Pledge of Alligiance - Unconstitutional?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, read the definition of 'Establishment' again. How does that defintion (any of it) lead to meaning 'about'

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now you're just blathering. I couldn't care less about that. They're probably unconstitutional, but also unimportant. Most Christians wouldn't care if the Congress signed acts wishing people a happy Holi, but they would care if their child was exposed daily to a pledge that contained something about one natin under Vishnu.

Maybe they would care, but so what?

You might not care less about the greater ramifications of making the clause mean what you want it to mean, but other people certainly are. It isn't just limited, KH. It will deal with EVERYTHING.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, read the definition of 'Establishment' again. How does that defintion (any of it) lead to meaning 'about'

It doesn't. Regarding means about. Establishment of religion is a fancy term for "religion.

[KrazyHorse]

Blah blah blah. So what. If somebody cares enough to take it to the Supremes, so be it. I couldn't care less one way or the other.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Establishment of religion a fancy term for religion?!! Are you nuts? An Establishment of religion (by the definition, if a noun) can either mean the religious organization (which then would mean the Congress could not make laws about specific religious organizations - 'an establishment' means one organization), the controlling powers of religion (which means Congress cannot make a law against the leaders of religious organizations), or the act of establishing (which means Congress cannot make a law declaring a state religion).

Fitz stated, if we used #3, I'd be right. Even if you use definiton #1, it is severly restricted to 'one' religious organization (cannot single one church out, perhaps), and #2 makes no sense.

In either case, this does not apply. Like I said before monotheism isn't ONE church.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Blah blah blah. So what. If somebody cares enough to take it to the Supremes, so be it. I couldn't care less one way or the other.

And I couldn't care less about 'God We Trust' on our money .

[civman2000]

Bush admits that Pledge of Allegiance sends a religious message but still supports it

OK, not explicitly, but he still implies that with his words:

Taken from http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS...edge/index.html
Bush said the ruling from a panel with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California ignored the fact that the Declaration of Independence acknowledged "we receive our rights from God." He said the court's decision was proof of the need for "common-sense judges" who "understand we derive our rights from God."

This essentially says that he acknowledges that the Pledge of Allegiance sends the message that "liberty and justice for all" come from God and is thus a religious pledge, but still supports it! Even for supporters of the Pledge, I would think this would be going too far, the main argument against the ruling is that it doesn't send a message but if it did it should be banned.

[SlowwHand]

Count on California to have an out of body/out of mind viewpoint.

[DinoDoc]

It is so refereshing to be on the same side as Imran again in a debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Lincoln]

[Apocalypse]

So, I just returned from this Knight of Columbus meeting and this was a big topic. Especially since they were the ones who originally came up with the idea of putting God in the pledge 50 years ago. My family is also Family of the Month for May. This is quite funny to me, as I hate my parents and I'm a Buddhist.

[Guynemer]

That's funny Lincoln.

A gold star to whomever can identify the prominent politican who said this about 15 years ago: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

[civman2000]

hmmm...Bush senior maybe?

[DinoDoc]

If you can show me where that quote was reported in a credible paper, I'd be willing to pay you money.