Appeals court: Pledge of Allegiance still unconstitutional

[GePap]

So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

"I pledge alliegence to the Flag {of the United States of America* added in the 1920's, as If kids dind't know which flag it was..} and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Now, what on Earth is wrong with that version?

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oooh, I have a solution to this issue:

Get rid of public education, and make everyone pay for their own! That way, parents can decide if they want religious overtones in education or not

Public education is what makes this country great... Without public education, only the rich would be educated and this society would degenerate into some sort of capitalist/feudal society with an elite educated populous economically controlling the poor.

Floyd, go become a hermit in Idaho or something. Then you don't have to worry about taxes, the government, or anyone infringing on your freedoms .

Detroit Dave: My kids aren't forced to pledge allegiance to a country under Martin Luther King. They celebrate a holiday that honors the man and his accomplishments, not his religious beliefs. I know you're just being silly, but there is a big difference.

The problem I have is that I'm reading the pledge as it's written literally. Most people are apathetic to it and don't care, but if you people step aside from your ignorance for a moment and read the pledge and look at what it is saying, you might understand my point of view. Or you could just be selfish and think that everyone should believe in God. Either way, it's wrong.

The way it's written, the pledge says that we are one country under the rule of a God. Despite it's fundamental general meaning, it still encompasses a belief in a God. And to have that be part of a National pledge violates the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

"I pledge alliegence to the Flag {of the United States of America* added in the 1920's, as If kids dind't know which flag it was..} and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"

Now, what on Earth is wrong with that version?

Absolutely Nothing.... that's how it should be. But there are too many selfish, dumbasses in this country that want to force their beliefs onto others.

[David Floyd]

Public education is what makes this country great...

You seem to be under the bizarre impression that US public schools are actually of any significant educational value. Allow me to correct that. They are not.

Floyd, go become a hermit in Idaho or something. Then you don't have to worry about taxes, the government, or anyone infringing on your freedoms

Why should I have to go somewhere else to avoid immoral behavior? Why shouldn't I be able to expect that people behave morally?

[Sava]

Taxes aren't immoral... even your Bible says so. And suburban US public schools are quite good, we need to give urban schools the same amount of educational resources to bridge the gap.

[Jac de Molay]

This is overblown. No one is forcing someone to adhere to a religious belief thru the pledge anymore than anyone is being forced to adhere to a religious belief by accepting money with "In God we trust" or listen, as a juror, recite an oath that ends in 'so help me God'.

The First Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, makes some allowance for the mingling of church and state, and has applied far more liberal criteria of what constitutes "undue interference" in their interaction than the two words in the pledge.

The same First Amendments also affords protection for those who refuse, for any reason whatsoever, to recite the pledge. This nonsense of indoctrination or brainwashing......

[Sava]

What's wrong with saying the pledge how it was originally written?

And everyone was bashing the anti-war crowd because kids were getting teased in Maine, how many kids would get teased because they don't believe in God?

I know there are bigger issues to worry about, but it's the principle of the thing. God shouldn't be on money, it shouldn't be in the pledge, it should not be part of anything related to the government, officially.

Sure, nobody's being burnt at the stake for being atheist, but the current state of "God" and the government is closer to theocracy than it should be. If you want a government with true religious freedom, then you have to take anything religious out of government.

[Jack the Bodiless]

This is overblown. No one is forcing someone to adhere to a religious belief thru the pledge anymore than anyone is being forced to adhere to a religious belief by accepting money with "In God we trust" or listen, as a juror, recite an oath that ends in 'so help me God'.

This isn't "listening", it's requiring minors to participate. And, yes, they ARE fequently being "forced". That was the intent of the 1954 change.

Don't forget that we're taking about minors here. If being led on by an adult isn't "forcing" them, then pedophilia and statutory rape aren't crimes either. Both are abuses of the adult's position of authority, and the child's trust.

I'd say that, in a schoolroom setting, refusal to say the Pledge (if the kid actually does have the cojones) also undermines the authority of the teacher.

The teacher plainly expects everyone to stand up and recite the Pledge. So why is little Jimmy just smirking and looking out the window? And he's getting away with it, teacher can't touch him!

Maybe he can choose not to accept algebra either.

Hardly surprising that some teachers take it personally, and intimidate atheists as much as the law allows (and frequently more than the law allows, causing further discipline issues).

Hardly surprising that many schools don't bother with it! But then there are interfering politicians who MAKE them use it. And, yes, some of those politicians themselves go beyond the law in doing so. One particularly amusing incident involved a "patriotism bill" in which kids would be required to recite the "under God" Pledge and receive two hours of tuition on the Constitution every week (where they would have learned that the bill itself was unconstitutional).

[Imran Siddiqui]

So lest just use the 1953 version of the pledge and move on. These folks demanding that "under God" be kept just simply make a obvious situation last longer.

GePap, you know about the government, right? How many things has the government actually reversed after it goes through the whole process (Congress, President, SC)? Not many. As you should know there is ALWAYS a resistance to change, no matter how silly. People grow comfortable with their traditions. That is how humans are.

I have no problems with going back to the original pledge, but plenty of people don't. And this topic isn't that important to stress.

[SlowwHand]

It's fairly clear what a lot of you pathetic bastards are against. Almost everything.
Can you clear up something? Is there anything you won't whine about ?

Just curious.

[David Floyd]

Taxes aren't immoral... even your Bible says so.

Yeah! While we're at it, let's go back to stoning children for disobeying their parents, too!

And suburban US public schools are quite good, we need to give urban schools the same amount of educational resources to bridge the gap.

Right, because we know from experience how good the second-highest funded school district in the nation performs (Washington DC)

*Hint* DC is very close to the bottom.

Clearly, throwing money at the problem won't fix it. Getting the government out of education (and, with government, political correctness and "diversity training" and the rest of their BS initiatives) might, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

Well... that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's fairly clear what a lot of you pathetic bastards are against. Almost everything.
Can you clear up something? Is there anything you won't whine about ?

Just curious.

Can you clear up something?

What in the holy blue **** are you talking about?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I assume you mean that the majority "should" have the right to impose THEIR views on the minority, simply because they ARE the majority.

Well... that is what democracy is about, isn't it?

No, that's what the Borg are about.

[Japher]

Symantics.

I don't know if any one posted this yet but:

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

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:

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

Hey! Where not a feudal system, that is blasphamy maybe they have a point! (Sarcasm at it's best).

Hey, but I'm not one to nit-pick.

---

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America

(I give my loyalty to the US)

and to the Republic for which it stands

(and to this neat little thing we call a Republic, whatever that is)

one nation

(obvious)

indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.

(united as one for a cause)

... That was the original pledge until 1954. Adding

Under God

(beneath a supreme, and perfect, reality)

maybe a lie, but the other stuff could be seen as that to.

Weirdos