Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2005-10-19 at 19:51:24
QUOTE
A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress.
A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to a lower court. If allowed to stand, the ruling would apply to schools in the nine states covered by the 9th Circuit. (Analyst on whether it will stand)
The defendants -- the federal and state governments and the local school board -- also have the option of appealing the ruling to the full appeals court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Attorney John K. Vincent said his office was "reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision."
"We will consult with the Department of Justice in Washington concerning our options in overturning this decision," he said.
Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
CNN NewsPass Video
• Man behind landmark pledge ruling
MORE STORIES
• Pledge back in court
• Mom: Girl not harmed by pledging 'under God'
RESOURCES
• Justice Department's filing (PDF)
• On the Scene: Toobin: Pledge ruling likely 'dead on arrival'
• CNN Access: Litigant explains why he brought Pledge suit
• History of the Pledge
• Read the court decision: Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al.
(FindLaw) (PDF)
• Judges in Pledge of Allegiance decision
EXTRA INFORMATION
• Gallery: A look at the three-judge panel that made the ruling
EXTRA INFORMATION
A look at the three judges who made the ruling
LEGAL RESOURCES
Latest Legal News
Law Library
FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes
Outraged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blasted the ruling as "outrageous," "nuts," and "stupid." The U.S. Senate was so outraged by the decision that it passed a resolution 99-0 "expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance" and asking Senate counsel to "seek to intervene in the case." (Full story)
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"
At one point late Wednesday about 100-150 House members, mostly Republicans, gathered on the steps outside the Capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in a show of support. (GOP to blame Democrats)
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush believes the ruling is "ridiculous."
"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," Fleischer said.
"I think this decision will not sit well with the American people. Certainly, it does not sit well with the president of the United States." (More reactions to ruling)
Legal reasoning cited
Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"
The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." (More on pledge's history)
The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that said students cannot hold religious invocations because it violates the Constitution. (High court on pledge)
In this case, the appeals court said, the lower court's decision to throw out the case found that "the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs" -- a precedent the appeals court said is not supported by the recent Supreme Court decisions.
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.
"To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
The case had been filed against the United States, Congress, California, two school districts and its officials by Michael Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in Elk Grove, California, just outside Sacramento. (Why he filed lawsuit)
Dissenting opinion
The government said the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.
But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
Newdow said he was pleased with the decision. "I'll keep fighting to uphold the Constitution," he told CNN.
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling. (More on the judges)
Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.
"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"
The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Outrage on Capitol Hill
In Washington, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called the court's decision "crazy" and "outrageous." If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, he predicted the appeal would not stand.
"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.
Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said, "Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong."
Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, also blasted the court, saying the decision "doesn't make good sense to me."
"I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed."
A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to a lower court. If allowed to stand, the ruling would apply to schools in the nine states covered by the 9th Circuit. (Analyst on whether it will stand)
The defendants -- the federal and state governments and the local school board -- also have the option of appealing the ruling to the full appeals court or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. Attorney John K. Vincent said his office was "reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision."
"We will consult with the Department of Justice in Washington concerning our options in overturning this decision," he said.
Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
CNN NewsPass Video
• Man behind landmark pledge ruling
MORE STORIES
• Pledge back in court
• Mom: Girl not harmed by pledging 'under God'
RESOURCES
• Justice Department's filing (PDF)
• On the Scene: Toobin: Pledge ruling likely 'dead on arrival'
• CNN Access: Litigant explains why he brought Pledge suit
• History of the Pledge
• Read the court decision: Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al.
(FindLaw) (PDF)
• Judges in Pledge of Allegiance decision
EXTRA INFORMATION
• Gallery: A look at the three-judge panel that made the ruling
EXTRA INFORMATION
A look at the three judges who made the ruling
LEGAL RESOURCES
Latest Legal News
Law Library
FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes
Outraged lawmakers on both sides of the aisle blasted the ruling as "outrageous," "nuts," and "stupid." The U.S. Senate was so outraged by the decision that it passed a resolution 99-0 "expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance" and asking Senate counsel to "seek to intervene in the case." (Full story)
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"
At one point late Wednesday about 100-150 House members, mostly Republicans, gathered on the steps outside the Capitol and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in a show of support. (GOP to blame Democrats)
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said President Bush believes the ruling is "ridiculous."
"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," Fleischer said.
"I think this decision will not sit well with the American people. Certainly, it does not sit well with the president of the United States." (More reactions to ruling)
Legal reasoning cited
Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"
The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." (More on pledge's history)
The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that said students cannot hold religious invocations because it violates the Constitution. (High court on pledge)
In this case, the appeals court said, the lower court's decision to throw out the case found that "the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs" -- a precedent the appeals court said is not supported by the recent Supreme Court decisions.
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative," the court said in its decision.
"To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
The case had been filed against the United States, Congress, California, two school districts and its officials by Michael Newdow, an atheist whose daughter attends public school in Elk Grove, California, just outside Sacramento. (Why he filed lawsuit)
Dissenting opinion
The government said the phrase "under God" had minimal religious content.
But the appeals court said that teachers having classrooms reciting the pledge did not pass the coercion test. The court also said that an atheist or a holder of certain non-Judeo-Christian beliefs could see it as an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
Newdow said he was pleased with the decision. "I'll keep fighting to uphold the Constitution," he told CNN.
The three-judge panel was not unanimous in the ruling. (More on the judges)
Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, who agreed with some elements of the decision but disagreed with the overall opinion, said phrases such as "under God" or "In God We Trust" have "no tendency to establish religion in this country," except in the eyes of those who "most fervently would like to drive all tincture of religion out of the public life of our polity."
"My reading of the stelliscript [majority ruling] suggests that upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings," Fernandez wrote.
"'God Bless America' and 'America the Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!"
The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.
Outrage on Capitol Hill
In Washington, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, called the court's decision "crazy" and "outrageous." If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, he predicted the appeal would not stand.
"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.
Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said, "Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong."
Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, also blasted the court, saying the decision "doesn't make good sense to me."
"I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed."
im a catholic and i dont think this is right...i mean, if your goth, then DONT SAY THE ALLEGIENCE...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-10-19 at 20:00:23
So nonbelievers are not truely Americans eh?
According to the article, the "under god" was added to battle against communism, not atheists. Thus, the "under god" has absolutely no power now and it's stupid to have it anyway. It promotes religion which is illegal within a public school system.
It's not whether or not you have to say it; it's the fact that it exists. It's unconstitutional.
I might be reading wrong, but I think the article said the founder fathers were religious? I can assure you this is not true. Most of them were deists.
According to the article, the "under god" was added to battle against communism, not atheists. Thus, the "under god" has absolutely no power now and it's stupid to have it anyway. It promotes religion which is illegal within a public school system.
It's not whether or not you have to say it; it's the fact that it exists. It's unconstitutional.
I might be reading wrong, but I think the article said the founder fathers were religious? I can assure you this is not true. Most of them were deists.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2005-10-19 at 20:15:12
I think we should ditch the Pledge of Alligence and go for a Pledge of Thinking for Yourself.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2005-10-19 at 20:22:31
If you are American citizen you are an American.
CheeZe you obviously are confusing the freedom of religion with something else. Everyone has the freedom of religion, that hasn't been breached. I don't understand why the government can't be affiliated with a certain religion.
Back in the day, people could NOT choose their relligion and were forced to follow certain rituals etc... I don't see why?
Anyways, the Pledge of Allegiance says "Under god", it could mean any god... your T.V could be someones "god"
If you type in Define: God into google it spits out one of these definitions
One of the definitions of worshipped is ...
So, in essence, anything you like alot, spend time with is a god.
CheeZe you obviously are confusing the freedom of religion with something else. Everyone has the freedom of religion, that hasn't been breached. I don't understand why the government can't be affiliated with a certain religion.
Back in the day, people could NOT choose their relligion and were forced to follow certain rituals etc... I don't see why?
Anyways, the Pledge of Allegiance says "Under god", it could mean any god... your T.V could be someones "god"
If you type in Define: God into google it spits out one of these definitions
QUOTE(Google)
idol: a material effigy that is worshipped
One of the definitions of worshipped is ...
QUOTE(Google)
a feeling of profound love and admiration
So, in essence, anything you like alot, spend time with is a god.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2005-10-19 at 20:38:42
Ah, but it's strictly montheistic by definition. What about the Hindus?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dr.Shotgun on 2005-10-19 at 20:46:52
under God is in fact a religious statement. Since, by the Constitution, the United States of America is a secular government, I logically follows that we should take it out of the Pledge, as well as off the currency. If your belief system needs to be reinforced by the governement, than go start a theocracy.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-10-19 at 21:02:18
QUOTE
I don't understand why the government can't be affiliated with a certain religion.
The government cannot promote any religion. I think you're confused in the wording of "freedom of religion". It also means "freedom from religion".
QUOTE
Anyways, the Pledge of Allegiance says "Under god", it could mean any god... your T.V could be someones "god"
The article specifically says:
QUOTE
"To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice and -- since 1954 -- monotheism."
QUOTE
Back in the day, people could NOT choose their relligion and were forced to follow certain rituals etc... I don't see why?
Why what?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-10-19 at 21:03:18
The original intention of the 'Freedom of Religion' that the United States allowed was basically the branches of Christianity. Back when the constitution was made, they didn't expect immigrants from China or India.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2005-10-19 at 21:49:06
under god wasnt even int he pledge until we put it in their in fear of communist (as cheeze said (i think)) Also, don't see the big deal just dont say under god. even some of my teachers when i was younger told us that we had to stand for the pledge of allegience but it was an option to say it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-10-19 at 22:42:31
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Oct 19 2005, 06:15 PM)
I think we should ditch the Pledge of Alligence and go for a Pledge of Thinking for Yourself.
[right][snapback]337286[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]337286[/snapback][/right]
Nah. The titles too long. You could try something more like, Pledge of Philosophy, which seems to apply to most groups, or a Pledge of...um.. The Daily Show? Yeah, that could work.
QUOTE(Felagund @ Oct 19 2005, 06:38 PM)
Ah, but it's strictly montheistic by definition. What about the Hindus?
[right][snapback]337318[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]337318[/snapback][/right]
Eh, sorry to burst your blubber my friend, but I've been studying Hindu religion recently in order to understand Hindu literature and beliefs as part of my English class, and we recently covered Hinduism in AP World History... It states that the three Gods in Hindu Religion, are actually just 3 variants or sub-versions of their one god, Brahma I think they called it. It's basically one God with 3 different forms. So yeah, they are also monotheistic, but it's commonly mistakened that they're polytheistic.
CheeZe is quite right. Under God is unconstitutional indeed, and I might be able to tell you why if could only find my old history book... But nevermind that. Adding God means adding religion. Religion has always resulted in chaotic things. Don't avoid it by saying your religion doesn't promote that. That has never mattered. Religious conflict has always led to some form of violence, hate, or just plain idiocy. Don't believe me? Read the news sometime, or google "religious conflict". I'm sure you'll find something.
That's also a reason for why should we try not to include it in government. Not only does it restrict the peoples rights, but provokes their beliefs. Anything that could bring chaos into what is supposed to be an orderly society means trouble. It's best to either tackle it immediatly, or avoid it entirely. Though often we're forced to go through with the former.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-10-19 at 23:16:51
QUOTE(FallenDreamer @ Oct 19 2005, 08:42 PM)
Nah. The titles too long. You could try something more like, Pledge of Philosophy, which seems to apply to most groups, or a Pledge of...um.. The Daily Show? Yeah, that could work.
Eh, sorry to burst your blubber my friend, but I've been studying Hindu religion recently in order to understand Hindu literature and beliefs as part of my English class, and we recently covered Hinduism in AP World History... It states that the three Gods in Hindu Religion, are actually just 3 variants or sub-versions of their one god, Brahma I think they called it. It's basically one God with 3 different forms. So yeah, they are also monotheistic, but it's commonly mistakened that they're polytheistic.
CheeZe is quite right. Under God is unconstitutional indeed, and I might be able to tell you why if could only find my old history book... But nevermind that. Adding God means adding religion. Religion has always resulted in chaotic things. Don't avoid it by saying your religion doesn't promote that. That has never mattered. Religious conflict has always led to some form of violence, hate, or just plain idiocy. Don't believe me? Read the news sometime, or google "religious conflict". I'm sure you'll find something.
That's also a reason for why should we try not to include it in government. Not only does it restrict the peoples rights, but provokes their beliefs. Anything that could bring chaos into what is supposed to be an orderly society means trouble. It's best to either tackle it immediatly, or avoid it entirely. Though often we're forced to go through with the former.
[right][snapback]337468[/snapback][/right]
Eh, sorry to burst your blubber my friend, but I've been studying Hindu religion recently in order to understand Hindu literature and beliefs as part of my English class, and we recently covered Hinduism in AP World History... It states that the three Gods in Hindu Religion, are actually just 3 variants or sub-versions of their one god, Brahma I think they called it. It's basically one God with 3 different forms. So yeah, they are also monotheistic, but it's commonly mistakened that they're polytheistic.
CheeZe is quite right. Under God is unconstitutional indeed, and I might be able to tell you why if could only find my old history book... But nevermind that. Adding God means adding religion. Religion has always resulted in chaotic things. Don't avoid it by saying your religion doesn't promote that. That has never mattered. Religious conflict has always led to some form of violence, hate, or just plain idiocy. Don't believe me? Read the news sometime, or google "religious conflict". I'm sure you'll find something.
That's also a reason for why should we try not to include it in government. Not only does it restrict the peoples rights, but provokes their beliefs. Anything that could bring chaos into what is supposed to be an orderly society means trouble. It's best to either tackle it immediatly, or avoid it entirely. Though often we're forced to go through with the former.
[right][snapback]337468[/snapback][/right]
Just like chrisitanity... Father, Son, Holy Spiriit.
On a similar note, why are people so bent out of shape over such trivial things these days?
Just because slavery, forced labour and the whatnot has been abolished in the west people think there should start looking for things that make them angry?
The masses now have too much free time on there hands, the answer to america's "Incredibly stupid lawsuits" problem... Simple, insitute a draft. No more of these massive weinies in the country to care, people with families have too much of a live to care anyway.
Maybe another way, publicly execute Jack the killer of "violent" videogames. Cut off the head and the body will die.
Maybe just a pipedream...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by FallenDreamer on 2005-10-19 at 23:48:35
QUOTE(Syphon @ Oct 19 2005, 09:16 PM)
Just like chrisitanity... Father, Son, Holy Spiriit.
On a similar note, why are people so bent out of shape over such trivial things these days?
Just because slavery, forced labour and the whatnot has been abolished in the west people think there should start looking for things that make them angry?
The masses now have too much free time on there hands, the answer to america's "Incredibly stupid lawsuits" problem... Simple, insitute a draft. No more of these massive weinies in the country to care, people with families have too much of a live to care anyway.
Maybe another way, publicly execute Jack the killer of "violent" videogames. Cut off the head and the body will die.
Maybe just a pipedream...
[right][snapback]337498[/snapback][/right]
On a similar note, why are people so bent out of shape over such trivial things these days?
Just because slavery, forced labour and the whatnot has been abolished in the west people think there should start looking for things that make them angry?
The masses now have too much free time on there hands, the answer to america's "Incredibly stupid lawsuits" problem... Simple, insitute a draft. No more of these massive weinies in the country to care, people with families have too much of a live to care anyway.
Maybe another way, publicly execute Jack the killer of "violent" videogames. Cut off the head and the body will die.
Maybe just a pipedream...
[right][snapback]337498[/snapback][/right]
Pipedream. In this case, there are thousands upon thousands of heads. And they continue to grow in numbers. Ever since the term 1337 was coined, things have just been going downhill...*sigh*
I don't think people would go look for stuff to get mad over. What kind of idiot would do that? The whole Under God thing isn't really that important either, but we can discuss it if we want to, it's still a legitemate topic and an annoyance nonetheless. Although I wouldn't really care, my highschool doesn't have us recite the pledge of alliegence.
As for stupid laws, truth be told, they really are stupid. Politicians make them stupid (in terms of overall effect) in their own favor. Sometimes I wish our political language was seperate from the one we use most often. Take Chinese for instance. The reason their language is so hard to learn is because of how precise it is. They have an exact word for just about everything. There's no way to fiddle around in written chinese law or politics because of that. Or so they say. Skilled politicians are the ones that know how to cover their tracks, bend things in their favor, and use words and terms without leaks or openings. That's also a reason for why some bills aren't passed. They're so poorly written, or simply not done well enough, that leaks and loopholes can be found in them.
And what's the point of instituting a draft? I really don't see the reasoning behind that logic. Unless of course, you're being illogical. Then it's a different story.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-10-20 at 02:28:34
I would like to know why the phrase 'under god' promotes religion....
how? Most people don't even know they are saying under god during the pledge. Its only the few minority that complain just becuase THEY don't like it and think our constitution protects them from it.
PLease tell me how it promotes religion. Does it say "BE A CATHOLIC, BE A CHRISTAIN, BE JEWISH, BE MUSLEM, BE HINDU , BE ETC..."?????
The answer is, NO.
Oh, and if you didn't know already America is one of the most religious countries in the world based upon how many people are religious and the diversity we have. Since when do minorites rule over majorities???
how? Most people don't even know they are saying under god during the pledge. Its only the few minority that complain just becuase THEY don't like it and think our constitution protects them from it.
PLease tell me how it promotes religion. Does it say "BE A CATHOLIC, BE A CHRISTAIN, BE JEWISH, BE MUSLEM, BE HINDU , BE ETC..."?????
The answer is, NO.
Oh, and if you didn't know already America is one of the most religious countries in the world based upon how many people are religious and the diversity we have. Since when do minorites rule over majorities???
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-10-20 at 02:44:39
The "under god" clause of the Pledge forces you to acknowledge the existence of a God, which violates the rights of polytheists and atheists alike. True, you are not forced to recite the pledge, but you are certainly subject to extreme peer pressure (especially in states such as Mississippi, where well over 90% of students attend a Christian church on a regular basis) to do so. There is absolutely no reason to have to swear "under god" when showing patriotism to your country.
I fully back the 9th Circuit Court's decision but would like to point out it is old news, the ruling occurred back in June 2002.
I fully back the 9th Circuit Court's decision but would like to point out it is old news, the ruling occurred back in June 2002.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dr.Shotgun on 2005-10-20 at 07:02:34
Not just that S.T.A.R.S, we are a secular governement, therefore, acknowldeging God in any official form is violation of secularism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-10-20 at 07:56:48
QUOTE
I would like to know why the phrase 'under god' promotes religion....
Sure. Name another organization that promotes "god" that has no relation to games. Nor anything else that is "nonfiction". (<-- lol)
QUOTE
how? Most people don't even know they are saying under god during the pledge.
It doesn't matter how many people know. The fact that some know it's unconstitutional automatically allows legal issues to be involved.
QUOTE
Its only the few minority that complain just becuase THEY don't like it and think our constitution protects them from it.
It's not that we don't like it. It's more like, I don't want to be exposed to something like this. I will not suffer for something that is unconstitutional. I don't think you would either. The only reason you have different opinions on this is because you believe in the constitution and religion. So the "under god" phrase for you is already given. To me, it's nothing but promoting religion.
QUOTE
Oh, and if you didn't know already America is one of the most religious countries in the world based upon how many people are religious and the diversity we have. Since when do minorites rule over majorities???
Since the issue became unconstitutional.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MapUnprotector on 2005-10-20 at 18:15:03
It's just my opinion, but I think the people are against this are just being kind of dumb. No need to make a big deal out of saying the words "under god", but if people wanted to take it to the Supreme Court I ain't going to stop them. It doesn't affect me at all if I say under god or not. Hell, I don't even have to be religious to say under god. I'm also sure many people won't even stop saying "under god" at least in my class, because they don't give a damn.
So yes, it is probably violating the constitution, but I'm myself am not going out of my way to take the words out. But I believe it is equally fair that people want it to be taken out, it's perfectly reasonable.
Also, goddidit.
So yes, it is probably violating the constitution, but I'm myself am not going out of my way to take the words out. But I believe it is equally fair that people want it to be taken out, it's perfectly reasonable.
Also, goddidit.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2005-10-20 at 18:59:26
At times like this I realise how much I like living in a country with such an obscure pledge of alegence you could be allied to anyone.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by warhammer40000 on 2005-10-20 at 19:38:25
Why dont the athiests or whatever uptight blamheads who dont want to say "Under God", just not say that part? Nobody's ever happy...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2005-10-20 at 20:31:04
There are bigger political things to worry about. This is nothing. The government is doing far worse unconstitutional things. Go talk about them instead.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2005-10-20 at 20:48:32
I hate people who complain about the stupidest crap. Who the 
cares if it's in the pledge of alliegence. People get way to worked up over stupid crap like 2 words. If your an atheist you think its all bull crap anyways so why do you care? If you do belive in a religion that is monotheistic than "God" can reffer to whoever you belive in/worship. If you belive in a polytheistic religion than i don't know, maybe add an s to "God" when you say it. Or just dont say that part of the pledge.
cares if it's in the pledge of alliegence. People get way to worked up over stupid crap like 2 words. If your an atheist you think its all bull crap anyways so why do you care? If you do belive in a religion that is monotheistic than "God" can reffer to whoever you belive in/worship. If you belive in a polytheistic religion than i don't know, maybe add an s to "God" when you say it. Or just dont say that part of the pledge.Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2005-10-20 at 23:18:13
I havent said the pledge of allegience in nearly 2 years. I refuse to say it, as I don't pay attention to what I say. It's like saying (sorry for any slams on the catholic religion, dunno if you still do this -.-) 30 hail mary's. By the 3rd or 4th, it means NOTHING but simple reiteration. I stand for it, only because I get yelled at otherwise.
If you dont like it, just don't say it. Period. Stop wasting government funds on lawsuits, when there are more important issues at hand.
If you dont like it, just don't say it. Period. Stop wasting government funds on lawsuits, when there are more important issues at hand.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2005-10-21 at 04:17:22
The pledge of allegiance has multiple purposes, Kow, one of which unites you with your fellow peers.
Another reason the pledge is recited because it slowly makes you committed to your country/cause. What do people REALLY fight for in the US Army, without the structure of importance of the country, people would not be willing to risk their lives.
To put it into a closer perspective, if you would die in a battle, your close family and friends would hear about you and you wuold be hereoic to them.. would the rest of the USA care? Nope!
Another reason the pledge is recited because it slowly makes you committed to your country/cause. What do people REALLY fight for in the US Army, without the structure of importance of the country, people would not be willing to risk their lives.
To put it into a closer perspective, if you would die in a battle, your close family and friends would hear about you and you wuold be hereoic to them.. would the rest of the USA care? Nope!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Freedawk on 2005-10-21 at 07:18:07
well uh...they shouldnt say the pledge at the part of "Under God"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EzDay281 on 2005-10-21 at 10:41:16
QUOTE
Why dont the athiests or whatever uptight blamheads who dont want to say "Under God", just not say that part? Nobody's ever happy...
Because it's still unconstitutional, regardless of whether people have to do it.
Also, some would believe(though I'm not saying I'm agreeing or disagreeing with this idea) that the more unconstituional acts are allowed to pass, the easier it would be for America to eventualy shift to fascism or such.
QUOTE
I havent said the pledge of allegience in nearly 2 years. I refuse to say it, as I don't pay attention to what I say. It's like saying (sorry for any slams on the catholic religion, dunno if you still do this -.-) 30 hail mary's. By the 3rd or 4th, it means NOTHING but simple reiteration. I stand for it, only because I get yelled at otherwise.
If you dont like it, just don't say it. Period. Stop wasting government funds on lawsuits, when there are more important issues at hand.
If you dont like it, just don't say it. Period. Stop wasting government funds on lawsuits, when there are more important issues at hand.
The second sentence there is the most important one; people generaly don't pay attention to what they're saying. Refer to my above response.
QUOTE
well uh...they shouldnt say the pledge at the part of "Under God"
... what?