*bashes self in face with large mallet*
All right, smartass!
[quote]I heard you the first few times - really - but no one has given me anything to indicate anyone's constitutional rights have been abridged, abused or otherwise neglected.<hr></blockquote>
No one citizen's constitutional rights HAVE to be abriged...mmk?
Let's look at the amendment again
:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
If you and I form a club and one of the rules is:
"No member of the club can masturbate on odd Tuesdays" and you do masturbate on an odd Tuesday you haven't abridged my rights at all, but you've broken the rules; in this case, the constitution. (this analogy doesn't work for the PoA argument, just for the concept of a law being unconstitutional in and of itself)
[quote]how did Ike's making the "under God" version of the PoA "official" take away an atheist's right to not believe in God?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]How does it hinder an agnostic from questioning whether or not there is a God?<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Was anyone - of any religious persuasion - less able to: worship or not worship, preach or not preach, debate or not debate (in public or otherwise) before this ruling came down?<hr></blockquote>
No, but that's not the issue.
[quote]Show me the good this ruling did. Show me how it enhanced someone's liberty or did away with someone's oppression. In the end I assume this is all about liberty and being able to live one's life as they see fit - right? Show me how this ruling improved anyone's ability to do just that.<hr></blockquote>
There were no such requirements for the ruling.
A good thing that came of it:
An unconstitutional act of Congress was struck down.
[quote]ONCE AGAIN, nothing really has changed except that the majority now has less
right to express their patriotism / allegiance (whatever you'd like to call it) in public schools than they did before. Bravo! Nothing has been added, but something certainly has been taken away.<hr></blockquote>
The Pledge of Allegiance can still be said all day long, you can say "under God" if you want, even. Teach your kids and grandkids for generation that the Godless commie athiests took "under God" out of the official version and have them say "under God" when they say the PoA.
No one's rights were infringed upon with this ruling. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]But I'm not all for some jagoff ruining a pledge that [meant something] to lot of people - just because he knew the political climate of the day would yield the result he wanted (no more pledge).<hr></blockquote>
I think adding "under God" in 1954 ruined the PoA. It was aimed solely at national pride but they had to add their pro-Christian stuff in there to validate their own ideas. Gotta reinforce the white man's faith in himself.
[quote]Next they're going to tell us that all
versions of the PoA are "unconstitutional" because it "demands" that we "pledge" ourselves to the government (by extension of course), which is indicative of a tyrannical state...so it should clearly be banned in all its forms from all public institutions.<hr></blockquote>
Actually, the PoA is a direct pledge to the flag (symbol of the nation). I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about the government saying "be subject to me" because we are subject to the gov't.