Appeals court refuses to reconsider Pledge of Allegiance decision

[Gunny]

Claiming the Cross: God's Purposes and the United States of America

 

[Rae]

The point is that even though the words were put in there to mean the Christian God exclusively (check the history...it bears me out), even though the Pledge is required of all students regardless of their religious background, even though this is an unconstitutional breach of separation of church and state, you shouldn't protest it and if you do, you're evil and trying to get rid of God...even if you're a theist like myself or Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

 

[Morat]

And, of course, everyone ignores (even when it's brought up) the simple fact that the Pledge didn't have the phrase "Under God" in it for decades.

I was watching an old movie on tv last week, made in the 1930s or so. In it, children were reciting the Pledge. No "Under God".

We've fought two world wars and the Korean war without "Under God". We managed to get through half of the 20th century without it, and the tougher half at that. (That Depression thingy, both those World Wars).

Why are two words, inserted a long time after the Pledge was written, so important to you?

We atheists (and many theists) think it's an unconstitutional insertion that doesn't belong, and we much prefer the original version.

So what about you? Why do you like the new one so much better?

 

[Rae]

Wow. That's almost exactly what Rev. Barry Lynn said on the Tavis Smiley show on National Public Radio as I was coming home. You guys must study the same history, Morat.

He also made a very good point that the only way the Supreme Court can justify having the phrase "under God" in the Pledge is to strip God of...well, Godliness, by making "God" = "ceremonial acknowledgement that God has been important to some Americans." Why would any true believer in God want that?

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 06:08 PM Morat said this in Post #83


So what about you? Why do you like the new one so much better?

Because they like cerimonial deism? oh wait... 

 

[Starscream]

Today at 05:16 PM crazyfingers said this in Post #85

Because they like cerimonial deism? oh wait... 

Please forgive me, but why would a theist be insulted by 'ceremonial desism'?  Isn't that exactly what many of them want?

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 07:12 PM Starscream said this in Post #86

Please forgive me, but why would a theist be insulted by 'ceremonial desism'?  Isn't that exactly what many of them want?

To argue that it is cerimonial deism is the only way to argue that it's constitutional.  But of course if it was only cerimonial deism then so many religionists wouldn't be so upset at the 9th decision and so many atheists wouldn't despise the 1954 addition so much. So it seems clear to me that while they may make that argument, it can't actually be true because if people saw it as only ceriminial deism, then people would not have the reactions that they have. 

 

[Rae]

"Ceremonial deism" means that "God" no longer equals what most of us theists want it to, as most of us aren't Deists any more...and honestly, what it means in order to be legal under the Constitution is that "God" means what I said above....a ceremonial acknowledgement that "God" has been important to Americans in the past.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 07:22 PM Rae said this in Post #88

"Ceremonial deism" means that "God" no longer equals what most of us theists want it to, as most of us aren't Deists any more...and honestly, what it means in order to be legal under the Constitution is that "God" means what I said above....a ceremonial acknowledgement that "God" has been important to Americans in the past.

Ya, that too. 

 

[Starscream]

Today at 06:22 PM Rae said this in Post #88

"Ceremonial deism" means that "God" no longer equals what most of us theists want it to, as most of us aren't Deists any more...and honestly, what it means in order to be legal under the Constitution is that "God" means what I said above....a ceremonial acknowledgement that "God" has been important to Americans in the past.

Ahh, thanks.

Well, how about it Christians?  Are you satisfied with "under God" being reduced to the status of 'ceremonial deism"?

 

[Gunny]

 

[crazyfingers]

Yesterday at 11:24 PM gunnysgt said this in Post #91

Sorry gunny, the US is not one nation under god.  The US is one nation where many beliefs are represented and none has authority over another to claim supremicy. 

 

[D. Scarlatti]

On page two,
Outspoken wrote:
I'll laugh when it goes through congress and the courts loose some political power.

Question: How would Congress go about removing some of the courts' "political power"?

On page three,
Outspoken wrote:
It would be a resolution passed just like any other overuling a verdict of the court.

Question: Can you cite one Congressional resolution in which a federal court decision was "overruled"?

I don't have an "HS government book" handy, but I do have access to several other resources.

Incidentally, the expression "overruled" refers specifically to a court overturning one if it own prior decisions. Congress couldn't, by definition, "overrule" a federal court decision.

Anyway, let's see one of these resolutions please.

 

[Morat]

Come on, somebody answer my question. The silence is deafening. I'm curious.

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 02:02 PM Morat said this in Post #94

Come on, somebody answer my question. The silence is deafening. I'm curious.

I have a guess.  But I'd rather see those christians who think that Under god belongs in the pledge to say it themselves.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

I have carefully reviewed the posts in this thread, and would like to hereby declare gunnysgt the clear winner in the Pledge "debate."

 

[ACougar]

Personally I like the "under God" becuase it acknowleges that we are not "Lords of the Earth," that we are subject to Divine will and that there is an order to all things. That said, I believe "under God" should not be in the official version because the Pledge should be something which unites us and makes us stronger instead of something that divides us.