humanism running rampant

As a child I could never honestly recite the pledge because it made me endore the idea of a god - which I believed to be false.  I'm very that the courts finally ruled that it's unconstitution for the government to push monotheism in a pledge.

This is a great day for religious freedom!!!!

 

The analysis is flawless and quite correct.

 

Great day for religous freedom?  I think it is a great day for the ones who want a totally areligous government but not a great day for religous freedom. 

blackhawk

 

"A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60."

The problem with this is how is this going to be done. It can't. You can't be neutral towards religion.

blackhawk

 

 

No!  It's only a bad day for those who what to use the government to force religion onto everyone. 

The government must be be neutral on religion.  Would you feel the same if the pledge said on nation under Allah?

 

An excellent decision. Read it. Every sentence relies on solid Supreme Court precedent.

The presence of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance fails every test of the establishment clause that has ever been applied.

It's a vestige of the McCarthy era and never had any business being accepted as a required expression of patriotism. All Americans, and especially conservatives, should respect the Constitution and resist the government's involvement in any professions of religious belief whatsoever.

 

Yes you can.  You can not bring it up. You can not address it.  The pledge with out the "under God" part was neutral.

 

 

Sure but it does not say Jesus.  In fact it can be argued it could not even meana more New age kind of God or even Pantheism.  It just says god like The declaration of independence does. 

 

<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10.5pt">Crazy formatting</SPAN>

 

How do you not address religion?&nbsp; What does the governement do when it has to judge a religous person or when it has issues with a religous organization?&nbsp; What does it do with cults that are destructive?&nbsp; This whole court proceeding shows that one can't just not talk about it.&nbsp;

 

"The DoI says "creator". It is also not something that the government endorses as an OFFICIAL pledge of allegiance. The DoI is simply an historical document that has no force in law. You do know that the DoI is not part of the Constitution or part of law?"

I do know that but I am just showing that the government has never been religous neutral and will never be that way. Oh wait the government does not endorse the DoI as official?

" I find it unfathomable how any honest person can insist that it's appropriate for the government to have an OFFICIAL pledge that endorses monotheism."

Which it does not.

"Again I ask you, how would you like it if it said “One nation under Allah” or “One nation under the Invisible Pink Unicorn”"

How does this have anything do with it? The pledge does not say which god to worship or what kind of god. It does nto speak about Christianity or Judiaism. It does not even say that the "god" is personal or intelligent. Heck it could be nature.

blackhawk

 

Bad examples there mr.crazyfingers. AFAIK, none of the founding fathers believed in allah or an "invisible pink unicorn", in contrast to the number of the founding fathers that believed in a single diety (either the Christian true God, or a God that left after creation). As well as the current beliefs of the US population, many, many more US citizens believe in the true Chrisitian God, then allah, or a unicorn, or as in the atheistic/humanistic religion "no gods". Why should we endorse your religion with few adherents instead of the Christian one with more adherents??? Don't even try to pull the old "atheism is not a religion":

Taken from Merriam Webster:
Religion: "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" that is Atheism, thank you very much.

 

Trying this again, those fonts are strange.

The DoI says "Creator".&nbsp; The DoI is also not an official pledge of allegence. It is not part of the Constitution and not part of law.&nbsp;

It's unfachomable that an honest person would believe that it's appropriate for the Government to push monotheism in a pleadge of allegence.

Again how would you feel if the pledge saud "One nation under Allah" or "One nation under the Invidible pink Unicorn"?

 

Also from dictionary.com:
Religion:
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The "spiritual leader" talked about in #3 is obviously a scientist or politician.

 

We all know EXACTLY what god they meant when they altered the pledge during the red scare and the MaCarthy era.

&nbsp;

 

Sheep, have you read the opinion, and are you familiar at all with establishment clause precedent?

 

As the country removes God(Allah) from itself, I wonder if God will be forced to remove Himself from the country.

 

We are only going by what is specifically IN the Pledge of Allegiance, so if a diety is not referenced by NAME then it is just any random god.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

fixed mix-up.

 

Right. There&nbsp;are no references to "god"&nbsp;whatsoever&nbsp;in the Constitution. That was for a reason.