One more run at the pledge of allegience.
 

I thought we were through this..

I'm inclined to agree that it is unconstitutional. Does anyone know if you can refuse to put your hand on the bible when vowing in court?

The can choose to "affirm" (4th paragraph from bottom) rather than swear on the bible. I'd rather, however, swear on a bible than have the original meaning of testimony. I would hate to be a Bailiff in those days.

"Under god" whatever... IMHO, the Pledge of Allegiance is trite and meaningless.

It's a vow. It should make you tremble in your shoes when you say it.

Maybe the veterans around here can recall what they felt like when they said this, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Both times I did it, my legs shook and my heart pounded. I knew what it meant to say the words.

The pledge... kids say it every day without truly understanding the weight of the words they are using. IMHO, they shouldn't be saying it at all, "under God" or otherwise.

I'm halfway with fnaqzna on this one. I don't believe we should do away with the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do believe that the meaning of the pledge should be hammered home before it's taught to students. It's a pledge to stand behind your nation, come what may, and should be respected.

I'm angered by just about every government usage of the word "God". I think religion is a monumental joke, and I get upset when I hear the government including it in anything that they do. It makes me feel very much that my elected officials don't give two shits about what I think.

Agreed. As a kid I found it annoying as hell to stand up and say it every morning, and I always fell silent when "under god" came around. My dad was a federal police officer and loved this country, including my freedom to believe what I wanted. My parents weren't hippies or commies, just regular people that let me believe in what I wanted to. The pledge was boring and it made me feel more ostracized being an atheist.

I agree. I think it's a joke when courts are made to take down the 10 commandments from their walls, but then you have to swear on a Bible. The hell? It makes no sense.

Then during presidential speaches. "And God bless America." What about seperation of church and state you idiot?

I do believe in some higher power or powers although I'm not sure what. But I think it's insane to say one thing (seperation of church and state) but then do another (and god bless america)

IMHO it should be >insert diety here< so that everyone is happy.

I can say god, you can say allah, yet another can say mother earth, another can say nothing.

then all the kids that chose whatever is hated du jour can get beaten up on the playground.

God?

Who is this God you speak of?

There's no reason why "Under God" should be in the pledge. Pledging alleigance to gods does not belong in public schools.

I'm a Christian.
However;
Personally, I'm very much in favor of the seperation of church and state. Though very patriotic, I don't want the government getting involved with or in any religion. I'm very glad the establishment clause is there. There are not only political reasons for this, but Biblical reasons as well. See Romans 13, for example, or the famous phrase, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" spoken by none other than Jesus Christ himself.
However;
If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd vote to remand the case back to the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals, and tell them that the pledge of allegience is not a violation of the establishment clause, both because of prior court precedent and because of the original framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights intent.

I'm not running for office, even though that sounds like a classic fence straddling politician answer. I've given considerable thought to it, and that's my conclusion.

(edit: oh, yeah, I wonder if any news stories on this will talk about how in the Supreme Court building, above the justices, is a big picture of Moses and the ten Commandments?)

You know, I used to not give a shit about this stupid stuff, but religion and government are supposed to be separate.

It's absolutely unconstitutional. And anyone who can read would say the same thing.

I wish I had to go to court now just so I could refuse to put my hand on that... uhm. Well, I'll keep my opinion of that book to myself.

I think most of what the A.C.L.U. does is a total waste of time.

Yes, I understand the principle of what their organization stands for but I'm basing my opinion on their actions.

Fighting boyscouts,Christmas manger scenes and the word God.

give me a fucking break and get over yourselves

Hmmmmm.... one nation, under Grumpy Old Dude?.... :crazy:

Weellll, I grew up saying it "under God", and have trouble leaving it out anymore. But, as simply a matter of consistency, the reference should be removed.... equal protection and all that stuff.

I do object, though, to the notion that the Constitution guarantees that we be protected from all religious references. The concept is FREEDOM OF RELIGION , NOT freedom from religion. And, by speaking "under God", we are not promoting any particular faith, therefore, no relief is neccessary.

I've gone over the US Constitution with a fine tooth comb and a search button, I don't find anything about the separation of church and state. Freedom of religious expression yes, but not separation of church and state.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...tml#amendments

Thanks for posting that Cythetiq.
I'm not really religious but I get sick of all the whiners saying they're being repressed by religion in the United States.
At the risk of sounding like an uneducated redneck:
THEN MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE !

The Constitution was based on Christian principles.
That's a fact.
The 10 commandments are religious based.
That's a fact.

I find it ignorant how so many people dismiss principles, values or morals that were originated by Christians as invalid or inferior.

Please, You're blinded by some kind of idiotic hate.
It's ridiculous and funny how the left wing liberals always go off if you mention God. I'll post a link to a hillarious article about that soon.

Two words for everyone else.

God

Jesus

Um...that runs completely, 100% counter to the intentions of the founding fathers. At least you KNOW you sound like an uneducated redneck ;)

Bullpucky. Most of the founding fathers were deists, not Christians, and masses of people who came here in the first place were escaping religious repression in other countries. It wasn't just that they were not free to practice thier religion, it was that religion was established by the state, and religious dissent was considered political dissent.

Nobody's disputing that - in fact, that's the reason why they are being challenged as displays on public property.

Nobody's dismissing the principles themselves as invalid. I think you're kind of missing the point of the argument in your rush to climb up on your high horse.

Er.....ok. And this is relevant how?
:rolleyes:

Can you please explain the meaning of this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion = they cannot create laws that specify any religion.

that is not the same thing as "separation of church and state."

in this argument, "Under God" IMHO expresses a specific religion, but in the cases of the boy bowing his head before eating his lunch at the cafeteria, it does not apply.

I don't care for the PofA anyways. Not that it states "Under God" but "One Nation under God". Like the rest of the nations aren't if we are?
Oh, this is a whole other topic, don't get me started.

Politicians always have to find something that's unconstitutional. This proves the blatant, everchanging views of right and wrong, making the definition of right and wrong all screwed up and lost and that right and wrong is just an opinion.

I can't find that article.

It was a joke about moving.
If you can't take a joke......you know the rest.

The Constitution wasn't based on Religious principles ?

Oh....says you........so it must be correct.
This link is a religious site but displays some good intelligent facts on why you are wrong.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/herit17.htm

I don't have the time nor do I feel the need for quote and retort.
That's a tactic usually used by people I find that I rarely respect.

ta ta

P.S.

About the ten commandments.

Yeah...they're bad and should be removed.

uhm..because they're religious based

so...

uhm.....

therefore they're bad

the content doesn't matter

but.......No one is dismissing anything here.......

naaaa......

and the laws of our land weren't based on or from these 10 commandments either or religious morals

naaaaaa

cuz thats religion ! :lol:

I'm done with this thread too

As you may be aware, democracy is inherently not christian. God doesn't put things up for a vote. God doesn't care if there exists a supermajority in favor of wealth as a means of salvation. The church's structure is not democratic unless the church is progressive. To claim that america was founded on christian values ignores the fact that god is at best a benevolent dictator, not a president elected by the term.

America is NOT a christian nation. America pretends to be christian, but you only need to see a single homeless person to know that christianity in america is a matter of convenience rather than conviction.

The ten commandments have no place hanging in any public building aside from a museum. "Under god" in the pledge is wrong too. We are one nation, but we are not under god.

Maybe the phrase should be in there, maybe it shouldn't. I personally say leave it.

But i do have one question this brought up that i never understood. from the original story : How is something that means nothing to you offensive? If you are an atheist and (as far i i understand) dont believe in god, why are you offended by the name being mentioned? I dont believe in the BoogieMan, but im not offended by kids that do...

Also, if we changed capital "G" - God, into lower case "g" - god, would the phrase then still be "offensive"? If you call him Allah, he his still your god. If you call him Christ, he is still your god. If you believe there is one higher power, but dont think christianity has it right, you still believe in god. Christians tend to refer to God as a name for the power. But if you use it a a position or title, rather than a name, it seems to me that you have now changed the meaning dramatically. No longer does it say we are a christian country, but that we are a religious country.

I dunno, maybe these are the ramblings of a madman, but it seems to me people are getting there panties in a bunch over something that really isn't a big deal.

I don't believe in God. I do believe in freedom of religious expression. If I student wants to pray in school, I don't have a problem with that. If a student wants to read a bible on the bus trip home, I don't have a problem with that. But, I don't agree with "under God," being in the pledge. I also wouldn't agree with a teacher (at a public school) having their class pray. Those are examples of government endorsing a form of religion, and IMHO, that is wrong. That's my two cents.

Good question. To me, its offensive, because its demeaning to the whole thing. If you really don't believe in god, but do believe in this country, then swearing alligance to this country on something you don't believe in is meaningless. Its like swearing your love for your significant other on a stale pizza crust you found under the couch. Gee, thanks, you love me that much?

On the other hand, in the grand scheme of things, I think this is a moot point. I mean, who the hell cares? No one is forcing you to say that part of the pledge... if you don't mean it, then don't say it.

/shrug

Where are the people talking about money being unconstitutional? Have a problem with the pledge and you should have a problem with In God We Trust.

Thank you for saying that. People tend to overlook the fact that "seperation of church and state" is an interpretation of the first amendment, not word for word in the first amendment itself.

I've heard this debate many times, and just about every case, someone always says, "Get over yourself" or something to that effect (usually because atheists, or anyone else offended by the "Under God" part is a minority). The other thing is always the bit about founding fathers being Christian.

Well I want to comment on both of these real quick.

1) "Get over yourself"... Let me direct you to James Madison's "Federalist Papers" which consistantly warn against the "Tyranny of the majority". Just because it is a democracy does not mean the popular opinion can overwhelm the minority by mob-rule.

2) Christian nation blah blah: As mentioned earlier, many of the founding fathers were deists, not Christian. And even if they were, that's a retarded argument, because, for example, they were also slaveholders (ie not infallible).

But besides this fact, if I recall correctly, the pledge of allegience was created until after the Civil War (as a reminder to children to not start another one). When it was created, the "under god" part was nowhere to be found in it (GEE I WONDER WHY!?). Yet during the Cold War, it was inserted during a frenzy of religious patriotism because Communism was Atheist. And naturally the American logic was... "Well shit, communism is bad... ATHEISM IS BAD! QUICK! MAKE EVERYTHING MORE CHRISTIAN!!! WE WILL DEFEAT THOSE GODLESS RUSKIES!!"

So really, the pledge of allegience has nothing to do with the founding fathers of the country, and even if it did, the God part wasn't put in until mid-20th century.

I rest my case.

*gavel gavel*

The whole reasoning behind the separation of church and state was to prevent the church from controlling the government. If you paid attention in history class, you realize how powerful the church used to be in Europe, and if you read the newspapers, you know how powerful another church is in the middle east.

That being said, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the majority of its citizens still believe in those principles. For this reason, I am in favor of leaving the phrase "under God" in the POA. I also respect the right of anyone not liking the phrase to not say it. But we can't please everyone - just because it offends a small minority of people is no reason to take away something most people want. My biggest gripe about that phrase is that everyone says it as if there's a comma before it - There's not - It's:"One nation under God," not "One nation, under God."

A statue of the ten commandments at a courthouse, however, is different - it is a blatant display of religious laws on the very grounds where our secular laws are practiced and tested. IMO, that is an inappropriate placement of religious doctrine.

This country was founded on deist principals. No matter how hard you squint, you can't make deist be judeo christian. This country was also founded on slavery and genocide, maybe they should get a shout out too. I propose the line be amended: One nation under god, made possible by genocide, and supplemented by the institutional subjugation and forced labor of minorities, with liberty and justice for all.
Guess that last part doesn't really fit. Maybe we could just get rid of it. Well, as long as we're shooting for accuracy, right fellas?

I know we all would love to be experts in constitutional law, but i was under the impression that it was the court's job to interpret it. That's one of the real foundations of this country.
I'm sure we'd all love literal interpretations though.

I know that all of you pro-gun literal interpretationists are members of well regulated militias.

According to the first amendment we should all be protected when we yell fire in a crowded theater.

The 6th:I guess if you want to get literal up in this mofo, then even the "unlawful combatants" at gitmo have the right to a speedy, public trial.

8th amendment:Is setting a prohibitively expensive bail on purpose amount to excess? I dunno, but it happens all the time.

The 10th:Heh, yeah, okay.

The point is that the constitution in action is different from the constitution on paper. This is not a new or inherently bad phenomena. Any argument about what it actually says that ignores how it actually works in the real world is irrelevant.

P.S.
In god we trust on money is not only violation of the separation, it is also bullshit. Unless of course the money is referring to itself when it uses the word god.

People aren't perfect.
To claim that this countrys constitution wasn't founded on religious morals because most of the founding fathers were deists is just flat out incorrect. To say that good moral laws are invalid because some of the signers owned slaves is ridiculous.

Also, I've seen twice now people making false claims with nothing to back up what they say about the religious affiliations of our founding fathers.

One person posted a website that offered proof that these people did in fact have religious based philosophies.
To my recollection people were even more fanatical about religion in those days than they are now.
Hence; The witch burnings, etc.

Anyway here is some more proof and research that shows the founders did in fact have religious connections.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/qtable.htm

I love the way people just blurt out claims that the founding fathers were mostly deists and expect this to be taken as the truth.
No, they weren't.
You are wrong.



Then they make claims that if some people break their own moral code that it invalidates the law.

Please, I'm much more intelligent than to believe that.

ok ?

thanks

I hope you can see the difference between the phrase "religious morals" and the phrase "christian morals". One is inclusive and the other is not. Nobody's claiming that religion didn't play a part in the formation of america, just that christianity can't pretend to take all of the credit.

Besides, even if you are convinced that the ffs were all purebreed christians, you still can't claim that under god is constitutional based on current interpretations.
The argument that "under god" should be there because this country was founded on such and such values is ethnocentrism hidden behind a selective appeal for historical accuracy.
This plea for accuracy is selective because nobody who uses it ever wants to mention all the shitty things that were necessary for our country to develop as it did.
If we want to be accurate we should acknowledge the good and the bad. If we want to be constitutional we should not acknowledge any god in official pledges.

I'm not sure where it was said that broken moral codes are equated with invalidated laws.

btw, what do you think about "under god" in the pledge? We know you're intelligent, perhaps you could spare us the feigned outrage and give us the intelligent view on the matter.

thanks;)

btw, i hope that username wasn't created for the sole purpose of posting that message. Or maybe you're the march 24th version of surfer.:)

The pledge gives no specific mention to religion, so it is no endorsement. All it does is call mention to God the creator. If you people have read the Declaration of Independence its the same God (non-denomination/non-affiliated) that is the creator of man, the same God who endowed us with all our rights.

Thomas Jefferson- "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

ANNUIT COEPTIS

Just switch it back to the original and everyone should be happy. No more mention of God and you can still be patriotic and true to your country.

Religion in these issues is fine with many as long as it's the popular, main stream J/C type.

If a teacher in a public school started pushing Buddism or Druidism or somthing "out there" but not patently offensive, many of the "under God" crowd would be up in arms because it doesn't conform to their beliefs.

Yes, the "wall of separation" between church and state is a matter of interpretation, but it seems to me it was the interpretation at least some of the writers had in mind. TJ, f'rinstance, wrote thus to the Baptist Congregation of Danbury:
<blockquote><i>Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.</i></blockquote>
So Jefferson both repected a God, and wanted to keep him out of the actual practice of the gov't. I see no contradiction there. And that's where "Wall of Separation" comes from. Not the constitution, not legal proceedings. From one of the authors explaining it afterwards. Doesn't come much clearer than that.

IMHO it should be reverted back to the original pledge that was around before Congress dicked with it and added the "under god" part.

I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that mentioning god is not a reference to religion if you don't point out a specific denomination. Sounds a little far fetched to me. God is a vital part of many religions, mentioning a god is mentioning those religions. Mentioning a god is also an exclusion of any religion that is not specifically monotheistic.

The pledge itself is rediculous. Kids should have to recite the bill of rights or something, that would make more sense.

Too bad you're done, b/c I have to ask what you are trying to say here.

A) Nobody is saying the 10 commandments are "bad." They are saying that they should not be posted in public buildings as a purported symbol of this country's Christian foundations.

(PS: yes, the Supreme Court also has the 10 commandments in it, but they are shown alongside many other ancient sources of laws (non Judeo-Christian). It's all about context)

B) I am completely lost between "so...." and the first "naaaaaa"

C) The laws of the United States are definitely not based on the 10 commandments. Observe:

Here are the commandments (these seem to be a modernised and simplified version of the text, but the points are the same). Italicised text is my commentary on how they tie into US laws.

1. You shall have no other Gods before me

Well, that's directly counter to the establishment clause, so clearly US laws aren't based on this.

2. You shall not make for yourselves an idol

Ditto.

3. You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God

Hmmm... this isn't in our laws either, so still nothing.

4. Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy

Nope

Edit: come to think of it, some states had (and still have) so-called "blue laws" which prohibit sale of alcohol on Sundays, so maybe this one counts after all. I will revise below.

5. Honor your father and your mother

If by "honor" you mean "don't hit, kill or otherwise injure" then you have a winner. But otherwise no.

6. You shall not murder

Ah, here's one! Murder is prohibited in the 10 commandments and by law.

7. You shall not commit adultery

Score this a "maybe." I think adultery used to be illegal in some states, and it's still grounds for divorce everywhere.

8. You shall not steal

Yup.

9. You shall not give false testimony

Another "maybe." I think the original text refers to "false witness," but we'll go with testimony here. If we're talking about lying to police or lying in court, then we have a match. Otherwise, it's not illegal to lie.

10. You shall not covet

At first, I was going to give a generous "maybe" on the theory that "covet" might have originally meant something like "steal." But since stealing is already covered, as is adultery (the original is about coveting your nieghbor's wife and property), this can only really be about wanting to take things. No laws prevent that.

So, all in all, the 10 Commandments don't do all that well. Even counting the maybes, you only get 4 out of 10.

Edit: Make that 5 out of 10, if you count the blue laws.

And what of the 5 that count - are they inherently religious principles? Murder? Stealing? Lying to authorities? Adultery comes close, but I dare say the Judeo-Christian doesn't have a monopoly on that concept. The only one I see as arguably directly tied to the 10 commandments is the one about keeping the seventh day holy.

Edited to reflect the blue laws -- see above.

Interesting work; I'm surprised that I haven't seen anyone do this analysis before.

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.

It's ironic how someone who is known here or a mod can:
1. Insinuate that youre totally ignorant.
Make statements that you don't know what you're talking about.

2.Make totally false assumptions about you of which he/she knows nothing.

3. Tell you to go somewhere else and that you don't belong.

4. Make false claims that what you say is totally irrelevant to a topic when anyone with common sense could see the relevancy.

It's both ironic butt mostly hypocritical when the mods here fuck up my account because I called this person an idiot for the way he treated me in such a derogatory condescending manner.

Now, what is the problem with these statements ?

You didn't learn your lesson the first time around?

Some people just haven't taken the time and respect to notice the cool, clean effect of TFP.
And we keep it that way.
100% guaranteed......

is this a message board or a mouthwash? ;)

There is a distinct difference between implying that somebody doesn't know what they are talking about and calling them an idiot. Here's a hint: You probably could have said anything you wanted to to paint me as the moron that you think i am provided 1: it was relevant to the topic at hand and/or my position and 2: it was more substantial and arguable than simply calling me an idiot.

Also don't even pretend that you didn't make use of condescension either. How many :lol:'s did you use? I try to keep things civil, but i also try to match the tone of the person with which i am corresponding. If you can't take it, don't bring it to that level, or at least get some thicker skin.

The point is that the tfp, while quite able to handle the occasional heated discussion, is a place where normal name-calling just doesn't have any place.

Oh, I can take everything ignorant liberal blowhards can dish out.

Sometimes, I just like cutting to the chase........ :lol:

Just so that you self professed intellectuals will know the difference.

Adding " Under GOD" to the original content of the authors work was not censorship.

Try asking your mother what the definition of censorship means.

Such vitriol from someone who was just pewling about how they never got a fair shake. You apparently didn't learn your lesson either.

I'm not concerned with censorship here because this is an issue of constitutional compliance. You can try to paint it as censorship, but that doesn't make it about censorship.

I also find it curious that you're so anti-censorship considering that, while under one of your many psuedonyms, you called for the censorship of howard stern.

besides, the government removing the words that the governmetn added is not censorship either. I dunno where the hell the censorship idea came from, but it's very misguided.

The government altered the author's prose, the government should remove what it messed up. If you don't like what someone wrote, don't use it, and certainly don't change a few words to radically alter the meaning of the original writing.

my friend and i came up with this how about we replace one nation under god with

one nation under canada and above mexico

simple, sutle and not far from the changed original