Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[Elden]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

In principle, yes. It's another subversion attempt by Christian extremists. Paper money didn't say "in God we trust" until 1957.

But it's a relatively minor issue, because nobody is expected to recite it (or even read it). You can wipe your backside with a dollar bill and nobody will care (except the next user of it).

In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash is a handy history of these changes.

No, the government put it there, just like in the pledge.

So, are the government all

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Christian extremists.

Don't think so.

[Berzerker]

Japher -

No I didn't. Where did I assume such things?

Your opening comment when you assumed I was offended by the word "God". My belief in God doesn't translate into a desire to coerce children into affirming what I or anyone else believes. Then you accused me of being an ingrate for opposing your pledge as if we all must agree with what you want from government or be ungrateful. Do insults just spill out of your mouth without your knowledge?

No I didn't. I attacked your beliefs and didn't just start calling you an idiot.

You didn't attack my beliefs, you used your strawmen as a basis for insults.

You obviously don't know how to debate.

Hmm...another non-rebuttal. Apparently that's how you debate.

No. Respect for the people who fund public schools, and those who govern over them.

I'm one of those people "funding" the public schools, but I don't respect you and other social engineers who try to use those schools to push their political agendas. Getting it yet?

Jack; it may not be readily obvious, but I do believe in these statements. Granted "under God" was instilled as a christian religious icon to be used in a expression of devotion to the state.

I suppose you don't see the paradox in that. It was Jehovah's Witnesses who first filed suit over the pledge back in 1943 before the words "under God" were even included. Where did Jesus say people should express a devotion to the state? What did Jesus say about oaths?

Yet, using the word "God" does not mean Christian god, nor does it necessarily indicate some supreme being of any religious ethos.

Is there a limit to your BS? You think the McCarthyites who put those words in the pledge were talking about Shiva or Allah?

What about "In God We Trust"? Should that be removed for the currency too?

Those words make no demand on us to affirm a religious belief.
You're still ignorant about the issue, just go away until you stumble upon a clue.

[Japher]

[quote]Your opening comment when you assumed I was offended by the word "God".

to

Oh my God! Sorry, I used the "G"-word.

I am sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to make a joke, I was not insinuating anything to a specific person.

Home-school your kid for all I care. Besides "tolerance" is a good thing, as well as respecting those who are supplying you with your education, and if you are in a public school those people are the American people, so show some respect, Silent Bob (couldn't help it).

Not Insinuatin you "of being an ingrate for opposing your pledge as if we all must agree with what you want from government or be ungrateful". Granted I should of left the first sentence out.

On another note, a large portion of parents these days are awful parents who need a school system putting their noses into their buisness before a cop or a social worker does. So they should be counting their blessings, instead of the number of hours they have successfully neglected their kids.

Not insinuating you of "of being an ingrate for opposing your pledge as if we all must agree with what you want from government or be ungrateful", nor am I insinuating that YOU are a bad parent.

I guess I am just sorry that this post ended up right under yours. I am sorry if I offended you anyway, and that was not my intention.

I do feel that you beliefs are not inline with that of mine, and that is why I wish to debate it.

Hmm...another non-rebuttal. Apparently that's how you debate.

Touche, thanks for calling me out on it, and yes this comment:

You obviously don't know how to debate.

Was uncalled for.

I'm one of those people "funding" the public schools, but I don't respect you and other social engineers who try to use those schools to push their political agendas. Getting it yet?

Not really. And it is hard to through all the screaming.

You ARE one of those ppl, but not all. Love thy neighbor.

Where did Jesus say people should express a devotion to the state? What did Jesus say about oaths?

That is not the point. I meant that it was instilled by the state to impose religious dogma upon the ppl, it is not that way today.

Is there a limit to your BS? You think the McCarthyites who put those words in the pledge were talking about Shiva or Allah?

You are arguing connotation, which is something that is not recoginized in courts when it deems that it should be neccesary.

You're still ignorant about the issue, just go away until you stumble upon a clue.

I had to think a while on how to respond to this assinine statement. At least it wasn't attacking me personally, but my ideals... and I thank you for that.

I assure you that I am not ignorant on this subject, I rarely speak in forums, or respond to ppl with your attitude if I do not feel that I have something of note to add, apart from an occasional jest.

I have never stated my religious beliefs, nor have I indicated how I feel, personally, on this matter. Honestly, I could careless either way, but I do feel that a point is being made that holds some weight. Yet, I also feel that the weight is not being properly delivered.

It is ppl like you that are arguing the removal of the words. It is ppl like you that are going before a court and demanding it be removed. Yet, most of the ppl, while greatly knowledgable of what is and what is not religion, have no idea what is politics... it is a matter of words.

When you go before someone to argue this case, you cannot meet "ignorant slandar" of what you believe with insult or for verbatim, especially in cases like this. You must fight fire with fire.

As I noted above; the real courts (those outside this state I live in) are not going to listen to such arguments that have an ability to put a twist on words. Heck, I am more opposed to the pledge based on feudal ideology than I am on religious grounds, and I am not even religious in any sense of the form.

To rebut: it is ignorant peices of crap like me that this measure will have to go up to. It is ignorant peices of crap like me that vote (and I believe that a majority of voters are ignorant). It is the job of ppl who believe in something to sway or educate us ignorant peices of crap, and I know that insults are not the way to do it.

If you want to produce that clue that I am to trip on then by all means... Yet, if you wish for ppl like me to stumble around in the dark until we find it you will be pissed for a long time to come.

Once again, I apolgize if you feel that I have insulted you in any way, it was not my intention.

[Berzerker]

Japher -

I am sorry if you took it that way. I was just trying to make a joke, I was not insinuating anything to a specific person.

You attached your response to a quote taken from my post, that was an indication you were responding to what I said.

Granted I should of left the first sentence out.

Why? Because you were directing your comment to a specific person.

I guess I am just sorry that this post ended up right under yours. I am sorry if I offended you anyway, and that was not my intention.

It's not that your post appeared under mine, YOU QUOTED MY POST!

I do feel that you beliefs are not inline with that of mine, and that is why I wish to debate it.

Fine, do so without insults and I will do the same.

You ARE one of those ppl, but not all. Love thy neighbor.

Which makes your comment about dis-respecting those people funding public schools silly.

That is not the point. I meant that it was instilled by the state to impose religious dogma upon the ppl, it is not that way today.

It is the point for people who try to observe what Jesus taught. Accusing people of being ungrateful or unpatriotic for trying to practice their religion is absurd.

You are arguing connotation, which is something that is not recoginized in courts when it deems that it should be neccesary.

You didn't answer my question: did the people who modified the pledge mean Shiva or Allah by "God"?

I had to think a while on how to respond to this assinine statement. At least it wasn't attacking me personally, but my ideals... and I thank you for that.

I assure you that I am not ignorant on this subject, I rarely speak in forums, or respond to ppl with your attitude if I do not feel that I have something of note to add, apart from an occasional jest.

You are ignorant and your question about the word "God" appearing on currency is the proof. The pledge asks children to affirm a series of beliefs, including a belief in God, words on currency do not ask us to affirm religious beliefs.

To rebut: it is ignorant peices of crap like me that this measure will have to go up to. It is ignorant peices of crap like me that vote (and I believe that a majority of voters are ignorant). It is the job of ppl who believe in something to sway or educate us ignorant peices of crap, and I know that insults are not the way to do it.

Then don't enter a debate with insults and then complain when the people you insult return the favor.

If you want to produce that clue that I am to trip on then by all means... Yet, if you wish for ppl like me to stumble around in the dark until we find it you will be pissed for a long time to come.

I've provided the clue repeatedly in this thread and to you at least twice.

Once again, I apolgize if you feel that I have insulted you in any way, it was not my intention.

Apology accepted.

[Japher]

Thank you for accepting my apology, it is not my intention to insult you on a personal level. So to take up with your quote:

Children can recite the pledge to their heart's content on their own time. This isn't about individual prayer and pledge reciting, it's about the attempt to coerce other children into joining by having organised prayer and pledge reciting in the classroom.

I feel that you attributing the pledge to organized religion is absurd. See below.

And frankly, these people who are pushing this pledge/prayer nonsense are actually insulting the rest of us.

How so? Also, which is it, a prayer or a pledge. WHich are you against?

They have decided that our children are not patriotic and religious enough, so they must stick their noses into how we raise our own kids against our wishes because we have failed as parents.

They decided nothing, they just put in an insurance policy, so to speak.

These people are no different than the homosexual activists trying to push their agenda of "tolerance" for homosexuals upon our kids through the public school system.

See early response on agenda, but attacking homosexuality as a defense vs. religion will hold no weight.

But that's what the public schools have become, a battleground for social engineers - both left and right - to get their mitts on our kids to push their ideology and religion...

I don't see this because:

God (noun)
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler

and

I would say that a couple of those definitions mention nothing of christianity, or religion in any sense. So let those blowholes pick which definition they want, and if they don't like it they can attack Marriam-Webster and not the state. Why is my state so full of morons?

On the same note:

[/quote]
Allegiance
1 a : the obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord b (1) : the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government (2) : the obligation of an alien to the government under which the alien resides
2 : devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause [/quote]

See?

[Stuie]

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe

This is the ONLY definition that applies in the current debate, as emphasized. If you want to talk about "god", then you can use 2, 3, or 4 of the above "definition". But we're talking about "God". Please note the difference.

The pledge attempts to force "God" on everyone. Sure you can't "see" the capitalization when you recite it, but that is obviously the intent.

By the way, I'm teaching my children about all the myths - Greek, Roman, Norse, Chinese, Christian, etc.

[Berzerker]

Japher -

I feel that you attributing the pledge to organized religion is absurd. See below.

There are two related issues - the pledge and prayer. The prayer is about organised religion, the pledge is about affirming a specific religious belief and is the issue in this thread.

How so? Also, which is it, a prayer or a pledge. WHich are you against?

Both, and the insult is the same insult you implied - that our children need the moral and patriotic direction of those pushing the pledge because we aren't good parents.

They decided nothing, they just put in an insurance policy, so to speak.

An insurance policy against what? Poor parenting?

See early response on agenda, but attacking homosexuality as a defense vs. religion will hold no weight.

Attacking? I just want all these social engineers to keep their noses out of the schools, and that includes the homosexual activists as well as the religious activists.

I don't see this because:

I would say that a couple of those definitions mention nothing of christianity, or religion in any sense. So let those blowholes pick which definition they want, and if they don't like it they can attack Marriam-Webster and not the state. Why is my state so full of morons?

If we consider that definition from a world perspective, "god" could mean almost anything, but within the context of the USA , "god" has only one meaning, and that was the intent of those who inserted the words into the pledge.

See?

Allegiance in the pledge refers to the flag and all that it represents - including an affirmation of God. I don't believe the state should be coercing children to make religious affirmations.

[Ben Kenobi]

Dinodoc:

As a non-American I had to look up your reference to the use of God in the star spangled banner. I've only ever heard the first verse, so I wondered where you got the word God.

The lines in question, from the fourth verse:

Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."

Berzerker:

What does Christ say about oaths?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand. "Simply let your yes be yes and your no be no." The concept of oaths were to signify a promise between two people, which is different from the pledge.

As a silly Canadian, and a Christian I say return the pledge to its socialist roots. That way everybody wins.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by obiwan18
As a non-American I had to look up your reference to the use of God in the star spangled banner. I've only ever heard the first verse, so I wondered where you got the word God.