The Pledge...Ruled Unconstitutional..

[marionette]

I found this off of a site:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,744753,00.html



America's pledge of allegiance ruled unconstitutional

Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Thursday June 27, 2002
The Guardian

An appeal court has ruled that the pledge of allegiance in the US is unconstitutional because it contains the words "under God". The pledge may no longer be recited in schools.
In a ruling that has already provoked a furious reaction, the 9th US circuit court of appeals in San Francisco over turned the 1954 act of Congress which inserted the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation".

In a two-to-one decision the court said that the phrase violates the so-called establishment clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state.

"A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for establishment clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus', a nation 'under Vishnu', a nation 'under Zeus', or a nation 'under no god', because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," concluded Judge Alfred T Goodwin in his written judgment for the three-judge panel.

The decision, made by the most liberal of the appeal courts in the US, is bound to lead to a further appeal and has already infuriated conservative Christians. The issue of the place of God in government is a highly charged subject in a country that is much more religious than Europe.

The case that led to the ruling was brought by an atheist whose daughter was ostracised after she had refused to say the pledge in full at her school in the Sacramento area. Children cannot be forced to say the oath.

The original pledge, written in 1892, did not contain the phrase; it was added later because of a rightwing religious lobby's efforts during the McCarthy era. The original pledge was written by a Baptist socialist minister, Francis Bellamy, and was first published in a magazine called the Youth's Companion. The magazine's editor had hired Bellamy after the latter had been sacked by his church for delivering controversial socialist statements from the pulpit.

It was more than 60 years later that Congress, at the height of the anticommunist McCarthy period, added the words "under God" following a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, a rightwing Catholic organisation.


...that's so stupid, in my opinion..

[BlueFire]

I think that's a bit f*cked up.. :hmm:

[DeathsHand]

I can see how it can be unconstitutional and junk because of seperation of church and state or wuteva, but... it's just one short line..... why make such a big deal about it?

And if they are gonna do something about it, just take out that one line and problem solved... *shrugs*

Either way I don't see the big deal... then again, as far as I know schools around here only say it in elementary schools..... unless it was just the one middle school I went to, cuz in 6th grade they didn't have the pledge thing...

Although I guess maybe if you were from some different religion or had a strong non-belief in religion or whatever, and wanted your kids to be the same way, it could be "offensive" or something :unsure:

[Jonbo298]

If a person doesn't want to say the Pledge of Allegiance, then let he/she not recite it. The person might get made fun of, but if you don't believe in a God, then you won't take any harsh words from other people and stand for what you believe for(no pun intended).

[GameKinG]

I already saw somebody today rioting. But it was just the one.

Under God, isnt very specific even though we know which one, since even the constitution says this country is founded under God. Which means that its both.

[Crash]

what a piece of SH##!!!! what next, they gunna take "in god we trust off all our pennies and dollars? I say throw the son-of-a..... out of the freaking country. he can go live in russia if that little piece of crap doesn't like it. i hope someone assassinates that freaking dope!

[Happydude]

can someone summerize that for me?

i dont feel like reading it.

:D :p

[Bond]

It will be overturned by a higher court... of course.

[marionette]

Originally posted by Crash
what a piece of SH##!!!! what next, they gunna take "in god we trust off all our pennies and dollars? I say throw the son-of-a..... out of the freaking country. he can go live in russia if that little piece of crap doesn't like it. i hope someone assassinates that freaking dope!

exactly. if this doesn't get overturned by a higher court, then its going to start a lot of crap. A friend of mine ssaid this country was built under God..and if they take this out, they're going to want to take everything that deals with God out..anyways. I just think its all a bunch of crap.

[fingersman]

Only in America does this sorta of stuff happen....

*walks along mumbling something about it being a bunch of crap*

[Matusha]

I hate saying the pledge......i dont even stand up when they say that crap.Why does anybody even care about the pledge?

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Matusha
I hate saying the pledge......i dont even stand up when they say that crap.Why does anybody even care about the pledge?

w00t! You da man!

If I was still in school and they said the pledge, I wouldn't do it either :D

:sneaky:

[TheGame]

This is stupid, but, then again, any person who believes in god believes that this is where this country is going to be in the future anyway.

[Angrist]

There are people who don't want to 'pledge' because of their personal religion. Fortunately we don't have to plegde here in Holland. :)

[gekko]

The pledge is unconstitutional. The fact that you say it makes the people who don't feel left out. So they shouldn't really say it at school.

The pledge has meaning, but the people who actually say it, the kids, don't have any idea what it means. So they really shouldn't say it. Not like it does any good.

The pledge itself shouldn't be ruled unconstitutional, but I don't think they should be saying it in public schools. Because it doesn't really build any sort of patriotism or nationalism, and it sure doesn't make the 4% of the country who doesn't want to say it feel great when they're left out.

We added it in 1954, not like we can't take it out again.

Crash, Russia ain't communist anymore. For anti-religious beliefs, look to China.

[DeathsHand]

Oh yeah, I coulda sworn on MSNBC these two guys were debating the whole thing, and I heard that like the whole thing started in California or something because there, the schools are required to make the students recite the pledge every day... or whatever... and y'know some people don't believe in god... or have different religious beliefs or whatever, and the dealy is like... it's unconstitutional to REQUIRE kids to recite it each day... And like in the constitution or whatever it may say that the country was founded under god or blah blah, but kids aren't required to read that part day after day after day...

But who cares? People flipping out "OH WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO NEXT!? TAKE IN GOD WE TRUST OFF MONEYZ!?"... no..... no they're not...... But requiring some people to say something that says under god blah blah could make some peoples mad... it's like if kids were required to read a passage from the bible each day or something in school... although that would be a bit more direct than just one line of a little pledge thing...

But I don't really care... I don't believe in god, and I didn't care when I said the pledge... but usually the people flipping out and blah blah-ing over how it's crazy and "what are they gonna do next, take in god we trust off the dollar bills?" are people who believe in god, and when you believe in god, it's easy to say how it's stupid, but if you have a strong disbelief in god, I think it'd be pretty easy to see how it's stupid to make your kid say the pledge each day....

*shrugs*

Still I think peoples are flipping out over nothing...

Edit: About the school dealy... what gekko said... he posted it before me :mad: :D

So look at gekko's post... I know some people skip straight to the second page when topics get them, and the last post on the page is sometimes ignored...

[gekko]

Maybe you guys should watch more Politically Incorrect. *sniff* I'm gonna miss it :(

[Jason1]

I pledge of alligence, 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.


Havent said that since 5th grade...that is right, isnt it? It seems too short...did I leave something out...oh well...

I think its pretty stupid, you cant deal with our nation being under god, dont live here. Simple as that.

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Jason1
I think its pretty stupid, you cant deal with our nation being under god, dont live here. Simple as that.

If you can't deal with the fact that people have different beliefs and opinions in a free country, don't live here... :D

[-apu-]

Originally posted by Angrist
There are people who don't want to 'pledge' because of their personal religion. Fortunately we don't have to plegde here in Holland. :)

or in Canada:D

[DeathsHand]

Originally posted by Angrist
There are people who don't want to 'pledge' because of their personal religion. Fortunately we don't have to plegde here in Holland. :)

Originally posted by -apu-
or in Canada :D

Maybe it's because...

posted by Spamcan at the advanceGB forums
School students started with the pledge every morning starting in the 50's as part of the government's propganda campagin to make us all hate comunists.

Those countries never felt the need to do that... :sneaky:

[Joeiss]

A pledge? WTF? I didn't even know you Americans had that.

Here in Canada all we gotta do is say the national anthem at school. I hate it when people talk or do not stand during the anthem. It makes me furious.



:devil::mad:

[Jin]

The pledge is not unconstituational. Just forcing someone to recite it is. I think it's fine if they say it in school, or at public events as long as they don't force anyone to say it.

If a person believes that there is no God that's fine, they have the right to, but the thing I don't get is why they feel that they have the need to sway others beliefs as well. If they believe there's no God and no after-life, what good does it do to change others people's beliefs because according to them we'll just not exist after we die.

In my opinion athiests that are trying to ban the "under God" part are just trying to get others to believe that there is no God. If they didn't want to change peoples opinions at all, and strongly believed that there was no God they could easily just ignore those two words and not say them at all.

Remember, no one is forcing them to say these two words, nor is anyone required to say any of the pledge, but for some reason a few athiests feel as though they have the need to convince people that their belief is correct. This is true with all religions, but my question is what good does it do to convince people that there is no God? It's not like they are going to save them from consequences in the after-life. All they're doing is getting others to believe that there is no importance in human life, that once you die you wont exist and that your existence had no meaning, that your one and only purpose was to pass down genes to the next generation. I think it's fine for a person to believe that, but I don't see any reason why they need to convince others to believe in it as well. All those people are doing is making others feel hopeless.

[-apu-]

i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....but is thenational anthem and the pledge the same thing.... please do not laugh at me if that is a stupid question:D

[Jin]

Originally posted by -apu-
i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....but is thenational anthem and the pledge the same thing.... please do not laugh at me if that is a stupid question:D

They both serve similar purposes, but you don't sing the pledge. The pledge is more like a few lines that you recite to show your allegience.

[The_Dunadan]

whats interesting is that the under god part didn't even used to be in the pledge until later when it was added. now they are wanting it out again:unsure:

[PureEvil]

Originally posted by -apu-
i'm canadian so i'm confused by nature....
The only reason you're confused by nature is because your parents are brother and sister.

Don't blame it on Canada.

:mad:

[UncleNoName]

Originally posted by Jin
If a person believes that there is no God that's fine, they have the right to, but the thing I don't get is why they feel that they have the need to sway others beliefs as well. If they believe there's no God and no after-life, what good does it do to change others people's beliefs because according to them we'll just not exist after we die.

In my opinion athiests that are trying to ban the "under God" part are just trying to get others to believe that there is no God. If they didn't want to change peoples opinions at all, and strongly believed that there was no God they could easily just ignore those two words and not say them at all.

The man that brought the case to court (Newdow) isn't trying to sway people to atheism, he just doesn't think a nation where peoples of all religions and a nation where church and state are (supposed to be) seperate should be teaching atheist children and children of polytheistic faiths that they live in a "nation under God". How would you feel if you (or your kids) constantly heard that your nation is a nation "under God" if you didn't believe in one or you believed in many gods? He sees his daughter being singled out because she doesn't believe in God, and he wants change for his and other atheist children. The same for polytheistic children.

Look at this from the eyes of others...

[BlueFire]

posted by Spamcan at the advanceGB forums
School students started with the pledge every morning starting in the 50's as part of the government's propganda campagin to make us all hate comunists.


Ah yes...the good era of McCarthy. :rolleyes:

[Jin]

Originally posted by UncleNoName


The man that brought the case to court (Newdow) isn't trying to sway people to atheism, he just doesn't think a nation where peoples of all religions and a nation where church and state are (supposed to be) seperate should be teaching atheist children and children of polytheistic faiths that they live in a "nation under God". How would you feel if you (or your kids) constantly heard that your nation is a nation "under God" if you didn't believe in one or you believed in many gods? He sees his daughter being singled out because she doesn't believe in God, and he wants change for his and other atheist children. The same for polytheistic children.

Look at this from the eyes of others...

I understand about the whole seperation of church and state, but it's not like we're forcing people to believe in a certain religion, or even to say that part in the Pledge. If a person really was against it they could just not say it.

The thing that puzzles me is why athiest parents don't want their kids to believe that there is a God. Think about logically, athiests don't believe in a God or in an after-life, right? So what does it matter if their kid believes in God, because after they die they'll just not exist anyway. So what would it matter? On the other hand, if a Christian/Jew/Islam parent saw their kid becoming an athiest they would be concerned that they would go to hell. Remember, I'm not saying that people that believe in a God are right or that athiests are wrong, but there's no reason why an athiest parent should be concerned about this if they really believe that their beliefs are true.

[Joeiss]

Originally posted by PureEvil

The only reason you're confused by nature is because your parents are brother and sister.


Is that possible? :confused:



Back on topic... this , by no means, is a thing that is leading people to atheism. America (Canada even more so, but we aren't discussing Canada) is supposed to be acceptant to all people, no matter their religion, or lack thereof. So, by having "under God" in a pledge that both atheists and god-believers want to say, is unconstitutional.

[BlueFire]

Originally posted by Joeiss


Is that possible? :confused:
"Incest."

[-apu-]

HEY HEY HEY.....
THATS ENUF ABOUT MY FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
:offtopic:
n e ways......Canada has "God" in our national anthem...do we have to change that to??
"God keep our land
Glorious and Free"
thats the lines

[gekko]

I think we're debating 2 different issues here.

The court was to decide if reciting the pledge in school was unconstitutional, which it is. They weren't asked to decide if it was a bad thing, they weren't asked to decide if it should be banned in schools.

Is it unconstitutional? Yes. Does that make it wrong? Not necessarily. It's like burining the flag, is it unconstitutional? No. Is it wrong? I think so. But I don't find anything wrong with murder, tortune, or human mutalation performed on those flag burning individuals. :D

Make sure you're debating the right issue here.