Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If that phrase is "grossly unconstitutional" then so is the constitution. It was ratified "in the year of our LORD ?? 1779..."

Yes, but at least Americans don't need to swear that in order to pledge their allegiance.

Besides, what other calendar is there for them to use anyway?!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I think atheists are upset because the pledge does not say "one nation without God..."

Don't be silly, Lincoln...

Can you honestly not see the difference between requiring that no religion be publicly sponsored and requiring that lack of religion be publicly sponsored?

[Lincoln]

The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

[Imran Siddiqui]

By forcing you to pay for the school they recite it in, they're not actually allowing for freedom of religion.

Bull****. Tell me how they are taking away the freedom to believe what you want to believe in by making you pay for a school where the Pledge is voluntary?

Same as if they taxed people to support a certain political point of view...

You mean if they taxed people to support a certain group that supports one political viewpoint that you don't have to suscribe to? Happens all the time. At points in time, the FBI and CIA were solidly for one party or the other. That ain't unconstitutional.

monotheism > an ideal of patriotism

which is grossly unconstitutional, unless you're talking about the Iranian constitution.

I asked for a real answer. Monotheism equaling an idea of patriotism is an answer that will get you laughed out of the Supreme Court. There is nothing in the Constitution which gives a **** about patriotism.

Yes, but at least Americans don't need to swear that in order to pledge their allegiance.

But every elected official has to swear to uphold the Constitution.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lincoln
The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

You're right, Lincoln, that shouldn't be there either.

The difference being you don't require anyone to say that on a regular basis.

Do you always say it's "The year of our Lord 2002"?

[Asher]

Imran, you're being very Republican now and it's scaring me.

Not everyone is a monotheist, why the hell is the American government always talking about monotheism, regardless of everyone else?

Even Canada isn't that screwed up.

[Lincoln]

What is silly is denying the history of the United States by redacting words that are in almost all of the founding documents and pretending that the Supreme Court itself and the Congress does not use the word 'God' in the constitutionally authorized routines.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You mean if they taxed people to support a certain group that supports one political viewpoint that you don't have to suscribe to? Happens all the time. At points in time, the FBI and CIA were solidly for one party or the other. That ain't unconstitutional

So it wouldn't be unconstitutional for president Bush to receive public monies and use it for his campaign fund?

Your example of different agencies having different political slants is silly. There's a difference between overt and covert support. Like if the FBI painted all of its vehicles with campaign ads, that would be overt...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, you're being very Republican now and it's scaring me.

No, I'm interpreting the Constitution very strictly.

Not everyone is a monotheist, why the hell is the American government always talking about monotheism, regardless of everyone else?

Because they are morons?

I don't like having 'God' everywhere, but I don't find anything unconstitutional with it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lincoln
What is silly is denying the history of the United States by redacting words that are in almost all of the founding documents and pretending that the Supreme Court itself and the Congress does not use the word 'God' in the constitutionally authorized routines.

Hey, Lincoln, wake up, not all Americans are dumb enough to go to church, and would rather those people who haven't clued in yet stop talking about their religion in oft-stated State slogans.

It's annoying and obsolete.

[Dis]

Get rid of the stupid pledge.

Perhaps the schools should be teaching the three R's instead.

[Lincoln]

You cannot change history or the constitution because some wacko court hates Christians.

[KrazyHorse]

And Lincoln, how else would you have had your founding fathers refer to the date? It was the dating system commonly in place, and had nothing to do with endorsing a religion. I'm an atheist and I use "a.d." all the time, which is simply shorthand for "Anno Domini"; "The Year of Our Lord". I do not, however, refer to myself as living "under God", a much more clearly religious sentiment.

[ranskaldan]

Alright, for those of you so eager to keep the pledge unchanged, here's a new version.

If you think "under God" should be kept, but have any problems with this new version, you're contradicting yourself. If you think "under God" should be kept, but it's wrong to have this new version recited aloud across American schools, you're contradicting yourself.

"I Pledge Allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America and to the Capitalist Rightist Republic for which it stands, one White-only Male-dominated Nation under The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, indivisible, with no income tax, all-privatised healthcare, and support for only Israel and not Palestine."

Hey, I mean, you shouldn't have any problems with this either, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So it wouldn't be unconstitutional for president Bush to receive public monies and use it for his campaign fund?

Hmmm, yes, it would. Only because it wouldn't be allocated for that use. Can't use things for things they aren't allocated for.

There's a difference between overt and covert support.

Good, you just about invalidated your point. Public schools can't overtly promote religion, so taxes going to them does not mean the Pledge is unconstitutional, because it doesn't overtly promote ONE religion.