Oh we're finished as a Country
June 26, 2002 2:33PM
edited January 2014
; target="_blank">The Pledge of Allegiance is Unconstitutional</a>
Reply 1 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:37PM
the constitution is unconstitutional...
PC is two bad words rollled into one.
very disturbing, and I am atheist.
Reply 1 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:37PM
<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!!
Reply 3 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:38PM
[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>
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>
Reply 4 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:44PM
Does this really have any importance at all?
Reply 5 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:45PM
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.
Reply 6 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:51PM
Good Point THT. I think this is the precursor to lot's of changes.
Reply 7 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:56PM
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?
Reply 8 of 166
June 26, 2002 2:59PM
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.
Reply 9 of 166
June 26, 2002 4:15PM
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.
Reply 10 of 166
June 26, 2002 4:25PM
<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.
Reply 11 of 166
June 26, 2002 4:31PM
...and God bless America...
Reply 12 of 166
June 26, 2002 4:41PM
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:
Reply 13 of 166
June 26, 2002 4:42PM
[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.
Reply 14 of 166
June 26, 2002 7:13PM
[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.
Reply 15 of 166
June 26, 2002 7:48PM
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!
Reply 16 of 166
June 26, 2002 8:25PM
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.
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>
Reply 17 of 166
June 26, 2002 9:02PM
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.
Reply 18 of 166
June 26, 2002 10:24PM
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
Reply 19 of 166
June 26, 2002 11:14PM
[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!
Reply 20 of 166
June 26, 2002 11:23PM
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.