of a lot of resistance to adopting ANY new Amendments. Here again, those who may be expecting a Constitutional Amendment overriding this Court's decision within the next year shouldn't bank on it.

I'm not going to comment on the Ninth Circuit opinion itself, since I haven't read it yet (Warning: 65K Adobe Acrobat file).

And it's 3:30 am so if I made a mistake or sound screwy, please forgive me.

 
As a schoolboy, one of Red Skelton's teachers explained the words and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance to his class. Skelton later wrote down, and eventually recorded, his recollection of this lecture. It is followed by an observation of his own.



  • I - - Me; an individual; a committee of one.
  • Pledge - - Dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self-pity.
  • Allegiance - - My love and my devotion.
  • To the Flag - - Our standard; Old Glory ; a symbol of Freedom; wherever she waves there is respect, because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, Freedom is everybody's job.
  • United - - That means that we have all come together.
  • States - - Individual communities that have united into forty-eight great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose. All divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that is love for country.
  • And to the Republic - - Republic--a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people; and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
  • For which it stands
  • One Nation - - One Nation--meaning, so blessed by God.
  • Indivisible - - Incapable of being divided.
  • With Liberty - - Which is Freedom; the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation.
  • And Justice - - The principle, or qualities, of dealing fairly with others.
  • For All - - For All--which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
And now, boys and girls, let me hear you recite the Pledge of Allegiance:
  • I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance: Under God. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer, and that would be eliminated from schools, too?

Red Skelton



 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top