or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oh we're finished as a Country
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oh we're finished as a Country

post #1 of 167
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html" target="_blank">The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional</a>

Absolutely Amazing!
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #2 of 167
the constitution is unconstitutional...

PC is two bad words rollled into one.

very disturbing, and I am atheist.
post #3 of 167
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I love it.

Democracy in action, baby!!
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #4 of 167
Thread Starter 
[quote] "I'm an American citizen. I don't like my rights infringed upon by my government," he said in an interview. Newdow called the pledge a "religious idea that certain people don't agree with." <hr></blockquote>

"God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot."

Hmmm seems to me as if "God" isn't alsways immutably used in a Religious Context. Funkin Californians!



[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 167
Does this really have any importance at all?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #6 of 167
I'm surprised by the decision, though I think it's the right one. The Pledge of Allegience would be fine if they simply reverted to the pre-1954 version.

It'll be highly entertaining if "In God We Trust" takes a tumble as well.
post #7 of 167
Thread Starter 
Good Point THT. I think this is the precursor to lot's of changes.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #8 of 167
I was under the impression that the phrase "in God we trust" was deemed to have lost it's religious context and was therefore permissible (it's still on my tender). But I'm no legal scholar.

Thoth are you listening?
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
post #9 of 167
Wow, I was JUST talking about this sort of stuff to a buddy recently, saying "just watch, at some point, someone's going to get bent out of shape and try and have the Pledge of Allegience and the National Anthem done away with...".

His response: "Man, no way...shut up! You always think this stuff, and expect the worst...".

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

Oh, do I now?

Gee, making if people would STOP GIVING ME SUCH WONDERFUL AMMUNITION AND REASONS TO THINK THIS STUFF, I wouldn't.



We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore. But, by God, we can cram every other idea, lifestyle or agenda down the throats and minds of every second grader in the country...all in the name of "free speech" of course.

There's going to come a time when your average fourth grader isn't even aware of the pledge of allegience and how it goes, the tune of the national anthem, who George Washington was, etc.

BUT, they'll know that some daddies have boyfriends, that revisionist history makes them feel better about themselves and they'll become quite the experts at choosing a favorite brand of condom, just in time for the junior high homecoming dance.

post #10 of 167
Groverat, I think this is important because it's all over the news, letting people see HOW F*CKING RIDICULOUS things have gotten. Otherwise, it's insignificant in the grander scheme of things. Sometimes people need to see incrementalism in action to notice what's going on.

By the way, as a conservative, I have a problem with GOD being in the Pledge of Allegiance. I also have a problem with GOD being on money. I have MORE of a problem with multiculturalism and political correctness.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #11 of 167
<strong>Originally posted by gobble gobble:
I was under the impression that the phrase "in God we trust" was deemed to have lost it's religious context and was therefore permissible (it's still on my tender). But I'm no legal scholar.</strong>

The question that should be pondered is "why was the motto 'In God We Trust' placed onto US currency?" Especially when it replaced 'E Pluribus Unum' on the larger denominations (I think).

When people say the motto has lost its religious context, they are being a bit two-faced. It's a rationalization not to go through the work of admitting that it violates the 1st ammendment and not to fix it. If it has lost its religious context, then ask yourself what does 'In God We Trust' mean and why would people or you be offended if it was changed.

The decision seems to be a reflexive diversion for the media and the public at large though. It seems a poor economy, bearish stock market, pervasive corporate corruption, pervasive political corruption, war without end against terrorism, and mid-East violence without end is too much to deal with for now.
post #12 of 167
...and God bless America...

I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #13 of 167
Who cares about what it says on your bills. At the current rate your green will be worthless in a couple of months

Meaning cheaper macs for my european brothers :cool:
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #14 of 167
[quote]We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore.<hr></blockquote>

Umm, yes we can.


Can you remember any kid thinking of the pledge as anything but a real annoyance? I remember having to get up and repeat it like a robotic drone and it was a chore. Forcing kids to say it or having it being led by the school is trite, hokey and decades outdated. Especially when you remember that "under God" was added in 1954 to held us in our "war" against the Godless commies.


Keep it or not, I don't really care either way, I just think it's stupid for people to be outraged at the change (but not so outraged in 1954 when it was changed).

If it has lost its religious meaning, why are people so morally outraged at the proposed removal of "under God"?

I think it's hilarious that people will say "these complainers shouldn't be offended" while they are so offended they can hardly compose themselves.


Face it, it's been called and it's long overdue. Last I checked I lived under the authority of a secular government. It has never outraged me that the Pledge says "under God", but I've always thought it was stupid.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #15 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by THT:
<strong>The Pledge of Allegience would be fine if they simply reverted to the pre-1954 version.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That was my first thought. It was kind of silly to add it in the first place. I would think it's a no-brainer to simply exclude that add-on, but no, things just aren't that straightforward.

Besides, I know enough people too, what? "ashamed" of being American that find offense in the idea of pledging support for the republic. I admit, it's a pretty corny thing to require of students, but I find the general message and tone of it particularly inoffensive. That is, unless someone (here they come now) has a beef with the mention of a flag too. Oh, and that bit about, um, "States" and that other one about "America." Yeah, those have to go.

I think a lot of people are just waaaaay too high-strung about very petty matters.
post #16 of 167
I think that forcing kids to recite the pledge in school is kind of stupid anyway. And that's what this is about. It's not that you can no longer say it if you want, as some suggest. You are still free to go to the mall, stand on a bench and yell it at the top of your lungs, if you so desire.

Forcing kids to say it in school, on the other hand, I doubt that kids even think about what they are saying, it's just something that they recite without thought. Why do we feel the need to make our school children pledge their allegience to the nation anyway? They're kids!
post #17 of 167
How appropriate such a brain-dead ruling comes down from a California high court. Only in California could such an outrageous abridgement of our rights (the Pledge of Allegiance) be cast into the spotlight and pinned for the shameful collection of words that it is.

:eek:

Fvcking self-righteous, lip-service-paying, bass-akwards sons-a-bithces. It's my earnest hope that all those non-Californians in favor of this kind of language-sanitizing, common-sense-bludgeoning legal abuse ... MOVE to California and kick out the remaining thousand or so people who do not suffer from UV-irradiated, smog-induced brain failure (we have homes for them). That way when California falls into the ocean under the weight of its own stupidity and arrogance, the median IQ in America will jump a dozen points (at least).

Now THAT would be some fun TV to watch. "Ooooo...there's the inventor of "reality TV" from MTV (Maryjane Burn-um-Blotter)...and Whoopi...and the judge who said the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Wow - they really do turn purple when submerged for long periods of time! Sweet...."

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #18 of 167
When we used to recite the pledge in elementary school (which I thougth was utterly stupid and pointless) I would always leave out the words "under god" and finish before everyone else. We were even supposed to recite it in high school once a week in homeroom, but I decided that I didn't want to waste the effort on something so dumb, so I remained seated and silent. Within a year not a single person in my homeroom would recite it and some would make a point of sitting down when the words "please rise for the pledge" came over the speaker.
I think that the pledge should be reverted to its pre-1954 version, and no one should be required to recite it ever.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong.
Reply
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong.
Reply
post #19 of 167
<a href="http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html" target="_blank">http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/flag/1bfc_pledge.html</A>

Above is an ok history of the pledge.

I agree that the "under god" part is stupid and should never have been added. I have NO problem pledging my allegiance to the ideals of "the Flag .... and to the Republic for which it stands". And neither should anyone who is not an anarchist.

Should you be forced to do it? NO.... but if you don't maybe you should be able to expand upon your(non-religious, cuz that should be removed) objections. Do you object to the Republic? The constitution? "Liberty and Justice for all". If you object to these things.. I would wager you'ld be happier somewhere else. If you think things don't work the right way thats understandable, but to choose total disdain for a system that allows you such freedoms does not make much sense. If you dislike the society/government it is your right and privelage to change it from within.

Hopefully they will exise the god part and restore the pledge as soon as possible. The alternative may a society where only those in the military are ALLOWED to take a pledge of allegiance/citizenship.

Do yourself a favor.... go rent "Starship Troopers" and think about it... ---not that I would mind living in Buenos Aires with a bevy of latinized-American women ---
post #20 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>Fvcking self-righteous, lip-service-paying, bass-akwards sons-a-bithces. It's my earnest hope that all those non-Californians in favor of this kind of language-sanitizing, common-sense-bludgeoning legal abuse ... MOVE to California and kick out the remaining thousand or so people who do not suffer from UV-irradiated, smog-induced brain failure (we have homes for them). That way when California falls into the ocean under the weight of its own stupidity and arrogance, the median IQ in America will jump a dozen points (at least).[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!

Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!
post #21 of 167
This will be appealed to the Supreme Court and the appeal will win. There is no way the current Supreme Court will uphold this. They have generally showed no regard at all for seperation of church and state and I doubt that they would change on an issue which has already become a cause celebre among the conservative community.
post #22 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>

TELL me about it! I gotta live with these hammerheads!

Quick, somebody throw me a life jacket!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dude, if you can figure out a way to tread water for a couple of hours, there will be some gnarly tubes to ride into Arizona.

Again, I think this is a great example of what's happening in this country. Kids are being indoctrinated in the OPPOSITE direction (you can't tell me that the Pledge of Allegiance isn't designed for political indoctrination). We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
Never had ONE lesson.
Reply
post #23 of 167
I think they should get rid of the god part. We should take off the in god we trust bit as well. I never recited the pledge when I was in high school either.
post #24 of 167
&gt;&gt;The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional
Absolutely Amazing!

How is this amazing? I personally couldn't agree more with the judges' decision. Religion is for the weak and/or stupid. People who know better are offended by these religious statements, as they should. They shouldn't be forced to go as low as the gullible general population.
post #25 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by finboy:
<strong> We're teaching children (even college students) that there are no absolutes, everything is relative, no culture or set of values is better than any other, etc. The constant attack on religion is just another example of how principles and value systems are suddenly undesirable.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> NO, a combined church and state is undesirable. THAT is what the ruling is about. Those judges could care less about value systems because they were not on the table. Religion exists fine without government. OR are you suggesting that government SHOULD endorse religion? Boy, that would be mighty unconstitutional of you!

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #26 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs:
<strong>How appropriate such a brain-dead ruling comes down from a California high court. Only in California could such an outrageous abridgement of our rights (the Pledge of Allegiance) be cast into the spotlight and pinned for the shameful collection of words that it is.

:eek:

Fvcking self-righteous, lip-service-paying, bass-akwards sons-a-bithces. It's my earnest hope that all those non-Californians in favor of this kind of language-sanitizing, common-sense-bludgeoning legal abuse ... MOVE to California and kick out the remaining thousand or so people who do not suffer from UV-irradiated, smog-induced brain failure (we have homes for them). That way when California falls into the ocean under the weight of its own stupidity and arrogance, the median IQ in America will jump a dozen points (at least).

Now THAT would be some fun TV to watch. "Ooooo...there's the inventor of "reality TV" from MTV (Maryjane Burn-um-Blotter)...and Whoopi...and the judge who said the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. Wow - they really do turn purple when submerged for long periods of time! Sweet...."

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Um, Moogs, like ya and all, but where the hell is the actual substance of this message? I feel like I have cut the fat off a piece of steak only to find nothing but bone.

How exactly is it an "abridgement of our rights? "
post #27 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by finboy:
<strong>Groverat, I think this is important because it's all over the news, letting people see HOW F*CKING RIDICULOUS things have gotten. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Ridiculous? The decision was rooted in the firm belief that "under God" violated the separation of church and state.

Or do you mean "ridiculous" because the government is finally straying from including a phrase deliberately included to highlight the United State's allowance and pride for religion. By the way, I respect your recognition of the problem of including the phrase. I wonder why you would label the situation as "ridiculous" though.
post #28 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
We can't say the Pledge of Allegience anymore. But, by God, we can cram every other idea, lifestyle or agenda down the throats and minds of every second grader in the country...all in the name of "free speech" of course.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pscates:
[QB]
There's going to come a time when your average fourth grader isn't even aware of the pledge of allegience and how it goes, the tune of the national anthem, who George Washington was, etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Pscates, there is NOTHING unconstitutional about the National Anthem or George Washington. You are spreading FUD and should stop it.

I do agree though that someday kids may not know George Washington. It's sad, and a result of the same administration that changed the pledge- Eisenhower's. Because we were racing Russia in technology, the US established a math and science initiative that pushed funding for those subjects WELL ABOVE those for the arts, history, and humanities. You can still see the results if you were an accellerated math and science student in high school, like I was. What needs to be done is MORE FUNDING for those areas. We are producing the best technology yet are forgetting about our CULTURE. Sorry about getting off-topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by pscates:
<strong>
BUT, they'll know that some daddies have boyfriends, that revisionist history makes them feel better about themselves and they'll become quite the experts at choosing a favorite brand of condom, just in time for the junior high homecoming dance.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you implying that there is something WRONG about those ideas? By saying "choosing a favorite brand of condums," I assume you mean "learning how to use condums." Back to the original question.
[/QB]

{Disclaimer: I'm just commenting on what you said. It's a vital part of discussion, not a personal attack. Clear?}

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #29 of 167
i don't have as much problem with "under god" as i do with forcing kids to say the pledge in the first place.

when i had to recite the pledge in high school, i would stand up as a sign of respect to the flag and all those who have fought so we could be there, but i wouldn't recite the pledge.

it just sounds like brainwashing babble to me, but i still hold respect for the country and the flag, just not the pledge
post #30 of 167
Hmuchison, explain exactly HOW "we're finished as a country." Like groverat said, somewhat mockingly though true, this is "Democracy in action."

Interesting, one of the judges who ruled it is unconstitutional is a Nixon appointee. The second judge was a Carter appointee while the third dissented.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
post #31 of 167
On a side note, (please forgive me):

In high school my vice principal forced all students to stand in attention when the pledge of allegiance/ national anthem played. Is that action unconstitutional as well?
post #32 of 167
[quote]Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.<hr></blockquote>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.

And we're not finished as a country because of this, we're finished as a country because of this:
<a href="http://www.fear.org/whyfear.html" target="_blank">Civil Forfeiture</a>
post #33 of 167
[quote]Originally posted by kaboom:
<strong>Hmmmmm....I don't see congress making any laws here. Not sure how it's unconstitutional.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, it provides a wall of separation between church and state. Congress doesn't have to make a law. You have a poor understanding of this but i'm happy to clear it up for you.
post #34 of 167
I favor the ruling. hmurchinson, we all know what God really means. All the other definitions are merely referential. I favor any subsequent court rulings on this matter as well.

I think atheists, agnostics and non-monotheists are feeling left out.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #35 of 167
I always wondered why there was never a problem over 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance due to the 'seperation of church and state'.

As far as I can tell, the pledge was fine before 1954 and 'under God' obviously offends people, so it shouldn't be in the pledge and probably shouldn't have been added in the first place.

I guess we'll see what happens, but I think they made the right call. Of course you're going to get a ton of the overly zealous religious fanatics all over the air waves badmouthing the person who filed the suit, the judges, and whoever supports the decision saying that none of them belong in the country. I heard WBZ radio interview the man this morning and he played some excerpts from his answering machine; one of the messages had a woman screaming, "Get the hell out of my country! Get the hell out of my country you godless piece of **** ! **** you! Get the hell out of my country! We're going to get you!"

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court and Bush say about the ruling.
post #36 of 167
Maybe they should change it to "..one nation, under whatever god you may be worshipping at the time, indiv..."
post #37 of 167
I guess I don't see what's wrong with:

[quote]I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America; and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.<hr></blockquote>

It's not like they're saying the whole thing is bad, just what was added in the 50s. So revert it and call it a day. The people that are mad now, especially the ones in government, even admit that it has to do with religion. The citizens that are mad want it in there because they believe in God. If that's the case, the ruling is correct, because according to the Constitution, the government needs to stay out of religion.
post #38 of 167
[quote]I always wondered why there was never a problem over 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance due to the 'seperation of church and state'.<hr></blockquote>

Because white conservatives bitch harder than a Limp Bizkit/Sinead O'Connor double bill.

I think the reactions here are the answer to that question.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #39 of 167
Added note:
This is bad journalism in action, either that or bad readership.


The court ruled the Act that put "under God" in there unconstitutional, not the entire Pledge.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #40 of 167
Separation of Church and State. Not Separation of church and State. Church and State. There's a reason for that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Oh we're finished as a Country