Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Guynemer]

Mandatory or not, every time a public school teacher says "under God", it is instilling Abrahamic faith in American children.

That, to me, sounds like "establishing religion." Granted, you disagree, but surely we can agree that the government has no business whatsoever in promoting any particular faith or group of faiths to its citizens, and certainly not its most impressionable citizens, children who are the least able to resist this indoctrination?

[Dr Strangelove]

Gee, so what if the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That would be a bit of a paradox wouldn't it?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Mandatory or not, every time a public school teacher says "under God", it is instilling Abrahamic faith in American children.

You don't seriously believe that, do you?

[KrazyHorse]

I do. Seriously, now: what if they said "with no God"?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I do.

Can you tell me, without laughing, how saying the pledge, singing the Star Spangled Banner, spending American money, and taking off work for Christmas is going to bring someone to know God? I'd really like to know.

Seriously, now: what if they said "with no God"?

The issue would be the same.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Gee, so what if the Constitution itself is unconstitutional? That would be a bit of a paradox wouldn't it?

Well, it isn't, seeing how God is never mentioned in the entire document, nor any of the amendments.

This article may help:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/773696.asp

I'm also fond of:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/27/news/opinion/courtwatch/main513567.shtml

[Lincoln]

I forgot what SC decision it was (I will look it up if you want) but the dissenting opinion stated that by excluding religion from society the state was in effect establishing atheism. Either way someone is going to be offended. Regardless of what religion Eisenhower wished to promote in his own mind the fact remains that he used a generic word in the pledge which means different things to different people.

So to make that phrase illegal now is to say in effect that Eisenhower was not allowed to think about his own God when he thought of the idea. The word "God" is allowed all through official government traditions. If the word "God" cannot be used in the pledge then it must be redacted as well from Congress and the opening ceremony of the Supreme Court.

So while the intention may have been to promote the God of Abraham the wording does not say that. We should not punish a thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Can you tell me, without laughing, how saying the pledge, signing the Star Spangled Banner, spending American money, and taking off work for Christmas is going to bring someone to know God? I'd really like to know

Like the court said: it's normative. I get uncomfortable at the point in Canada's national anthem where we mention God, because I feel a bit off singing something about a deity I don't believe in. I think we should change those lyrics too...

The issue would be the same.

You wouldn't feel that it was reducing the faith of children who did believe? To have their teacher saying that God didn't exist?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Can you tell me, without laughing, how saying the pledge, signing the Star Spangled Banner, spending American money, and taking off work for Christmas is going to bring someone to know God? I'd really like to know.

Perhaps you'd like to know how marginalized people like me feel in this country because of all that bull****.

If we have these principles, we better damn well live up to them. Otherwise, what the hell is the point of having principles?

When I have children, I don't want the government telling them how my wife and I are wrong about our religious practices (or lack thereof; I recognize that atheism is a religion in its own way).

The issue would be the same.

That's right. It would be the same. I'd be pushing just as hard to end that too.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


You don't seriously believe that, do you?

Of course I do! Not that it matters as far as the principle of the thing goes, but these people are more than government employees. These are authority figures. If my kids hear their teachers mention this "God" entity day in and day out, not to mention Congress and the Supreme Court and the VERY religious, VERY Christian inauguration of GWBush, what the hell sort of effect do you think its going to have on kids?

[DinoDoc]

Incidentally, what are you planning on specializing in during your residency?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Guynemer


Perhaps you'd like to know how marginalized people like me feel in this country because of all that bull****.

Yes, and many of them feel marginalized at the mere continuanace of religion. The guy who filed the suit about the pledge mentioned in an interview that he'd like to remove any artifice of religion from monetary notes and government buildings. This will amount to defacing works of art. Sorta reminds you of a middle eastern goverment our troops recently ejected from power doesn't it?

Mary McCarthy, the woman who filed the suit that ended prayer in public school once stated intention to work towards the destruction of every outward edifice of religion in our society, because she felt offended by the mere sight of a church.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Incidentally, what are you planning on specializing in during your residency?

Not a clue. Barely a day goes by that someone doesn't ask that question.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Yes, and many of them feel marginalized at the mere continuanace of religion. The guy who filed the suit about the pledge mentioned in an interview that he'd like to remove any artifice of religion from monetary notes and government buildings. This will amount to defacing works of art. Sorta reminds you of a middle eastern goverment our troops recently ejected from power doesn't it?

Mary McCarthy, the woman who filed the suit that ended prayer in public school once stated intention to work towards the destruction of every outward edifice of religion in our society, because she felt offended by the mere sight of a church.

I am not offended by religion. What I am offended by is religious intrusion into government. Religion wasn't on our paper money before 1956. As one of the articles I cited states, our national motto was changed from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In God We Trust". Balls, balls, balls. It was wrong then, and it's wrong to continue it now.

I think the Taliban analogy is far too flawed to waste any time formulating a reponse.

[Ramo]

Such as?

The Whiskey Tax and the creation of the Bank of the US, for instance.

A state church having immense power and sway.

Why would the state chuch have undue power and sway unless the church was given preferential treatment?