Oh, I'm pretty sure someone has. Also, FYI, after the fact I remembered the blue laws in some states that prohibit sale of alcohol (and cigarettes?) on Sundays, so I added an extra point.

Agreed. And I hope as hell somebody takes the 'you can't bow your head' case to the supreme court, and it gets thrown out.

One might think that "under God" doesn't say what religion: but it is a statement that assumes the existance of God. To some, that is one big religion with lots of unimportant differences.

"The United States of America is guarded and protected by Kali. All those who oppose the USA also oppose Kali."

Now, many christians consider Kali to be something that doesn't exist. Do you think any of them would be offended by that being the pledge of allegance?

There exist religions that do not believe in some higher personifiable power.

Some do not believe in a single god. Some believe in a godess, and referring to her as a god is as bad as having 'satan' in the pledge of allegance. Some believe in the universe as one, with no personification. Some believe that all is illusion, and there is nothing besides you. Some are satanists, who believe that the rebellion of JHVH against Lucifer was partially successful.

But, they live in a Nation, under God.

The "under god" portion of the pledge was inserted into the pledge of allegance in order to attack godless communism. It was meant to exclude those who do not believe in god.

The pledge isn't unconstitutional.

The change made post WWII is.

well furthermore, why not change it to "one nation, under Satan?"

After all, the satanists don't believe god is the right god, they think satan is.

If you can tell me how "under god" encompasses christianity, polytheistic religions, satanists, AND athiests (who do not believe this is one nation under god because there would have to be a god for us to be under) then I'll drop my opposition to the pledge as written right now.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

having lived in such territory, it's covered as the basis for concern for the well being of the citizens as simply put as a day of rest.

I see it differently. That statement means that the government should not favor any religion or create laws that favor religion and they shouldn't shove religion in our faces, thus keeping them separate.

A perfect example is gay marriage. Now, as much as the thought of 2 guys getting it on disgusts me there is absolutely no reason why two men or women can't get married. This is America, and we are supposed to be free, right? The only reason people are against gay marriage is because of their religious beliefs. So isn't that creating a law that respects a religious establishment? And according to this:



it is absolutely 100% unconstitutional.

We don't see it differently I agree with you 100%.

I just disagree that people say the "separation of church and state is in the constitution" because it's not.

Last I checked, the Declaration of Independence, while an important document, is not the law in this country. So if you presenting it as support for God in the law, you're barking up an empty tree. Further, I think you will find that the framers of the Constitution, who were largely the same people who wrote the Declaration, kept God out of the Constitution. The difference is this:

The Declaration of Independence was targeted at the leaders of Europe - kings by divine right. We were claiming a divine right to human rights because that was what they would understand.

The Constitution was targeted at the (educated, white, landholding, male) people of America then and in the future, in the attempt to provide sufficient flexibilty to adapt to changing times, while keeping certain things off limits for all time. Among them was the establishment of a state religion.

Of course, you could merely be advocating revolution, in which case, I will just leave it alone.

I'm advocating that "God" in the past played an important role to our founders and to the country. And now you godless pinko scum are trying to take that away from us :p

I heard that they added the words god and creator to this in the fifties also. Probably to let the commies know that commies and capitalists are, indeed, not created equal.

No. I've seen the original in D.C. God is in there.

I know, i just forgot to use captain winky.;)

My bad.

I should have also pointed out that the declaration of independence is irrelevant in the context of "under god" in the pledge. Being that none of us know personally any of the ffs it is difficult to say how they might have felt about pledging to a nation under god.

We don't, however, have to resort to speculation to know that current interpretations of the constitution recognize a separation between church and state. I have yet to hear an argument on the matter that convincingly portrays "under god" as anything but violation of that separation.

The fact that it isn't an endorsement of any religion?

its not in the constitution but the bill of rights does state that no laws will be made to favor one religion over another.

bill of rights are the first 10 amendments of the constitution...

and the Law states congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This was sent to me today... I found it compelling. And FWIW the kings were king by Divine Right, so in order to legitimize our government the fore fathers had to speak in words that were understood by the royalty.

The knucklehead writes as if god were real.

I resent being called "pinko", but advocate away, God boy. :D

How is it not an endorsement of religion? How can you mention "god", the product of many religions, and not endorse religion?
It doesn't matter that they don't mention a specific god. The fact that it mentions a god at all excludes all non monotheistic religions. How is that not a violation?

It never fails.
A few people come into a thread displaying overly oninionated arrogance whisch is based strictly on their own opinion. They rarely and usually don't have any real concrete facts to back up their claims.
Then,a few others agree and compliment their ignorance and t they leave feeling justified.

:lol:

It never fails.
Some rookie with two posts makes sweeping generalizations and expects to be taken seriously.

I wonder how many of you God crybabies get angry when the F.C.C. tries to ban or censor certain words from public airwaves ?

*cue

now whine about how that's different.

Sure, I'll bite.

One is restricting speech by government.

The other is the restricting of speech by government.

I have no problems with government being in a straitjacket. It is big and powerful, it should be constrained as much as possible.

I have problems with people being in straitjackets.

Governments should not be free.
People should.

i wouldn't have any issue with that resolution either, but I'm trying to keep the vision of change being forward not going backwards.

No one here ever generalizes religion, stereotypes Christians or casts judgements on the use of the word "God". :rolleyes: :sarcasm:

Allowing smut on T.V. and the radio is freedom of speech but children praying in schools or saying God is what ?

I'm confused.

Please straighten me out because I must be densely ignorant.

Good one! And so true. . .


OK. No one says that a child can't say "god" in school. No one says that children cannot pray in school.

They DO say that the school can't TELL them to pray and the school can't TELL them to acknowledge a deity.

See the difference?

Now, the pledge presents a problem here because schools, requiring them to say the pledge including the "under god" part, are requiring students to acknowledge the existance of a deity. If the student does not believe in a deity, then the school is forcing religion onto that student. It's just the same as if the school told the kid to pray. It's wrong, and a stop should be put to it.



Let me put it this way. What if the pledge said "one nation, under Ba'al, indivisible. . . " Would you object to reciting that?

Really ?

I thought many schools banned prayer and even punished students for it. That some students were even forced to make their prayers an after curricular activity which was still frowned upon.
I seem to remember manger scenes being removed from some schools while allowing the candles for Hannukah and things for Kwaanza. People even want to change the name of Christmas vacation.

But, you don't see this as simple censorship and just plain petty idiocy ?

Also, it seems that if schools really do require that students recite this pledge, that there would be alot more objections to it. Merely the usage of 2 words "Under God"
(which I don't think was originally meant for people of only one faith to begin with)
seems quite petty to me and certainly not forcing anyone to believe in religion. I think liberals love to make mountains out of mole hills. I don't believe any children are getting traumitized or negatively influenced by it.

I find people using the censorship and freedom of speech excuse for people like Howard Stern and then flip flopping to remove anything religiously affililiated from public access very hypocritcal.

As Robin Williams would say, "it's ironical"

You're still missing the point, and confusing two separate issues.

There is no flip-flopping. People want free speech. Point one. People DO NOT WANT religion thrust upon them. Point two.

If you make a kid say, "under God", then you are forcing them to acknowledge (on some level) religion. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Some people do not want any sort of school-sponsored religious content. That means plays, christmas trees, candles, whatever. They want their "separation of church and state" but- while I think it's a good idea to keep the public schools free of religious influence- the idea is not backed up by anything (like the constitution) like they say it is (as has been pointed out in this thread already).

I for one encourage people to build all the privately-funded religious schools they want- but when it comes to publicly-funded education, keep all religion out.

BTW- I'm very religious, and Catholic, so don't pull "Godless Liberal" shit on me. :)

Surfin USA;)

No one was forced to pray outside of school. Schools were forced to not officially take part in and/or sponsor prayer. There is a difference. I agree that for cosistency's sake other religions shouldn't be represented either. Most places already refer to winter break as winter break. What's wrong with accuracy?

Painting this as an issue of censorship completely misses the whole point of this debate. This is about freedom from religion and keeping the goverment from endorsing one set of religions over another.

If? There are many places where reciting the pledge every day is mandatory. Individual students can opt out, but somebody has to say it. If you think there aren't any objections to this then you're not paying attention.



So your whole argument against it is that you think is petty? Well, if it's such a nonissue why do you care either way? Besides, just mentioning a god is an endorsement of monotheism and an exclusion of nonmonotheists. That shouldn't be difficult to understand.


Damn liberals, if only there was some way the government could just make them all shut the hell up. This isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue. This is about further defining the separation between the church and the state. I think people who see things only in terms of liberal vs. conservative are overly simplistic and easily manipulated. I'm not saying that this applies to you.

Probably because you don't really understand the difference between things that a private citizen can say and things that the goverment can say as defined by current constitutional interpretations.

As robin williams would say, "I neeeed moooooooore cooooocaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiine!"

P.S.

This was a nice thread but I have diamonds to sell and people to swindle.;)

you're just not getting this. The GOVERNMENT cannot censor the PEOPLE. There is nothing in the constitution that says the government cannot be censored.

No one is saying schoolchildren cannot hold religious beliefs. They are saying the school cannot stuff religious beliefs down the throats of school children. Really, the difference is patently obvious.

Could someone be so kind as to explain the purpose of the Pledge to me? Also, someone said that kids say it each day...what's that about? They make you say this in school every morning or something?

I just realized that i have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I firmly believe that you don't either. I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye though, so what's the point?

FYI, though. The idea that liberals hate religion is as close to reality as the idea that conservatives hate black people. Just because you and your ilk think it true doesn't make it true. Further, such stereotypes, while convenient in facilitating the "us vs them" dichotomy that makes us all feel better when we lack security, only take away from any kind of reasonable debate.

Back to the pledge, i have yet to hear a convincing, water-holding argument as to how "under god" is remotely constitutional in the context of current precedents and interpretations.

I'm not sure as to the actual purpose of the pledge. I can remember saying it every day in elementary school and personally, i think as it is used currently it does nothing except make a mockery of any other, serious meaningful pledge/oath. People learn to say it before they could possibly understand what it means. By the time i could understand it it was already such an unconscious thing that i could say it in my sleep. It is not binding. Currently it seems to serve no purpose other than to pacify those who would scream bloody murder if it ceased to exist.

I know exactly what I'm saying.
It's so simple most anyone could understand it.

Removing certain words of what an author has written is censorship.
Repressing children from the rights to pray or even mention the word God in school does not exhibit freedom of speech.
No one is forced to recite it.

Now, you can insult me with your derogatory and condescending remarks but I have not done so.

The Government can't censor the people ?
Tell Howard Stern.

THE AUTHOR DIDN'T WRITE IT! Check your history, congress added "under god" to the pledge in 1954. Removing words that the GOVERNMENT put in there and that the AUTHOR never wanted in there is not censoring the author.


No one is preventing children from praying in school READ the posts before you comment on them.

And yes, children are forced to recite the pledge. A first grader, when told to do something by his teacher, will feel obligated to do it, obviously. The teacher has no business obligating his students to acknowledge a religious deity.
Totally different scenario. Try to stick to the topic.

You're right, i know exactly what you're saying. I just don't know how it fits in with the pledge of alliegance and the constitutionality of the words "under god".

If you want to create a different thread about censorship and your love for howard stern and school born prayer by all means. I would recommend the politics board since it feels like we are there already. We have jacked this thread for long enough.

Profess my love for Howard Stern ?

**I had nothing nice to say, and yet I said something anyway.**

I'm done with this thread.

EDITED.

Because i'm better than that.