Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[zendari]

I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tab

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.

What'd you parents say? I am curious...

I don't think fighting over the pledge is worthwhile either, it gets a lot of unnessecarry emotion running, a more important issuse is having the 10 commandments in courtrooms. However, I am not the one paying for lawyers, and I would perfer if we would stop putting any religious overtones into our secular goverment.

I wish the group thats sueing the best of luck, I would perfer if it wasn't in their either. I can however, live with it though.

That was also the first time I heard the "pick your battles" speech

Actually though, my Dad said something I still remember. He told me that the words weren't the important thing, what was important was what I felt and thought when I said them. He pointed out that they are just words, and if the school thought they had won a big victory getting me to say their words, it was no skin off my back to let them go right on thinking that.

Sounds good...

Now that I think about the issuse more, it is without any doubt in my mind wrong and unconsitiutional for "under god" to be force feed to our nation childeren in public schools.

See, that part I can get behind. I'm not sure changing the pledge is necessary. But to force someone's child to acknowledge God in public school seems sort of...wrong. Haven't both sides pretty much agreed that parents should be teaching their children about religion?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

What's with all the communism all of a sudden? Every time the majority get's an idea in their head, they should make it a permanent part of our laws? Sounds good to me, but if I was you I'd withhold my judgement until atheists are in the majority...

 

[Legend]

I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

Yeah, should go into place as fast as the anti-gay amendment.

But of course, it's not a big deal is it? As long as people say it your way, "under god". It becomes a big enough deal to you if people remove the McCarthyism propaganda. Your majority rule concepts are disgusting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So while everyone is having a good time making fun of others, what happens to people who what to say the pledge as it is?

 

[Legend]

So while everyone is having a good time making fun of others, what happens to people who what to say the pledge as it is?

I think they should be allowed to say it if they want, just not require it or teach the pledge to kids with "under god" in it.

 

[luigi1]

First off if it was the fiftys or early sixtys I do not doubt your story one bit. The clause was added because we are a god fearing nation unlike the USSR. In todays climate you cannot get your head around this but this was a very different country then. The under god bit was added because of the PC of the times. Those times are past. If you remove that clause the pledge becomes a statement of loyality to the flag. Weather you might feel thats right or wrong its at least a little bit cleaner discussion. Its a paradox, this country was begun by a sect that couldn't practice there religion in there home country (puretans and england). Are we a Christian country or are we a country of the people of the world? We are going in both directions and as in so many things there mutaly exclusive. I hope for the latter but I am but one voice.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

There you go again, trying to legislate your religion. :roll: Why do you want to shove your gawd down my throat?

 

[Moonbeam]

We put under God in the pledge to poke the Russians in the eye to remind them, after we annihilated each other, that we were going to heaven and they were going to hell. It was a sort of post mortem 'gotchyabiach' kind of thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Legend

So while everyone is having a good time making fun of others, what happens to people who what to say the pledge as it is?

I think they should be allowed to say it if they want, just not require it or teach the pledge to kids with "under god" in it.

That's fair enough. Now when it comes over the speaker, everyone stumbles over which version to say?

Maybe they should just drop the whole pledge.

 

[1prophet]

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:





What if God is the one removing his name from the institutions and establishments in America?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

What's with all the communism all of a sudden? Every time the majority get's an idea in their head, they should make it a permanent part of our laws? Sounds good to me, but if I was you I'd withhold my judgement until atheists are in the majority...

The majority isn't the one with the idea here. The pledge already has under god in it.

 

[2cpuminimum]

This isn't exaclty "news." This was ruled unconstitutional in 1943, ten years BEFORE the words "under god" were added. See WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE, 319 U.S. 624 (1943); http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g...?navby=case&court=us&vol=319&invol=624

To quote the justices Black and Douglas:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self- interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.
Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose."

And Justice Murphy is also worth a read:
" The right of freedom of thought and of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution against State action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all, except in so far as essential operations of government may require it for the preservation of an orderly society,-as in the case of compulsion to give evidence in court. Without wishing to disparage the purposes and intentions of those who hope to inculcate sentiments of loyalty nd patriotism by requiring a declaration of allegiance as a feature of public education, or unduly belittle the benefits that may accrue therefrom, I am impelled to conclude that such a requirement is not essential to the maintenance of effective government and orderly society. To many it is deeply distasteful to join in a public chorus of affirmation of private belief. By some, in- [319 U.S. 624, 646] cluding the members of this sect, it is apparently regarded as incompatible with a primary religious obligation and therefore a restriction on religious freedom. Official compulsion to affirm what is contrary to one's religious beliefs is the antithesis of freedom of worship which, it is well to recall, was achieved in this country only after what Jefferson characterized as the 'severest contests in which I have ever been engaged.' 20

I am unable to agree that the benefits that may accrue to society from the compulsory flag salute are sufficiently definite and tangible to justify the invasion of freedom and privacy that it entailed or to compensate for a restraint on the freedom of the individual to be vocal or silent according to his conscience or personal inclination. The trenchant words in the preamble to the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom remain unanswerable: '... all attempts to influence (the mind) by temporal punishment, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, ....' Code Va.1919, 34. Any spark of love for country which may be generated in a child or his associates by forcing him to make what is to him an empty gesture and recite words wrung from him contrary to his religious beliefs is overshadowed by the desirability of preserving freedom of conscience to the full. It is in that freedom and the example of persuasion, not in force and compulsion, that the real unity of America lies. "

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: 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.

Out of curiousity, how, in a class of 20-25 kids, did everyone manage to pinpoint you as an individual not saying the pledge? I never used to do it and nobody even noticed. Of course there were a pair of asshats who would skip over under god and say indivisible in a loud obnoxious voice who were detected.

I sat in front of the teachers desk (remember when I said I was a smart-ass). One day she noticed I wasn't saying 'under god' (we'd been in school a couple weeks at this point). She had me stay in at recess and told me I had to say it correctly and completely or not at all. Once I started not saying it the kid next to me (another front row relocatee due to problem/attitude) noticed and he's the one that started razzing me about it. Others caught wind of that confrontation and it just grew from that.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: chambersc

AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.

It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.

You mean people need to be told that?

And another reason France hates us is because we a re stupid. Oh, and Muslim's in other countries. We think we are so grand and so free. We claim to have a seperation of church and state. But we have crap like this going on. And teh other thing is references to God in our cash. In God We trust. Time for that to get nuked also.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: chambersc

AP: Federal judge in San Francisco declares it unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Details soon.

Ok, so as far as I understand it the ruling applies to those 3-4 states that that court rules over. This will go to the USSC and be decided there, once and for all.

It's the "Under God" part that was added in 1953 that is the problem I bet.

You mean people need to be told that?

to God in our cash. In God We trust. Time for that to get nuked also.

Black felt pen. Problem solved. Though I agree we shouldn't have to do it ourselves.

 

[angryswede]

I don't know if this was already mentioned but the words 'under God' were adding during the Cold War to distinguish us from the athiest communists. Now I a liberal guy and not very religious ie agnostic, but it really doesn't bother me, I can always refuse to say it. I mean the money here says in God We Trust on it, but there is no reason to raise hell over it, its such a minor point. There is a difference between this kind of expression and placing the ten commandments on public property.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: zendari
I guess we need a constitutional amendment now to protect the pledge of allegiance as well as marraige. If it really has 87% support it should be a breeze.

Why bother, there is no Constitution anymore. It's been decimated by the Republicans.

The Republicans sh1tted all over the Constitution with the Brady Bill in 1994?

 

[daniel49]

another wacky ruling by a liberal judge who wants to make laws. this one was a carter appointee.

 

[Kerouactivist]

bah....I'm wasting my time

 

[0roo0roo]

restore the pledge to its original form. it was written by a priestr for #%@# sake and he saw fit to exclude god. its for all the people, not just the religious. religious people should stop trying to claim the country as theirs alone. unbelievers are not second class citizens.


Americans United for Seperation fo Church and State website

 

[Moonbeam]

The flag is a piece of cloth and the republic is an abstraction. How bout we say, "We're calling everyone around us to a different shore where we can laugh and be free once more."

 

[nageov3t]

the under god line was a stupid anti-communist bit of propoganda added in the 50's.

I'd be glad if the pledge returned to its roots and it seems weird that so many traditionalists are against that.

 

[coolkatz321]

I'm a freshman college student right now, and I didn't recite the pledge at all during my last two years at high school. I just didn't believe in what the USA was doign and didn't feel like saying it. Personally, I have no problem with the words 'under God' or anything like that, it was just a show of defiance I guess. Anyway, one of my teachers saw this and was pretty angry, and we got into a very heated argument. Result: she lost, badly. Anyway, this is a free country, and we're free to do whatever we want. If we want to burn the flag, we can burn it; if we want to pray to it, we can do that. But if we don't want to say it at all, then we don't have to. It's as simple as that.