God doesn't have to interpreted as montheistic. cant God include all gods you believe in?
if you don't want to say it, don't. and as for the being ridiculed in class argument. i want to see a bunch of 7 year olds make fun of the kid who doesn't say it. hell, in my class there were a bunch of kids who paid no attention while saying it, not because of their beliefs but because they could care less or were talking to each other.
people make a bigger deal out of things that they really are.....cough...attention whores...cough.
Yes, "God" doesn't have to be interpreted as monotheistic. But being that it is singular, capitalized, and Christian (in intent), I don't necessarily think that any other interpretation would be valid.
And, hey, if a girl made a big deal out of this, she would be an attention pimp. Damn double standards.
Actually, the most interesting aspect of this case is that it's likely the Supreme Court will reverse the decision not on First Amendment grounds, but because the father actually had no standing to file suit.
In fact, the Supreme Courts decision posted today says:
Quote:
02-1624 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH.DIST.V.NEWDOW,MICHAEL A.,ET AL.
The motion of Pacific Legal Foundation,et al.for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted.The motion of
Rutherford Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae
is granted.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted
limited to the following Questions:1.Whether respondent has
standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school
district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students
in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.2.Whether a public
school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing
students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance,which includes
the words "under God,"violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment,as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case on
behalf of the United States.Justice Scalia took no part in the
consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.
The father claims to have filed it on behalf of his daughter, who by the way is a Christian, lives with her mother who has sole custody, has stated that she enjoys saying the pledge and doesn't agree with what her father is doing.
This case won't decide whether or not the phrase in the pledge is itself unconstitutional, but rather whether or not requiring a teacher to lead willing students in reciting it would violate the constitution.
Also, in answer to what happens with a 4-4 tie, the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals decision would be affirmed. It should be noted however that the Supreme Court overturns two-thirds of the cases it hears from the 9th. In fact, when I clerked for the court, there was a standing joke that it only takes cases from the 9th when there's a mess to clean up.
Of course, in this case they aren't as much deciding whether or not their ruling was correct, but rather whether or not the case is even ripe for decision. They could conceivably decide that he has no standing to make the case, but also decide that it's unconstitutional to require teachers to lead students in the pledge. Wouldn't that be fun.
edit:
By the way, even if they did that, it wouldn't have a huge effect considering most states don't require teachers to recite the pledge, but allow them the option of leading willing students in reciting the pledge. That would not be determined to be unconstitutioal even if the lower court decision was affirmed.
It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with taking a beautiful, uniting pledge and turning it into a divisive one. When the pledge was changed in 1954, President Ike made it quite clear that you can't be a patriot if you aren't religious.
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
-President Eisenhower, June 1954
Can't the government support religiousness without promoting a relgion?
When you think about the answer also consider that the founding fathers have openly based the system we live under in the US on religious principles.
Cool. Bad example. Polytheistic religions do seem to be left behind in the Pledge though...
And yet Hindus don't seem to really mind it... interesting that. What other polytheistic religions are actively practised these days?
Just because this is a Judeo-Christian (foundation wise anyway) country doesn't change the meaning of G-d. If I was Muslim G-d could be seen as Allah, if Christian it could be Jesus, Jewish would just be... well, G-d...
My point here is that let the speaker define it. This isn't as big of an issue as anyone seems to think it is. If you don't like saying it, leave it out. That's fine. The point of this whole thing is that it's a PLEDGE of ALLEGIENCE to the COUNTRY. If G-d isn't important to you, you have the right to leave G-d out. The important thing is that you remember the purpose of the pledge itself.
Can't the government support religiousness without promoting a relgion?
When you think about the answer also consider that the founding fathers have openly based the system we live under in the US on religious principles.
The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting religiousness OR any specific religion. They are here to govern and allow the people to decide for themselves what kind of shit they want to believe.
As far as the founding fathers go...Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. Read it. Interesting stuff. We were not founded as a Christian Nation. They said so.
As far as being based on religious principles goes...why must personal responsibility and don't hurt other people ONLY be attributed to religion? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not require religion or religiousness.
And yet Hindus don't seem to really mind it... interesting that. What other polytheistic religions are actively practised these days?
Just because this is a Judeo-Christian (foundation wise anyway) country doesn't change the meaning of G-d. If I was Muslim G-d could be seen as Allah, if Christian it could be Jesus, Jewish would just be... well, G-d...
My point here is that let the speaker define it. This isn't as big of an issue as anyone seems to think it is. If you don't like saying it, leave it out. That's fine. The point of this whole thing is that it's a PLEDGE of ALLEGIENCE to the COUNTRY. If G-d isn't important to you, you have the right to leave G-d out. The important thing is that you remember the purpose of the pledge itself.
It doesn't bother you that the Pledge never originally included god until we had to show those pinko commie bastards whatfor? E Pluribus Unum. That was so much nicer than In God We Trust. The founding fathers sure liked E Pluribus Unum. Why isn't that good enough now?
This shouldn't even be an issue. "Under God" should be removed because I don't believe in ANY god(s) and plenty of people agree with me (even if we're a small minority). Having "Under God" in there implies that in order to be in support of your country, you have to believe that we are united under god. Well, yeah, I could live with being united, but certainly not under god. Yech. That's government support of a religion (or religion in general, it doesn't matter either way) which is prohibited by the first amendment. Banning the whole thing is dumb because there are only those two words that shouldn't be in it, so they should simply be removed.
It should be optional. You don't have to pledge allegience to the US, but I think it would be considered a nice thing to do and you probably should if you live here. As far as kids saying the pledge... I really don't know what to say about it. Most kids have no idea what they're even saying. I think before you can just have kids reciting the pledge, they should be told what it means, even if it's an explanation as simple as "You're saying you support America as a citizen." I don't know how you would explain it to a kindergartener... maybe a third or fourth grader. Having kids recite it (notice I didn't say "making" kids recite it but that's almost what's going on) before they know what it means seems like propaganda or indoctrination to me. Again, they don't understand it so they can't really become very indoctrinated by it, but it still seems like something is wrong here.
Also I don't think pledging allegience to the US is a huge deal. I support America as a country. I don't agree with a lot of the government's policies, and I supremely dislike our president, but that's part of what being an American is all about - having the freedom to question our leadership. Basically, I like America, I just don't like a lot of things America does. It's like an annoying friend or family member... you still like them even if they bother you sometimes. I'm not going to disown a family member just because they piss me off sometimes. Maybe I'll avoid them or something, but they're still part of my family.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I fully agree with BR that "E. Pluribus Unum" is much better than "In God We Trust." In God, I trust nothing. But I think that saying "United We Stand" is fine, and a great saying to stamp on currency and the like.
The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting religiousness OR any specific religion. They are here to govern and allow the people to decide for themselves what kind of shit they want to believe.
As far as the founding fathers go...Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. Read it. Interesting stuff. We were not founded as a Christian Nation. They said so.
As far as being based on religious principles goes...why must personal responsibility and don't hurt other people ONLY be attributed to religion? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not require religion or religiousness.
I never said promote. That would be against the principles. I said SUPPORT. They support your right jnot to be religious, why not support my right to BE religious?
It doesn't bother you that the Pledge never originally included god until we had to show those pinko commie bastards whatfor? E Pluribus Unum. That was so much nicer than In God We Trust. The founding fathers sure liked E Pluribus Unum. Why isn't that good enough now?
You're just mad because you're a commie pinko bastard, but we'll let that go...
I never said to change the motto. I was talking about having the right to add G-d, if you feel it appropriate, in the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't feel the need to do so, and your right as a citizen allows you that right. doesn't it allow me the right to add it if I feel it?
I never liked it changed at all. The reasons were tainted by mccarthyistic horsesh-t and not religiousness in any way. I understand the reason for changing it as well, thee being a Constitution and it being full of rules and all.
I guess my main issue with this is that there really is no issue here. If you don't believe in G-d, leave that part out. If you do believe in any type of G-d, then leave it in, because it's there for you.
With so many more important things being brushed aside because of this issue and flag burning and the gay marriage thing they slip past us acts like the Digital Millenia Act, and the new security acts that allows free range of wire tapping, and invasion of privacy.
The problem is that it is the official pledge. The official government pledge has no business having god in it. This isn't like it's some personal pledge that anyone can make up and say however they want. This is how the government tells people to pledge their allegiance to the country.
You are free to be religious. The government is not.
An American general frames the war on terror as a religious crusade. CNN's Barbara Starr reports. (October 16)
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Discussing a U.S. Army battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia in 1993, Boykin told one audience, "I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol."
Looking forward to the tortured justification that'll follow that...
The problem is that it is the official pledge. The official government pledge has no business having god in it. This isn't like it's some personal pledge that anyone can make up and say however they want. This is how the government tells people to pledge their allegiance to the country.
You are free to be religious. The government is not.
I have no problem with that. Honestly, if you belive in G-d EVERYTHING is "under G-d", whether stated or not. I don't personally need to state it every time I open my mouth to make my faith real. I'm secure enough in my faith to not need that.
But while this is a violation of religion and state, it's not as big as some of the issues out there. This doesn't deserve this kind of attention, when you have ole' georgie boy trying to create big brother with his bills designed to remove civil liberties.
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
people make a bigger deal out of things that they really are.....cough...attention whores...cough.
As opposed to the shy, retiring sort of folk who start threads like this.
Originally posted by applenut
God doesn't have to interpreted as montheistic. cant God include all gods you believe in?
if you don't want to say it, don't. and as for the being ridiculed in class argument. i want to see a bunch of 7 year olds make fun of the kid who doesn't say it. hell, in my class there were a bunch of kids who paid no attention while saying it, not because of their beliefs but because they could care less or were talking to each other.
people make a bigger deal out of things that they really are.....cough...attention whores...cough.
Yes, "God" doesn't have to be interpreted as monotheistic. But being that it is singular, capitalized, and Christian (in intent), I don't necessarily think that any other interpretation would be valid.
And, hey, if a girl made a big deal out of this, she would be an attention pimp. Damn double standards.
Originally posted by applenut
people make a bigger deal out of things that they really are....
People like McCarthy.
In fact, the Supreme Courts decision posted today says:
02-1624 ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCH.DIST.V.NEWDOW,MICHAEL A.,ET AL.
The motion of Pacific Legal Foundation,et al.for leave to
file a brief as amici curiae is granted.The motion of
Rutherford Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae
is granted.The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted
limited to the following Questions:1.Whether respondent has
standing to challenge as unconstitutional a public school
district policy that requires teachers to lead willing students
in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.2.Whether a public
school district policy that requires teachers to lead willing
students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance,which includes
the words "under God,"violates the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment,as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case on
behalf of the United States.Justice Scalia took no part in the
consideration or decision of these motions and this petition.
The father claims to have filed it on behalf of his daughter, who by the way is a Christian, lives with her mother who has sole custody, has stated that she enjoys saying the pledge and doesn't agree with what her father is doing.
This case won't decide whether or not the phrase in the pledge is itself unconstitutional, but rather whether or not requiring a teacher to lead willing students in reciting it would violate the constitution.
Also, in answer to what happens with a 4-4 tie, the Ninth Circut Court of Appeals decision would be affirmed. It should be noted however that the Supreme Court overturns two-thirds of the cases it hears from the 9th. In fact, when I clerked for the court, there was a standing joke that it only takes cases from the 9th when there's a mess to clean up.
Of course, in this case they aren't as much deciding whether or not their ruling was correct, but rather whether or not the case is even ripe for decision. They could conceivably decide that he has no standing to make the case, but also decide that it's unconstitutional to require teachers to lead students in the pledge. Wouldn't that be fun.
edit:
By the way, even if they did that, it wouldn't have a huge effect considering most states don't require teachers to recite the pledge, but allow them the option of leading willing students in reciting the pledge. That would not be determined to be unconstitutioal even if the lower court decision was affirmed.
Originally posted by BR
It has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with taking a beautiful, uniting pledge and turning it into a divisive one. When the pledge was changed in 1954, President Ike made it quite clear that you can't be a patriot if you aren't religious.
"In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
-President Eisenhower, June 1954
Can't the government support religiousness without promoting a relgion?
When you think about the answer also consider that the founding fathers have openly based the system we live under in the US on religious principles.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Cool. Bad example. Polytheistic religions do seem to be left behind in the Pledge though...
And yet Hindus don't seem to really mind it... interesting that. What other polytheistic religions are actively practised these days?
Just because this is a Judeo-Christian (foundation wise anyway) country doesn't change the meaning of G-d. If I was Muslim G-d could be seen as Allah, if Christian it could be Jesus, Jewish would just be... well, G-d...
My point here is that let the speaker define it. This isn't as big of an issue as anyone seems to think it is. If you don't like saying it, leave it out. That's fine. The point of this whole thing is that it's a PLEDGE of ALLEGIENCE to the COUNTRY. If G-d isn't important to you, you have the right to leave G-d out. The important thing is that you remember the purpose of the pledge itself.
Originally posted by EMGeneratr
Can't the government support religiousness without promoting a relgion?
When you think about the answer also consider that the founding fathers have openly based the system we live under in the US on religious principles.
The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting religiousness OR any specific religion. They are here to govern and allow the people to decide for themselves what kind of shit they want to believe.
As far as the founding fathers go...Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. Read it. Interesting stuff. We were not founded as a Christian Nation. They said so.
As far as being based on religious principles goes...why must personal responsibility and don't hurt other people ONLY be attributed to religion? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not require religion or religiousness.
Originally posted by EMGeneratr
And yet Hindus don't seem to really mind it... interesting that. What other polytheistic religions are actively practised these days?
Just because this is a Judeo-Christian (foundation wise anyway) country doesn't change the meaning of G-d. If I was Muslim G-d could be seen as Allah, if Christian it could be Jesus, Jewish would just be... well, G-d...
My point here is that let the speaker define it. This isn't as big of an issue as anyone seems to think it is. If you don't like saying it, leave it out. That's fine. The point of this whole thing is that it's a PLEDGE of ALLEGIENCE to the COUNTRY. If G-d isn't important to you, you have the right to leave G-d out. The important thing is that you remember the purpose of the pledge itself.
It doesn't bother you that the Pledge never originally included god until we had to show those pinko commie bastards whatfor? E Pluribus Unum. That was so much nicer than In God We Trust. The founding fathers sure liked E Pluribus Unum. Why isn't that good enough now?
It should be optional. You don't have to pledge allegience to the US, but I think it would be considered a nice thing to do and you probably should if you live here. As far as kids saying the pledge... I really don't know what to say about it. Most kids have no idea what they're even saying. I think before you can just have kids reciting the pledge, they should be told what it means, even if it's an explanation as simple as "You're saying you support America as a citizen." I don't know how you would explain it to a kindergartener... maybe a third or fourth grader. Having kids recite it (notice I didn't say "making" kids recite it but that's almost what's going on) before they know what it means seems like propaganda or indoctrination to me. Again, they don't understand it so they can't really become very indoctrinated by it, but it still seems like something is wrong here.
Also I don't think pledging allegience to the US is a huge deal. I support America as a country. I don't agree with a lot of the government's policies, and I supremely dislike our president, but that's part of what being an American is all about - having the freedom to question our leadership. Basically, I like America, I just don't like a lot of things America does. It's like an annoying friend or family member... you still like them even if they bother you sometimes. I'm not going to disown a family member just because they piss me off sometimes. Maybe I'll avoid them or something, but they're still part of my family.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I fully agree with BR that "E. Pluribus Unum" is much better than "In God We Trust." In God, I trust nothing. But I think that saying "United We Stand" is fine, and a great saying to stamp on currency and the like.
Either we really separate the church and state or we take out the statute that says we do. The end.
Could you please show us where there is a statute that says we "separate the church and state"
Originally posted by THT
This is first and foremost a nation of men, governed by men, and created for men.
Ah. Ah. Ah. "people" not "men" ...uh oh...here we go again...
Originally posted by BR
The government shouldn't be in the business of promoting religiousness OR any specific religion. They are here to govern and allow the people to decide for themselves what kind of shit they want to believe.
As far as the founding fathers go...Treaty of Tripoli of 1797. Read it. Interesting stuff. We were not founded as a Christian Nation. They said so.
As far as being based on religious principles goes...why must personal responsibility and don't hurt other people ONLY be attributed to religion? Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness does not require religion or religiousness.
I never said promote. That would be against the principles. I said SUPPORT. They support your right jnot to be religious, why not support my right to BE religious?
Originally posted by BR
It doesn't bother you that the Pledge never originally included god until we had to show those pinko commie bastards whatfor? E Pluribus Unum. That was so much nicer than In God We Trust. The founding fathers sure liked E Pluribus Unum. Why isn't that good enough now?
You're just mad because you're a commie pinko bastard, but we'll let that go...
I never said to change the motto. I was talking about having the right to add G-d, if you feel it appropriate, in the Pledge of Allegiance. You don't feel the need to do so, and your right as a citizen allows you that right. doesn't it allow me the right to add it if I feel it?
I never liked it changed at all. The reasons were tainted by mccarthyistic horsesh-t and not religiousness in any way. I understand the reason for changing it as well, thee being a Constitution and it being full of rules and all.
I guess my main issue with this is that there really is no issue here. If you don't believe in G-d, leave that part out. If you do believe in any type of G-d, then leave it in, because it's there for you.
With so many more important things being brushed aside because of this issue and flag burning and the gay marriage thing they slip past us acts like the Digital Millenia Act, and the new security acts that allows free range of wire tapping, and invasion of privacy.
You are free to be religious. The government is not.
Has left the building..................
" E Pluribus Unum That was so much nicer than In God We Trust. The founding fathers sure liked E Pluribus Unum."
Here are some other LATIN alternatives that might have been considered.
"Corruptio optimi pessima"
Corruption of the best is worst.
" Ignorantia juris neminem exusat "
ignorance of the law is no excuse.
" Die dulci Fruere "
Have a nice day
" Raptus Regaliter "
Royally Screwed.
" Stercus Accidit "
.....Shit happens......
An American general frames the war on terror as a religious crusade. CNN's Barbara Starr reports. (October 16)
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.
Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."
Discussing a U.S. Army battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia in 1993, Boykin told one audience, "I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol."
Looking forward to the tortured justification that'll follow that...
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Could you please show us where there is a statute that says we "separate the church and state"
The one that affords us religious liberty, which in turn affords us the liberty to not believe in [G|g]od/s
Originally posted by BR
The problem is that it is the official pledge. The official government pledge has no business having god in it. This isn't like it's some personal pledge that anyone can make up and say however they want. This is how the government tells people to pledge their allegiance to the country.
You are free to be religious. The government is not.
I have no problem with that. Honestly, if you belive in G-d EVERYTHING is "under G-d", whether stated or not. I don't personally need to state it every time I open my mouth to make my faith real. I'm secure enough in my faith to not need that.
But while this is a violation of religion and state, it's not as big as some of the issues out there. This doesn't deserve this kind of attention, when you have ole' georgie boy trying to create big brother with his bills designed to remove civil liberties.