Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: azazyel
We don't since when? Automobile, Computer, F ap. The planet argument was a good one. But seriously, doesn't it annoy you that you have to keep saying the names of 'Pagan' gods when referring to what day it is?

No. At this point in time and in the development of the English language the words for days of the week as names of Nordic gods have lost all significant religious meaning. This is not the case with the pledge, which was clearly and decisively altered to pay tribute to the Judeo-Christian god in order to differentiate ourselves from the atheistic USSR. And it was changed about 50 years ago, whereas the days of the week are... 1500 years old? I'm sorry, but it is a completely fallacious comparison. Everyone knows very well that the words in the pledge have only one purpose and meaning.

Lost religious meaning? To whom? Also the Viking age ended in 900 AD and the days were adopted later to supplant the Latin version which used Roman gods. Anyways, if you don't believe in the Norse gods then fine, they have no meaning for you. Same can be said with the Christian god, just ignore it.

Can we ignore the taxes too then? OR.. if we don't agree in ONE God do we have to leave?

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: xirtam
Unless you've forgotten, the pledge of allegiance is a pledge to your country, not to a religious entity. If it was religious in nature, it would be a prayer, not a pledge.

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I believe in God, but not necessarily the same one or ones as the next guy. The term "God" is actually pretty generic. One thing that I find interesting, though, is the same people who have a problem with the fact that it's in the pledge... they usually don't have any problem whatsoever with calling the same God that doesn't exist to damn something, or just throwing out the term "God" in vain throughout the day. These guys probably make more references to God than I do, and I'm a Christian.

The references to some sort of deity in our American culture are prevalent. While "under God" was added to the pledge within the last several decades, the phrase "so help me God" was included from 1776 in the oath of office for military and civilian national officers. Do you think anybody ever really tried to push God onto anyone joining the military? The military's mission is to break stuff and kill people. Not spread the gospel of Christ. Adding "so help me God" to any oath doesn't change the mission or the design, and the only thing it does is make it stronger for some people. To others, it's a meaningless addition. Kind of like the word "indivisible." I don't think America is "indivisible." I think we clearly indicated that the country can be divided when we had the civil war. We're clearly a divided country when it comes to party lines. We divide ourselves on just about every issue imaginable, including, ironically, the pledge of allegiance. So after you say "under God," you're thinking to yourself, "man, the country is so divided on the issue of whether there should be an 'under God' clause," and then the next word that's coming is "indivisible." I love it. I have more of a problem with the "indivisible" part than I do with the "under God" part, but it's not like I'm going to make a federal case about it.

The whole "under God" issue seems to be child squabble. If you don't like it, don't say it. It's a free country, and saying the pledge of allegiance is supposed to remind you of that.

You can say it is a free country .. but the God they are having you saying is ruling over this country is ONE God and HE is the Christian God

Why did they add Under God IN 1954

Actually, according to Justice Brennan in the 1963 case Arbington School District v. Schempp, the words were kept in the pledge because they "no longer have a religious purpose or meaning," but rather are a recognition of history. Historical facts such as those who penned the declaration of independence describing men as "being endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Those rights exist regardless of faith in the Creator.

They added Under God because they thought that a pledge without reference to a deity was weak. But as every national decision, you're never going to make everyone happy. It's still a petty squabble.

 

[Crono]

People blow this out or proportion. It's a voluntary pledge. So what if there's pressure from peers or teachers to say it. There's pressure for lots of worse things, and these kids should learn early that they don't have to do anything if it's against their beliefs. If aynone is forcing kids to say the pledge, then they should be fired, simple as that. Assaulting the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance is just ridiculous, as it's not a law. It would be like trying to censor "America the Beautiful". It's all a part of the anti-Christian movement that has been gaining ground these last couple of years.

 

[Todd33]

They added Under God because they thought that a pledge without reference to a deity was weak.

You have proof? You guys can make up anything you want to justify something clearly unconstitutional.

I still think it's weak, can we make it "and one nation under God with big fcking nukes and tanks, biatch."

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: Todd33

They added Under God because they thought that a pledge without reference to a deity was weak.

You have proof? You guys can make up anything you want to justify something clearly unconstitutional.

If it were that clear I doubt there would be so much debate

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Todd33

They added Under God because they thought that a pledge without reference to a deity was weak.

You have proof? You guys can make up anything you want to justify something clearly unconstitutional.

I still think it's weak, can we make it "and one nation under God with big fcking nukes and tanks, biatch."

If that's what you want to say, go ahead. Feel better?

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: azazyel
Lost religious meaning? To whom? Also the Viking age ended in 900 AD and the days were adopted later to supplant the Latin version which used Roman gods. Anyways, if you don't believe in the Norse gods then fine, they have no meaning for you. Same can be said with the Christian god, just ignore it.

Then why was it added? Why not leave the pledge neutral in regards to religion? The answer is that it is a clear effort to encourage all Americans to acknowledge the Christian god. It is best left as it was originally intended: a secular pledge to the country of America.

How fast can you say the pledge? I can probably do it in under 3 seconds. It's just ingrained into me and to me it's just words that really haven't held much significance. I don't think it's any more of an attempt to get people to Acknowledge the Christian god as the days of the week do for the Norse gods.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Crono
People blow this out or proportion. It's a voluntary pledge. So what if there's pressure from peers or teachers to say it. There's pressure for lots of worse things, and these kids should learn early that they don't have to do anything if it's against their beliefs. If aynone is forcing kids to say the pledge, then they should be fired, simple as that. Assaulting the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance is just ridiculous, as it's not a law. It would be like trying to censor "America the Beautiful". It's all a part of the anti-Christian movement that has been gaining ground these last couple of years.

The reason there's a rising anti-Christian movement is because people don't like the "Moral Majority" trying to dictate what everyone is and isn't allowed to do--and their golden boy got elected to office twice (the second time partly by using big [false] promises about banning gay marriage).

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
The whole "under God" issue seems to be child squabble. If you don't like it, don't say it. It's a free country, and saying the pledge of allegiance is supposed to remind you of that.

Oh, the irony...
"It's a free country, so either say it my way or just shut up."

Or say it without "under God" as an expression of your freedom. I don't care. It's your freedom. There's no irony. If you can gain a better appreciation for your country by saying the pledge of allegiance minus two words, I'd be a moron for telling you you can't. What's ridiculous is trying to create a movement to change something that you think is just a worthless addition. If it was actually causing a problem, that's one thing. But other than a few random people getting butt-hurt because they don't think God exists, there's no problem. Those same people aren't trying to start crusades to take Santa Claus out of the stores at Christmas time because he doesn't exist.

 

[Crono]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
The whole "under God" issue seems to be child squabble. If you don't like it, don't say it. It's a free country, and saying the pledge of allegiance is supposed to remind you of that.

Oh, the irony...
"It's a free country, so either say it my way or just shut up."

Or say it without "under God" as an expression of your freedom. I don't care. It's your freedom. There's no irony. If you can gain a better appreciation for your country by saying the pledge of allegiance minus two words, I'd be a moron for telling you you can't. What's ridiculous is trying to create a movement to change something that you think is just a worthless addition. If it was actually causing a problem, that's one thing. But other than a few random people getting butt-hurt because they don't think God exists, there's no problem. Those same people aren't trying to start crusades to take Santa Claus out of the stores at Christmas time because he doesn't exist.

Have a cookie my friend... have a cookie




And a thumbs up to you too :thumbsup:

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Todd33

They added Under God because they thought that a pledge without reference to a deity was weak.

You have proof? You guys can make up anything you want to justify something clearly unconstitutional.

I still think it's weak, can we make it "and one nation under God with big fcking nukes and tanks, biatch."

I would actually enjoy that, but I don't think we're going to get the Supreme Court to pass that one. If you can't get them to take out "under God," I really don't think you're going to be able to add "with big fcking nukes and tanks, biatch."

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Crono
People blow this out or proportion. It's a voluntary pledge. So what if there's pressure from peers or teachers to say it. There's pressure for lots of worse things, and these kids should learn early that they don't have to do anything if it's against their beliefs. If aynone is forcing kids to say the pledge, then they should be fired, simple as that. Assaulting the "under God" part of the pledge of allegiance is just ridiculous, as it's not a law. It would be like trying to censor "America the Beautiful". It's all a part of the anti-Christian movement that has been gaining ground these last couple of years.

The reason there's a rising anti-Christian movement is because people don't like the "Moral Majority" trying to dictate what everyone is and isn't allowed to do--and their golden boy got elected to office twice (the second time partly by using big [false] promises about banning gay marriage).

You're absolutely right. I wouldn't get so defensive if Christians weren't trying to shove their faith down my throat at every turn.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
The whole "under God" issue seems to be child squabble. If you don't like it, don't say it. It's a free country, and saying the pledge of allegiance is supposed to remind you of that.

Oh, the irony...
"It's a free country, so either say it my way or just shut up."

Or say it without "under God" as an expression of your freedom. I don't care. It's your freedom. There's no irony. If you can gain a better appreciation for your country by saying the pledge of allegiance minus two words, I'd be a moron for telling you you can't. What's ridiculous is trying to create a movement to change something that you think is just a worthless addition. If it was actually causing a problem, that's one thing. But other than a few random people getting butt-hurt because they don't think God exists, there's no problem. Those same people aren't trying to start crusades to take Santa Claus out of the stores at Christmas time because he doesn't exist.

Stores, as far as I'm aware, are pretty much always private property and free to have as many Santas as they want no matter who it offends. Not so with the Pledge of Allegiance being repeated in tax-funded schools. The pledge is a statement of allegiance to the country, and those two words have absolutely no place in it (in schools). If it's that important for your kids to say it with those extra words, feel free to have them do it at home or at church, where that sort of thing belongs.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: azazyel
Lost religious meaning? To whom? Also the Viking age ended in 900 AD and the days were adopted later to supplant the Latin version which used Roman gods. Anyways, if you don't believe in the Norse gods then fine, they have no meaning for you. Same can be said with the Christian god, just ignore it.

Then why was it added? Why not leave the pledge neutral in regards to religion? The answer is that it is a clear effort to encourage all Americans to acknowledge the Christian god. It is best left as it was originally intended: a secular pledge to the country of America.

How fast can you say the pledge? I can probably do it in under 3 seconds. It's just ingrained into me and to me it's just words that really haven't held much significance. I don't think it's any more of an attempt to get people to Acknowledge the Christian god as the days of the week do for the Norse gods.

Which brings us back to one of the big questions of the whole debate: if it has no religious significance, why was it changed in 1954 from an undeniably secular pledge?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: azazyel
Lost religious meaning? To whom? Also the Viking age ended in 900 AD and the days were adopted later to supplant the Latin version which used Roman gods. Anyways, if you don't believe in the Norse gods then fine, they have no meaning for you. Same can be said with the Christian god, just ignore it.

Then why was it added? Why not leave the pledge neutral in regards to religion? The answer is that it is a clear effort to encourage all Americans to acknowledge the Christian god. It is best left as it was originally intended: a secular pledge to the country of America.

It's only a Christian god if you want it to be a Christian god.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
The whole "under God" issue seems to be child squabble. If you don't like it, don't say it. It's a free country, and saying the pledge of allegiance is supposed to remind you of that.

Oh, the irony...
"It's a free country, so either say it my way or just shut up."

Or say it without "under God" as an expression of your freedom. I don't care. It's your freedom. There's no irony. If you can gain a better appreciation for your country by saying the pledge of allegiance minus two words, I'd be a moron for telling you you can't. What's ridiculous is trying to create a movement to change something that you think is just a worthless addition. If it was actually causing a problem, that's one thing. But other than a few random people getting butt-hurt because they don't think God exists, there's no problem. Those same people aren't trying to start crusades to take Santa Claus out of the stores at Christmas time because he doesn't exist.

Stores, as far as I'm aware, are pretty much always private property and free to have as many Santas as they want no matter who it offends. Not so with the Pledge of Allegiance being repeated in tax-funded schools. The pledge is a statement of allegiance to the country, and those two words have absolutely no place in it (in schools). If it's that important for your kids to say it with those extra words, feel free to have them do it at home or at church, where that sort of thing belongs.

All of our enlisted force that joins the tax-funded military repeats "so help me God" at the end of their oath of enlistment. Our tax-funded President places his hand on the Judeo-Christian Bible (not the Koran or the Book of Mormon or last week's breakfast cereal ingredient list) when he's sworn into office. These things are ceremonial. If you have a problem with the ceremony, don't become president, don't join the military, and don't say "under God." Nobody's telling you you have to say it. The words "under God" are just as voluntary as joining the military, and they're just as voluntary as going to stores where they have Santa.

Our country has a history of such things. After you take out "under God" are you also going to have to take out the reference to such a deity from the Declaration of Independence?

What's the point? What practical value will eliminating it serve? If I didn't believe in God, I just wouldn't say it. I still don't believe our country is united under God, but I still say the pledge of allegiance. It's strictly ceremonial. If you really want to change the ceremony and go to all the trouble, I don't care. I'll follow that other ceremony too, and if you change it to "under Allah" or something, I'll probably still say "under God" or I just won't say that segment since I'm pledging allegiance to my country and not to Allah. I wouldn't start or support a campaign to take it out though, as it's a lot of trouble for practically no gain. That's why this seems petty.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: xirtam
All of our enlisted force that joins the tax-funded military repeats "so help me God" at the end of their oath of enlistment. Our tax-funded President places his hand on the Judeo-Christian Bible (not the Koran or the Book of Mormon or last week's breakfast cereal ingredient list) when he's sworn into office. These things are ceremonial. If you have a problem with the ceremony, don't become president, don't join the military, and don't say "under God." Nobody's telling you you have to say it. The words "under God" are just as voluntary as joining the military, and they're just as voluntary as going to stores where they have Santa.

Our country has a history of such things. After you take out "under God" are you also going to have to take out the reference to such a deity from the Declaration of Independence?

What's the point? What practical value will eliminating it serve? If I didn't believe in God, I just wouldn't say it. I still don't believe our country is united under God, but I still say the pledge of allegiance. It's strictly ceremonial. If you really want to change the ceremony and go to all the trouble, I don't care. I'll follow that other ceremony too, and if you change it to "under Allah" or something, I'll probably still say "under God" or I just won't say that segment since I'm pledging allegiance to my country and not to Allah. I wouldn't start or support a campaign to take it out though, as it's a lot of trouble for practically no gain. That's why this seems petty.

Wrong. I didn't say it when I joined the military. All of those instances are also somewhat different circumstances as they're all undertaken by adults.
What practical value did adding it serve, and what will it hurt to remove it? It will revert the pledge to it's original intentions, a pledge of allegiance to the flag and the country, pure and simple the way it ought to be.
If you don't care, why are you arguing about it?

 

[Todd33]

What's the point? What practical value will eliminating it serve?

Do kids recite the Declaration of Independence every day? Surely you see the difference, you seems to access to the vast volumes of right wing material to muddy the arguement, but please think about the specific case and don't just slip slide to 200 year old documents that no one reads.

It's simply dangerous to mix religion and government.

So back to the case, having children in public school recite "under God" is or is not Constitutional? Stop with the babble about other documnents, songs, etc. That's called a smoke screen.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
All of our enlisted force that joins the tax-funded military repeats "so help me God" at the end of their oath of enlistment. Our tax-funded President places his hand on the Judeo-Christian Bible (not the Koran or the Book of Mormon or last week's breakfast cereal ingredient list) when he's sworn into office. These things are ceremonial. If you have a problem with the ceremony, don't become president, don't join the military, and don't say "under God." Nobody's telling you you have to say it. The words "under God" are just as voluntary as joining the military, and they're just as voluntary as going to stores where they have Santa.

Our country has a history of such things. After you take out "under God" are you also going to have to take out the reference to such a deity from the Declaration of Independence?

What's the point? What practical value will eliminating it serve? If I didn't believe in God, I just wouldn't say it. I still don't believe our country is united under God, but I still say the pledge of allegiance. It's strictly ceremonial. If you really want to change the ceremony and go to all the trouble, I don't care. I'll follow that other ceremony too, and if you change it to "under Allah" or something, I'll probably still say "under God" or I just won't say that segment since I'm pledging allegiance to my country and not to Allah. I wouldn't start or support a campaign to take it out though, as it's a lot of trouble for practically no gain. That's why this seems petty.

Wrong. I didn't say it when I joined the military. All of those instances are also somewhat different circumstances as they're all undertaken by adults.
What practical value did adding it serve, and what will it hurt to remove it? It will revert the pledge to it's original intentions, a pledge of allegiance to the flag and the country, pure and simple the way it ought to be.
If you don't care, why are you arguing about it?

Hm. Maybe your oath of enlistment was "special." Mine had "so help me God" at the end.

I don't think adding it served any practical value. That's why I wouldn't have advocated adding it. Just as I wouldn't have advocated adding it, I also don't advocate removing it. It's just a waste of time and resources better spent thinking about real problems. I got home a week ago after being caught in a hurricane disaster, so it seems a little weird to see people focusing on problems that really don't affect anyone in any tangible way. Although interesting, which is why I thought I'd hop on in, that and I don't have anything better to do today.

And I'm discussing it because apparently it's a bigger deal to most people than it is to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: xirtam
Hm. Maybe your oath of enlistment was "special." Mine had "so help me God" at the end.

I don't think adding it served any practical value. That's why I wouldn't have advocated adding it. Just as I wouldn't have advocated adding it, I also don't advocate removing it. It's just a waste of time and resources better spent thinking about real problems. I got home a week ago after being caught in a hurricane disaster, so it seems a little weird to see people focusing on problems that really don't affect anyone in any tangible way. Although interesting, which is why I thought I'd hop on in, that and I don't have anything better to do today.

And I'm discussing it because apparently it's a bigger deal to most people than it is to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Same oath, I just didn't say those words. They weren't important and served no purpose.

 

[Rainsford]

I actually got in trouble for refusing to say "under God" in 3rd grade. That was the first time I heard "this is a Christian nation", and it certainly wasn't the last. With all due respect to the Christians, you guys simply are incapable of understanding the other side's point of view in this country. I still don't think fighting over the pledge is worthwhile, but at least I understand where those against "under God" are coming from. It's a non-Christian thing, because of all our talk of religious freedom and equality of beliefs, that is simply not the case.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Todd33

What's the point? What practical value will eliminating it serve?

Do kids recite the Declaration of Independence every day? Surely you see the difference, you seems to access to the vast volumes of right wing material to muddy the arguement, but please think about the specific case and don't just slip slide to 200 year old documents that no one reads.

It's simply dangerous to mix religion and government.

So back to the case, having children in public school recite "under God" is or is not Constitutional? Stop with the babble about other documnents, songs, etc. That's called a smoke screen.

It was a reference to historical ceremony. I'm not using any "right wing" material, and I'm not trying to muddy any argument. You have to read 200 year old documents if you're going to understand how our country got to where it is now and where the words "under God" might have come from. There's no smoke screen. If you remove "under God" from one place in your ceremony, it would be logical to remove all references to the deity from all the documentation and pledges and ceremonial oaths that you've got. That's all I was saying. Seems to me to be too much of a hassle. Not that it matters to me if you all want to go ahead and hire the lawyers you'll need to do it. Just seems like a waste. America's not a Christian nation, and adding more "God's" or taking out "God's" from our pledges, oaths, and documents will do nothing to change that status.

The Supreme Court is fully aware of the dangers of mixing religion and government, and that's why it considers phrases such as "under God" and "so help me God" to be ceremonially secular without any particular religious meaning... which is why these phrases are allowed to be in the documents, oaths, and pledges that they are. If the decision is ever made to take out "under God," it'll probably be because people are focusing so much on those two words that they're missing the whole purpose of the pledge. Kind of like what this thread seems to be doing.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: xirtam
Hm. Maybe your oath of enlistment was "special." Mine had "so help me God" at the end.

I don't think adding it served any practical value. That's why I wouldn't have advocated adding it. Just as I wouldn't have advocated adding it, I also don't advocate removing it. It's just a waste of time and resources better spent thinking about real problems. I got home a week ago after being caught in a hurricane disaster, so it seems a little weird to see people focusing on problems that really don't affect anyone in any tangible way. Although interesting, which is why I thought I'd hop on in, that and I don't have anything better to do today.

And I'm discussing it because apparently it's a bigger deal to most people than it is to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Same oath, I just didn't say those words. They weren't important and served no purpose.

That's my point, I guess. Why not just treat the pledge of allegiance the same way? We're going to have a lot of ceremonial crap that isn't really important and that serves no real purpose, but unless there's a real problem, I don't see much harm in putting up with it. No pledge is going to be 100% meaningful to the people that are taking it.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I actually got in trouble for refusing to say "under God" in 3rd grade. That was the first time I heard "this is a Christian nation", and it certainly wasn't the last. With all due respect to the Christians, you guys simply are incapable of understanding the other side's point of view in this country. I still don't think fighting over the pledge is worthwhile, but at least I understand where those against "under God" are coming from. It's a non-Christian thing, because of all our talk of religious freedom and equality of beliefs, that is simply not the case.

If that was a public school, that's ridiculous. Forcing someone to take the pledge of allegiance undermines its value. But I guess they don't really stress in school that taking the pledge is voluntary. Maybe they should.

If it was a private school, you have your parents to thank for that one.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: zendari
Why not just refuse to recite the pledge if it bothers you so much?

That can cause serious issues. After getting in trouble for leaving out the 'under god' part, I chose to refrain from saying the pledge at all. That led to ostricization by my peers and even violence. Anything that forces discrimination (especially when involving kids in a peer setting) simply shouldn't be allowed.

Add to that the fact that the pledge was horribly disfigured from its original version by such an abhorrent movement as McCartheism and you've got more than enough cause to revert it to its original form.