KnifeMissile

Here is the article.

Is not mentioning God everywhere institutionalizing the belief of God? This particular example was not necessary and was added quite recently for a rather stupid reason.

I think it is unconstitutional and should be removed. Then again, I'm not an American. Just out of curiosity, does this change anyone's opnion of my opnion?

Lebell

You really are worked up about a lot of things south of the border, aren't you?

Anyway, please don't just post links:

------------------------------------------

High Court to Decide if Pledge Is Legal
35 minutes ago

By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.


The case sets up an emotional showdown over God in the public schools and in public life. It will settle whether the phrase "one nation under God" will remain a part of the patriotic oath as it is recited in most classrooms.


The court will hear the case sometime next year.


The justices agreed to hear an appeal involving a California atheist whose 9-year-old daughter, like most elementary school children, hears the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily.


A national uproar followed a federal appeals court ruling last year that the reference to God made the pledge unconstitutional in public schools. That ruling, if allowed to stand, would strip the reference from the version of the pledge recited by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.


The First Amendment guarantees that government will not "establish" religion, wording that has come to mean a general ban on overt government sponsorship of religion in public schools and elsewhere.


The Supreme Court has already said that schoolchildren cannot be required to recite the oath that begins, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America."


The court has also repeatedly barred school-sponsored prayer from classrooms, playing fields and school ceremonies.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the First Amendment and the Supreme Court's precedents make clear that tax-supported schools cannot lend their imprimatur to a declaration of fealty to "one nation under God."


The White House hinted that an administration-written brief in the case could be in the offing, with Scott McClellan, President Bush's spokesman, calling the Pledge of Allegiance "an important right that ought to be upheld."


McClellan would not say definitely whether the White House would press its position before the court but previewed what it would argue if it did. "Keep in mind," he said, "that you have a Declaration of Independence that refers to God or the creator four different times. You have sessions of Congress each day that begin with prayer and, of course, if you look on our own currency, it says "In God We Trust.'"


Activists on both sides of the church-state divide said the case is a watershed for the court and for public opinion.


"This case represents an important opportunity to put a halt to a national effort aimed at removing any religious phrase or reference from our culture," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a law firm founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson.


The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the pledge case the most controversial issue before the high court in a decade.


"Everyone's got an opinion, informed or otherwise," Lynn said. "The bottom line is, will we require a daily religious loyalty oath for school children?"


The administration, the girl's school and atheist Michael Newdow all asked the Supreme Court to get involved in the case.


The court, however, agreed only to hear the appeal from the school district. The administration will be able to weigh in separately. The court also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legal footing to bring the case.


Justice Antonin Scalia will not take part in the case, apparently because of public remarks earlier this year critical of the lower court ruling in the pledge case. His absence sets up the possibility that the other eight justices could deadlock 4-4, a result that would allow the lower court decision to stand.

In its legal filings so far, the administration has argued that the reference to God in the pledge is more about ceremony and history than about religion.

The reference is an "official acknowledgment of our nation's religious heritage," similar to the "In God We Trust" stamped on coins and bills, Solicitor general Theodore Olson told the court. It is far-fetched to say such references pose a real danger of imposing state-sponsored religion, Olson wrote.

The administration also claimed that Newdow cannot sue on behalf of his daughter because his custody of the girl is in question. Newdow and the child's mother, Sandra Banning, have waged a long and bitter custody battle over the child, who lives with her mother. Newdow told the court that he now has joint custody of the girl, whose name is not part of the legal papers filed with the Supreme Court.

To complicate matters, Banning has told the court she has no objection to the pledge.

Newdow holds medical and legal degrees, and is representing himself in the case.

The phrase "under God" was not part of the original pledge adopted by Congress as a patriotic tribute in 1942, at the height of World War II. Congress inserted the phrase more than a decade later, in 1954, when the world had moved from hot war to cold.

Supporters of the new wording said it would set the United States apart from godless communism.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 02-1624

In other cases Tuesday, the court:

_Turned aside an appeal of a lower court decision that upheld laws in nine states permitting doctors to give marijuana to sick patients.

_Agreed to decide whether border officers can randomly search gas tanks of vehicles coming into the country as part of stepped-up security measures that the Bush administration said are indispensable to the war on drugs and terrorism.

_Said it will take a fresh look at the complex question of how to protect children from online smut without resorting to unconstitutional censorship.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Food Eater Lad

I believe it is unconstititional to ask people to pledge to a diety. Imagine if instead of "under god" it was "under Allah" or under Satan" or even "under Micky Mouse". Asking kids to pledge to any of these beings, real or imaginary, is just wrong.

Sledge

Recognizing that "God" is kind of a catchall term for any miscellaneous in addition to being the official title of the Christian and Jewish gods, I still agree with the Lad.

I think we've moved beyond the age of "godless communism."

chavos

the pre 1950's version is just fine, if overly jingoistic. the under God addition is a little questionable...i would ask that my children not participate-i hope that they will believe in God...but i am quite opposed to them being taught that America as a political nation has much to do with that God....

KnifeMissile

Yeah, I've just recently started looking into politics during the recent Ontario elections and I now find it fascinating! I'd talk more about Canadian politics except that there are probably more Americans than Canadians on this board, so...
It's interesting that you've noticed. I guess this really is a community!

I'll remember not to just post the link in the future but what is the motivation behind this rule?

maximusveritas

I definitely think it should be declared unconstitutional. The fact that Justice Scalia will not be taking part in this case gives me more hope than I previously had.

Lebell

Halx, the board owner, doesn't like having to click links.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Food Eater Lad

Is that the real reason? Why is that I wonder?

filtherton

It is only as unconstitutional as the ten commandments in a courthouse.

The_Dude

yup. even if it's a tie, the lower court's ruling will stand.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Liquor Dealer

Damn! I hate to do it but just for the sake of serenity I'm going to agree with you guys this time and try to provide an easy way out for you. We really should take God out of government for those of you who are bothered by the mention of his name. To make it easier and more convenient for you to accomplish this I am will to take all of those things that are around you that mention God. Put all of your ones, fives, tens, twenties, fifties, hundreds, bonds, and oh yeah! loose change in a package and mail it to me. I hope this will privide a solution for your dilemma and, don't thank me! I was glad to help.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

bonbonbox

Removing the reference to God from the pledge is a step in the right direction. Get God out of politics and back in the pulpit. It's bad enough the government gets to say what's a religion and what's not. While they are at it, they should get out of the marriage business too.

lordjeebus

http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/issues/godtrust.htm

According to this (found via Google), God references weren't added to coins until 1908 and to paper money until 1957. I think that these references, and those in the Pledge, should be removed as they serve no purpose. I believe that most people who argue that "God" is a catch-all term are the ones who believe in the Judeo-Christian brand of higher power.

If the SCOTUS decides to let it stand, perhaps someone could publicize the fact that the Pledge was written by a socialist...

The_Dude

and i think that the "god" in pledge was added in about that time too (50's) by mcarthur.

we went fine without it for 100+ years, we can do the same now.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Liquor Dealer

Like I said - take everything out of your pockets that has God on it - put it in an envelope and send it to me - you'll feel a lot better for it - Actually! I'll feel a lot better about it than you will but that is irrelevant.

__________________
Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!!

The_Dude

as for money, i'm not calling for a total recall, just dont print "god" in the new ones that we print out.

eventually, we'll phase it out.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

lordjeebus

I agree -- it's not a problem that merits significant expenditure to change.

Nizzle

We could have different deities printed on different coinage and bills. Imagine the uproar if Allah was on the $20 and dime?

__________________
Nizzle

HugAPug

Hey, if you ever feel like starting a discussion about Canadian politics, know that there are quite a few Canucks around. I've also considered starting threads about Canada but decided against it.

Mojo_PeiPei

This country is a theist nation, it was founded on the Judeo-Christian influence. OMG the Declaration of Independence mentions a God, its endorsing religion lets burn it!!!! So once you Christo-phobes succeed, what are you going to replace God with, something like the communist heros???

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

emidew22

Constitutionally, the whole god bit should be removed. But when i was that young that i had to recite the pledge every day, i didn't think about the meaning of the words i was saying. It was just part of the routine, like taking attendance and having recess. And by the time you are old enough to decide your beliefs, no one really makes you say the pledge any more. It comes on over the PA, but everyone just keeps talking about the party they were at over the weekend, etc. When it comes down to it, you could even argue that saying the pledge in general is unconstitutional. Maybe i'm not a citizen and i just go to school here cause this is where my parents live and there's nothing i can do about it, blah blah blah. Seriously though, no one is gonna force you to say the pledge. You're not gonna get thrown out of school for it. Personally, i think everyone needs to relax. America has a big stick up its ass when it comes to political correctness. If you don't agree with the statement, then don't say it, but don't waste my tax money taking it to court. And don't be so touchy, the statement wasn't aimed at offending you.

Sledge

Yes. I nominate Stalin. One nation, under Stalin...

filtherton

I think it is a mistake to confuse the constitutionality of something with the pc movement. There is no way it can be justified under the seperation of church and state, and therefore should cease to appear on public property and currency.

Food Eater Lad

Cant tear up the constitution, but we can maintain a separation of church and state. When the powers that be start make you chant in the morning to be loyal to a diety, that is a direct violation of the best tenate of the American System, the very thing that has allowed us to be such a successful nation. Religion is a private thing. God is a religious idea. Unless you have empiracle data to prove otherwise.

Mojo_PeiPei

The rights of this country and its people were endowed to us by God the creator, the forefathers knew this.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

wanna show me proof of "The rights of this country and its people were endowed to us by God the creator"

and no, bible is not proof. it's fiction.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

Taken from the Declaration of Independence:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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.

----
On a side note your insane and just plain ignorant if you think the bible is fiction regardless if you are from the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

--
Further more if you were to make laws against God in public domain you would violate the first amendment, it clearly says freedom of religion, not from it. Secularism isn't an alternative to some "harsh repressive theocracy". Look at three of the biggest people behind secularism Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam.... not very good track records.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

it's not just christianity. i consider 99% of all religious literature as mythology.

i'm not saying to make laws against god, but putting god's name on coins and pledges is making laws FOR god.

making laws against god would be dictating which religions are allowed to practice and how they shoud practice.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

All secularism does is replace God with the state, which is really no better.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

god is not the same for all persons (as many even doubt the existence).

state is the same for all persons.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

* Few (by comparison) doubt the existence, and as you can tell by politics the politics board here, there are people who don't have anymore faith in the government/state.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

MuadDib

The problem with using God is that it isn't all encompassing. The intent is pretty clear and even if not, it still doesn't encompass polytheistic religions or atheists. The government needs to stay out of religion to protect both from the other and I think its a good move to keep the government from endorsing any religion.
In a funny side story, you would not believe the number of dollars I get with the word God blacked out with permanent marker. Is this just a regional thing or do you guys get this too?

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Mojo_PeiPei

I also find it interesting that you "atheists" are so weak in your beliefs that you are threatened by WORDS that don't even mean anything to you (or so you claim). You'll argue "we aren't threatened blah blah blah" , well if thats the case then whats your agenda??? You guys willingly negate the fact that 90% of Americans, and thats who we are talking about here, believe in some high power, A God. Get serious, maybe its you guys that need to be more mindful of other people's beliefs...

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

just because a majority believes in supernatural doesnt mean supernatural exists.

the bill of rights was written for just this reason. to protect the minority from the majority (the masses).

this all fits in perfectly in the puzzle. the religious majority wants govt to have gods imprint over it, but the bill of rights protects the rights of the minority who doesnt want this to happen.

it's not just atheists that are against having "god" on notes & the pledge. i bet a majority of people that want the word removed do believe in a higher power.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

I disagree again, I remember seeing a poll about your favorite person, Roy Moore is it??? Anywho 3/4 of Americans felt the decision was outta line and are for the commandments being up. The poll was a CNN/USA today poll.

Just because we believe doesn't make him real, just because you don't doesn't.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

exactly. the majority wanted something that would pretty much run over the rights of the minority. our judicial system stood in place and the rights of the minority were protected.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Mojo_PeiPei

Since you will want proof:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/27/te...nts/index.html

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Mojo_PeiPei

All of this is political, I at the other end belief that the rights of the minority infringed on the rights of the majority, either way is fucked up.

I know in alot of cases thats what our system is for, but it gets ridiculous, just because a minority beliefs in something doesn't make it right or fair.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Dude

the rights of the majority are infringed when the govt/courts grant a power to the minority that is not stated in constitution/ammendments.

minority is given the right of freedom of religion.

if the government is going to erect statures of the majority religion and ONLY the majority religion, then it's not being fair to all other religions(not to mention that is endorsement) (and no, there is no possible way to be fair with all the religions. so the best way is to be neutral toward 'em all).

sry bout wanderin off topic

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal