New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
You expect schoolkids to provide documentary evidence of being beaten up by other kids?

I expect you to back up your assertions with something other then histronics.
That is becoming less of a posibilty as we go along it seems.

You've heard from soldiers who refused to say the pledge?

I have seen soldiers refuse to say under god, with no undo nor punitive actions against them.

This thread contains testimonies from atheists who have suffered vandalism, threats, dismissal from jobs etc.

Said individuals should seek damages through the court system, this is still irrelivent to this topic.

How do recognize an atheist?

Watch him/her say the pledge.

Meaning what?

So now you're saying that atheists not only "come out" (even in the Bible Belt) but should also teach their kids to disobey their teachers. Get real.

I wish you would.
This isn't the 1920s, if people can't stand up for themselves, with the law on their sides, it denotes an extreme lack of character that no law will remedy.

Again, WAKE UP. We're talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, a summary of the core American values that patriots are expected to affirm!

More pointless histronics.
Attempting this only affirms that you have no argument, simply attempting to use scare tactics to convince me of your postion.

I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position?

That I can say "Under god", and you don't have to.
What could be more simple?

They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them.

Your insight into the inner workings of congress is astounding.
You can of course prove all of this?

[Roland]

"This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law"

"First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical".
In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants."

I've asked this before without result, but what exactly is the basis for that pledge ? Is it just a custom ? Is there any law related to it ? How did the "under god" come in in the 50s ?

[Jack the Bodiless]

I am saying that religion should be IRRELEVANT in a Pledge of Allegiance. By opposing that, you are saying that it is VITAL in a Pledge of Allegiance. If that is not your position, then what IS your position?

That I can say "Under god", and you don't have to.
What could be more simple?

And that is also MY position. It has always been.

So why are you not getting the message?

I really can't see how to make it any simpler. We BOTH AGREE that people should be free to say "under God" or not.

The issue is what the DEFAULT position is: what words the pledge should contain.

Nobody has yet given any good reason why it should contain "under God", or why this is inherently more acceptable to all than "under Satan", "under Stalin", or "without a God".

Nobody has yet given any explanation at all of what was wrong with the ORIGINAL pledge, which said none of these things and avoided all of these issues.

[Chris 62]

The matter is changing it from it's current form, not what it was.

As I keep telling you, your own argument is applicable from the inverse postion.

[Jack the Bodiless]

They are attempting to railroad the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional law. And some are already preparing to strip the Supreme Court of its powers if the verdict goes against them.

Your insight into the inner workings of congress is astounding.
You can of course prove all of this?

H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

[Lemmy]

i think he said several times what is wrong with the current pledge, but it seems you just ignore that.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Roland
I've asked this before without result, but what exactly is the basis for that pledge ? Is it just a custom ? Is there any law related to it ? How did the "under god" come in in the 50s ?

It's just a custom.

Under god was added as a direct result of a growing fear that communism was infecting American society, the so called "red scare" of the 50s (Which, ironically, turns out to be fully justified according to Soviet records released in the early 1990s).

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless H.R. 5064: `No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.

From what I see here, it says "no court established by act of congress".

Is the US supreme court established by act of congress?

I think it's time to revue the first amendment of the US Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the pledge does NOT establish a religion, and by trying to prohibit the saying of "under god" your actually prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Under god was added as a direct result of a growing fear that communism was infecting American society, the so called "red scare" of the 50s (Which, ironically, turns out to be fully justified according to Soviet records released in the early 1990s).

Precisely.

The change is pure, naked bigotry. A constant reminder that a bunch of idiots thought (and many more idiots still think) that atheists are communists.

And schoolkids are being trained to perpetuate this bigotry.

And it's still the official govenment line (or that's what the continued inclusion implies).

NOW do you see why we view it as equivalent to "under Satan"?

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Precisely.

The change is pure, naked bigotry. A constant reminder that a bunch of idiots thought (and many more idiots still think) that atheists are communists.

But, on the other hand, Communists are atheists, it's one of the foundations of communism.

And schoolkids are being trained to perpetuate this bigotry.

Your jumping to a conclusion again.

And it's still the official govenment line (or that's what the continued inclusion implies).

What's implied and what is law are two VERY different things.

NOW do you see why we view it as equivalent to "under Satan"?

Not at all, I do not and will not subscribe to your interpretation.

Ack, have to run, time to head to work.

Insomnia can be a real pain sometimes.

[Roland]

"It's just a custom."

Ok. So the next question is, is this custom somehow state-sponsored ?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Nor does it make it wrong.

Agreed.

It is the very heart of the matter, as an oath of alligence and a simple phrase equates to religious expression.

Do you feel that the government should promote one form of religious expression in the classroom over others? If not, then how can the words 'under God' be officially promoted in the Pledge and not the words that would express other belief systems (not dealing with God) as well?

There is NOTHING is the Constitution that precludes saying "under god", nor is it identified as applying the clause of seperation of church and state.
To argue this Constitutionaly simply isn't applicable along those lines.

Not trying to preclude saying 'under God'. Just saying that official wording shouldn't favor one religious set of ideals over another.

If it was forced, yes, that is not the case here.
The option to not participate is given.
It still has no place here, it simply doesn't fit.

Well thanks for answering anyways.

Performing rituals and saying two words are totally different matters.

The Pledge itself is a ritual.

Patience is not required, I was wating for some other argument besides those given, none have yet to give a single valid reason for precluding the words "under god".

Again, not precluding them. Just not promoting them as official wording of the Pledge. There is a difference.

By not allowing me to say something I believe because you don't, you are, by definition, applying your belief system over mine.

Again, not disallowing you to say what you will. Just having official wording of the Pledge not favor one belief system over another.

IF this was an OFFICAL requirement of citizenship, you may have a cause of grievence, but since it's completly volutary, it simply doesn't apply.

The official wording does show favoritism to those who believe in God though correct? They can recite the Pledge without having to deviate from it. Those who don't believe in God do not have a Pledge officially worded for them to say.

That is simply the other side of the same coin.

The other side of the coin would be to change the official wording to express my beliefs (or any other belief system), and allow everyone else just drop that phrase. This is not what I am saying. Everyone would be equally treated by removing 'under God' and allowing each individual to express their views in that slot. Everyone is not equally treated as it is.

Nor should the minorty have undo influence on the majority.
This is the continous conundrum of this matter.

Neither the majority's rights, nor the minority's rights need to be stomped on here. Everyone can be treated equally (concerning this issue) by just dropping the words 'under God' and allowing everyone to say what they will in that slot.

In many portions of society, such as the vote, for example, a simple majority is all that is needed.

Aye, and in others it is not as simple.

That would be absurdly hypothetical.
I'm often amazed that people would jump to such a conclusion based on so little.

It would be jumping to a conclusion to assume otherwise. I just took your statement literally. How else should it be taken until you explain otherwise?

Nontheless, the will of the majority of the US cannot be denied by a small minority, no matter how vocal they may be.

It would depend on the issue. The minority would have a very good case if the majority were trying to take away their rights to vote for instance. I'm not saying that would ever happen, just showing limitations of the will of the majority in our country.

This is a matter of degree, there is no law here, as the pledge is not a law, so the Constitution cannot say it is a matter of religion being inserted into law or government.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. The Pledge is recited in those schools as a product of legislation. It's wording, specifically the 'under God' portion was dictated by our government, even though the Pledge itself was not a product of our government.

The actual matter is that the phrase somehow conects the government with religion, and it does not.

Publicly funded schools are a part of our government. Alloting time for the recitation of oaths with religious phrases is a connection between our government and religion.

First, the oath is not "offical", nobody is required to say it, therefore it cannot have a constitution equastion, as it is NOT "offical".
In point of fact, it's quite unoffical, as nobody is required to say it or adhere to it's tenants.

But it is given credence by our government by alloting classtime in publicly funded schools to it's recital. The Pledge itself, without the phrase 'under God', is perfectly fine in the classroom (though I wouldn't say it myself). With the phrase 'under God' as official wording, allotting classroom time to it shows favoritism to those who believe in God. This is not something that our government should be involved in doing.

It also includes provisions prohibiting pressure groups from dictating policy to the majority.

And rightly so. This is about changing an area of policy that is unfair. It would be changed to something which serves the same purpose, but is evenhanded in it's approach.

By removing 'under God' from the official wording, and allowing all people to add their prefered phrase in it's place (including 'under God') then everyone has the same rights concerning the issue. As it is now, the official wording does not allow everyone the same rights. Some can follow the official wording and maintain their beliefs, while others are forced to deviate from the official wording to do so. It's government dictated favoritism which could easily be done away with.

[Jack the Bodiless]

`No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.'.


From what I see here, it says "no court established by act of congress".

Is the US supreme court established by act of congress?

You should take that up with the bozo who submitted the resolution. It was a direct response to the pledge controversy. He wants courts to be denied jurisdiction on this issue.

In other words, the pledge does NOT establish a religion, and by trying to prohibit the saying of "under god" your actually prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

And by requiring that atheists boil their grandmothers to make glue and grind their children into canned meat products, you are prohibiting the freedom not to HAVE a religion.

I hope you can think better after your rest. Maybe you can follow the argument then.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

You should take that up with the bozo who submitted the resolution. It was a direct response to the pledge controversy. He wants courts to be denied jurisdiction on this issue.

Thousands of bills are submitted, that doesn't make them (or this) law.

And by requiring that atheists boil their grandmothers to make glue and grind their children into canned meat products, you are prohibiting the freedom not to HAVE a religion.

Pure silliness.
If you have a real argument, make, you still haven't.

I hope you can think better after your rest. Maybe you can follow the argument then.

You have yet to present one, in page after page, it's the same thing.
There is nothing to follow simply because you have failed to make a valid case.

[JohnIII]

Originally posted by Chris 62
But, on the other hand, Communists are atheists, it's one of the foundations of communism.

Er, so? The fact that communists were atheists does not mean that atheists are communists, in the same way that although English people speak English, not every English-speaker is an Englishman.