Appeals court refuses to reconsider Pledge of Allegiance decision
- Thread starter Gunny
- Start date
crazyfingers
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2002
- 8,733
- 329
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Good. It is unconstitutional for the government to proscribe a religious pledge.
Upvote
0
It seems to me that many religious minded people are purists when it comes to religion and history - except of course when the pledge of Allegiance is in question.
I saw let's go back to the original version.
I saw let's go back to the original version.
Upvote
0
1hope
Regular Member
If we do end up at war, they may suddenly change their minds about that. It has been reported that the churches were never fuller than during the time of war. People who are no Christians tend to become very "religious" when suddenly faced with a crises. I pray there is not a war, but if it happens, I think people will suddenly be reciting the pledge of allegiance as "one nation under God" again.
Upvote
0
crazyfingers
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2002
- 8,733
- 329
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
IslandBreeze
Caribbean Queen
Yes, actually it was. Remember the Declaration of Independence (endowed by our CREATOR (God) )?
Our money says "In God We Trust." People don't make a big deal out of that. Leave "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't hurt anybody.
Our money says "In God We Trust." People don't make a big deal out of that. Leave "under God" in the pledge. It doesn't hurt anybody.
Upvote
0
crazyfingers
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2002
- 8,733
- 329
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Jefferson, who wrote the DI, was a Deist. He did not believe in your god. Remember that Jefferson cut up the Bible purging it of all supernatural stories and all references to Jesus as a deity?
Besides, the DI has no force in law. The consutitution is what the government is based on and no god is mentioned. Even without the 1st amendment it says that there will be "No religious tests for public office". There is no "so help me god" in any of the oaths that are written into the consitution.
And where in the Bible is the notion of Democracy, representative Government, separation of powers?
Added at the same time that "under god" was added to the Pledge, during the Macarthy era and as a reactyion to the godless communists. In god we trust on our money is JUST as unconstitutional as Under God in the pledge is.
How about changing "Under God" to "Under no god or gods" and you can just not say it. Wouldn't hurt anyone would it?
Upvote
0
It hurts me. As a public school student, I feel coerced when my classmates are saying the pledge. At my age, people are still developing, and sticking out as I do can damage them. I can stand the odd look, but I don't feel right. Humans are a society, and being (in this case, seeming) anti-social CAN hurt, and does.
Upvote
0
I'm not surprised it wasn't viewed by the full court. For one, no matter what they did, it would end up at the Supreme Court anyways. So why bother?
Secondly, the original decision was, legalistical, pretty air-tight, and drew heavily on all the latest Supreme Court decisions on Church/State seperations and schools.
There were only two "outs" to throw out the initial decision. They could decide Newdow lacked standing, which is merely postponing the inevietable because if Newdow lacked it, there are many parents who have standing to contest free and clear, and with a decision already on record, it'd end right back in their lap.
The could go the Supreme Court's general route, and claim it's harmless "ceremonial Deism" (which, personally, I'd think the Christians so up in arms about his decision would find insulting). However, the original decision pretty much tore that claim to shreds too.
I've been looking forward to seeing this case hit the Supreme Court. Should they vote to overturn the decision, their legal reasoning should be very interesting, as they'll be having to write exceptions to decades of heavily established decisions.
It probably won't be a Bush v. Gore "This ruling only applies to this case, and no others" type of ruling, but it'll be quite interesting all the same.
This case, and the Texas sodomy case are going to be quite a delight to watch.
Secondly, the original decision was, legalistical, pretty air-tight, and drew heavily on all the latest Supreme Court decisions on Church/State seperations and schools.
There were only two "outs" to throw out the initial decision. They could decide Newdow lacked standing, which is merely postponing the inevietable because if Newdow lacked it, there are many parents who have standing to contest free and clear, and with a decision already on record, it'd end right back in their lap.
The could go the Supreme Court's general route, and claim it's harmless "ceremonial Deism" (which, personally, I'd think the Christians so up in arms about his decision would find insulting). However, the original decision pretty much tore that claim to shreds too.
I've been looking forward to seeing this case hit the Supreme Court. Should they vote to overturn the decision, their legal reasoning should be very interesting, as they'll be having to write exceptions to decades of heavily established decisions.
It probably won't be a Bush v. Gore "This ruling only applies to this case, and no others" type of ruling, but it'll be quite interesting all the same.
This case, and the Texas sodomy case are going to be quite a delight to watch.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
If the USA was supposedly founded on Christianity, why is Christianity not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution? Nor God, nor Jesus, nor the Bible...
Upvote
0
More than that, the framers purposely avoided any mention of Christ or Christianity. This is a secular nation - as it was meant to be.
I'm sure any Christian would come to appreciate this should the majority of Americans one day be atheist, or Jewish, or Moslem, or Pagan, or whatever.
Upvote
0
Rae
Pro-Marriage. All marriage.
- Aug 31, 2002
- 7,793
- 408
- 51
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Married
Good. They made the right decision. Requiring kids to pledge to a monotheistic God every day in the government funded schools is unconstitutional and interferes with parental rights in teaching their kids religious faith.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Today at 08:36 PM Outspoken said this in Post #16
I'll laugh when it goes through congress and the courts loose some political power.
I'm sure many people will join you in such laughter but I find it troublesome that congress feels they can ignore the law when it fits their needs.
You'd understand if congress was made mostly of Muslims that wished to put "In Allah we Trust" on everything.
Upvote
0
"I find it troublesome that congress feels they can ignore the law when it fits their needs."
Haven't read the consitution lately have you?
Its called checks and balances.
"You'd understand if congress was made mostly of Muslims that wished to put "In Allah we Trust" on everything."
Yup. Not a problem with me.
Haven't read the consitution lately have you?
Its called checks and balances.
"You'd understand if congress was made mostly of Muslims that wished to put "In Allah we Trust" on everything."
Yup. Not a problem with me.
Upvote
0
crazyfingers
Well-Known Member
- May 17, 2002
- 8,733
- 329
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And of course they would be howling themselves if the Pledge said "under no god".
The golden rule means nothing to those who would rather proselytize instead.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Actually, I do find reading the whole constitution to be a bit boring and legalistic. Perhaps you can help me find the section that allows congress to impose their favored religion(s) unto all American citizens?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
