Pledge of Allegiance Case Takes Center Stage at SCOTUS

[Boris Godunov]

Would religious people refuse to say the pledge if it didn't have "under God" in it? I can't think why they would. They were saying it all the time before it was inserted. So removing it would make the pledge palatable to all Americans, religious and non-religious. Excepting those who don't like the pledge in and of itself, which makes it a moot point for them anyway.

[Q Classic]

i don't want to read the rest of the thread.

but my two cents:

the meaning of the pledge, seeing as it's generally only said at school, is next to nothing, because most kids i know--and i myself remember from when i was in school--either didn't understand the point of the pledge or didn't give a damn about it. the phrase "under god" is just more frivolity. *****ing about it is about the same as *****ing about "in god we trust" written on the dollar bills--what's the point? there's no meaning behind the phrase anymore, no matter what those fundies want you to think.

so while the guy has a valid point, i don't see why he felt the need to be arsed to complain; i don't see why anybody else feels arsed to actually listen to the guy; i don't see why anyone's really arsed to make it an issue.

and i find it absolutely, heinously, disgustingly repulsive that he used his daughter--who did not even raise it as an issue to anyone--in order to further his own political goals.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
and i find it absolutely, heinously, disgustingly repulsive that he used his daughter--who did not even raise it as an issue to anyone--in order to further his own political goals.

Sadly, there's nothing new to this. Parents hold it as a right to speak for their kids and to have what they want taught to the kid in schools, not what the kid wants. It's part of being a minor. After all, you have all the instances where reactionay parents have demanded the firings of gay teachers, when in fact the kids usually don't care a bit about it.

[Q Classic]

Sadly, there's nothing new to this. Parents hold it as a right to speak for their kids and to have what they want taught to the kid in schools, not what the kid wants. It's part of being a minor. After all, you have all the instances where reactionay parents have demanded the firings of gay teachers, when in fact the kids usually don't care a bit about it.

and it's revolting when parents do that sort of thing. it doesn't excuse them either for making an issue out of a non-issue.

[Mr. Harley]

Boris and Q-Cubed, please look at my earlier posts in this thread. The mom has been born again, and I got to listen to interviews with both of them. Evidently the courts in California decided to let her sue for sole custody AFTER they had joint custody, and for whatever reason decided to award it to her. From his comment at the Supreme Court (an aetheist cannot get elected in this country, he got applause and Rehnquist threatened to clear the galleries), and the direct experiences some of our friends have had (the worst was a Jewish father here in Kentucky got the converted Sufi mom BANNED from even metioning that "cult" to her children, as the judge understood it, and yes the ACLU got involved, but in family court the judge is god with a little g) that the dad's aetheism may easily have had something to do with it. It's OK to be born again in Christ, in fact the courts like you then when it comes to sentencing and custody. Don't be gay or an aetheist.

So he now sees not only does his wife get to terminate his joint custody, now the state is further telling his daughter that he's wrong. I'd be a mite bit irritated, too. Of course I also know that it NEVER pays to be vocal (he is), on a topic the judge is more than likely (over 95% chance) to disagree with you, and to be eloquent about it. Yes, he probably took a 12 gauge to his foot. But he's not USING his daughter, he really feels this. As I said before, you should never sleep with someone whith whom you disagree that much (Zykla and Self-Biased please note! )

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the meaning of the pledge, seeing as it's generally only said at school, is next to nothing, because most kids i know--and i myself remember from when i was in school--either didn't understand the point of the pledge or didn't give a damn about it. the phrase "under god" is just more frivolity. *****ing about it is about the same as *****ing about "in god we trust" written on the dollar bills--what's the point? there's no meaning behind the phrase anymore, no matter what those fundies want you to think.

so while the guy has a valid point, i don't see why he felt the need to be arsed to complain; i don't see why anybody else feels arsed to actually listen to the guy; i don't see why anyone's really arsed to make it an issue.

Its meaninglessness has no bearing on its offensiveness. If we don't fix the little things in life, we'll never get around to fixing the big ones.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the meaning of the pledge, seeing as it's generally only said at school, is next to nothing, because most kids i know--and i myself remember from when i was in school--either didn't understand the point of the pledge or didn't give a damn about it. the phrase "under god" is just more frivolity. *****ing about it is about the same as *****ing about "in god we trust" written on the dollar bills--what's the point? there's no meaning behind the phrase anymore, no matter what those fundies want you to think.

So, if it has no meaning, it doesn't hurt to remove the various bits of references to a higher being, right?

Originally posted by Q Cubed
so while the guy has a valid point, i don't see why he felt the need to be arsed to complain; i don't see why anybody else feels arsed to actually listen to the guy; i don't see why anyone's really arsed to make it an issue.

I have always thought the US is a secular state?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not to atheists, Imran.

SOME atheists. I know plenty of atheists who think it is no big deal (you don't have to say it if you don't want to) and think this case is a waste of time.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not to atheists, Imran.

SOME atheists. I know plenty of atheists who think it is no big deal (you don't have to say it if you don't want to) and think this case is a waste of time.

I am sure some black people thought that sitting at the back of the bus was no big deal. After all, it was a meaningless distinction enshrined in tradition.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am sure some black people thought that sitting at the back of the bus was no big deal.

Can you name any?

And I'm sure if there was a rule that you don't have to sit in the back if you don't want to, I'm sure plenty would say it was no big deal .

[Fake Boris]

If the word 'God' is so insignificant, why do they put it in there in the first place? Does that imply that the oath is, too?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I am sure some black people thought that sitting at the back of the bus was no big deal.

Can you name any?

And I'm sure if there was a rule that you don't have to sit in the back if you don't want to, I'm sure plenty would say it was no big deal .

I'm sure none of the other patrons would have batted an eye if someone had chosen to do just that.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(you don't have to say it if you don't want to)

pffffftttt.


When it is recited in schools, kids are de facto coerced into saying it.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Guynemer



pffffftttt.


When it is recited in schools, kids are de facto coerced into saying it.

Er, no.

[gamenaught]

What does "one nation under God" mean? Is it true?

Are we a theocracy? No. Are all Americans subordinate to 1 God? No. Assuming it were ture, are we the only nation under God? No.

So why keep a lie in the pledge?