Pledge Unconstitutional

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by kern
And to the other Christians posting on these threads: Do you care about religious freedom at all? I suppose I understand if you don't, but it's hypocrisy to use the religious freedom to mean "Christian dominance". If the pledge said "one nation, under Allah" or "one nation, under Buddha"?

Or, as the 9th Circuit put it, "one nation under no god." I bet that would go over big.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by supermagdalena
Do we change everything around that's been in our country for hundreds of years because a few are offended by two words?  We'd have to change our coins...our dollars...nearly all the songs about America.

Hm, this is going to take a lot of work. 

Let'm say Allah, or Buddha, or whatever instead of God.  Don't outlaw our pledge.  They're not being forced to say it.

~Emily~

Doesn't work. Because then you're still implying a supreme being, which is discriminatory to all atheists, most polytheists, and many other religions.

Once more, your pledge isn't outlawed. It just can't be forced or endorsed by any government agency. You could walk down the street, shouting it at the top of your lungs and not be violating this law. True, you'd probably be violating noise polution laws, but that's a different story.

  Jeff

 

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by Not Prince Hamlet
"Darnit, we had it so good here before," a number of them must be saying right now.  "And now we can't force them wretched infidels to say our Pledge to our god; that's so unfair!"

   Jeff

  [/B]

 

Well, is it the fact you have to listen to it or the fact that you know its said thats "forcing" you?

 

AGAIN. Recognition is not acceptance.

 

[No gods]

Wow.  Could you possibly miss the point anymore than you have? 

Do you really want YOUR children reciting a pledge to Vishnu or Allah everyday in school?  Where, even though they can't be "forced" by the school or teacher to recite it, they are "pressured" to bu peer pressure, etc.

Originally posted by the worthy one
The problem is......where does it stop?

Do we need new monetary?

Yes, we need to get rid of "in god we trust" from our money.

Can't play religious themed music in public events such as July 4th celebrations?

I would prefer they didn't.

Can't even speak about religion in public anymore?

Freedom of speech, heard of it?  It's somewhere in there with freedom of religion.

Can't have a sign outside your store advertising Christian books?

It is your right to display the advertisement in your store.

Can't have "the Holy Bible" written on a book anymore?

This is just a ludicrous statement.

If its offensive, get over it. Seriously.

Yup, if a christian reference in a goverment sanctioned pledge offends all other Americans with a right to freedom of religion but doesn't offend the christians, then by all means, let's all get over it.  The christians have spoken.  Oh wait, we ALL have the right of freedom of religion, not JUST the christians, right?

People find daisey-dukes (shorts) offensive too. Why don't we make a law just for those people?

Falls under freedom of speech, I believe.

The fact that our constitution states the word "religion" is recognizing religion exists so why don't we just burn the constitution altogether?

 

Yes, the constitution "recognizes" that religion exists, I don't think anyone is contesting this point.
 

Lets just get rid of crossing streets since it can look like a crucifix from above.

Yet another ludicrous statement.

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by No gods
Do you really want YOUR children reciting a pledge to Vishnu or Allah everyday in school? 

I wouldn't whine about it. I'd tell my kids to believe as they wish and allow the others to do as they wish.

Freedom of speech, heard of it?  It's somewhere in there with freedom of religion.

So the pledge can still be said with "under God" then if you so choose?

It is your right to display the advertisement in your store.

It used to be our right to pray publicly before athletic events too.

Yet another ludicrous statement. [/B]

If there is a will there is a way. Obviously.

 

Once again. Recognition is not acceptance.

 

[No gods]

Originally posted by the worthy one
 Once again. Recognition is not acceptance.

 

Well, then, is their a problem with recognizing them all?  How about this as the new line:  One nation under god and allah and zues and odin and vishnu and satan and the goddess and no god (ad infinitum).

 

If you are going to "recognize" one you need to recognize them all, Worthy.

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Blackhawk
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Okay so if we want to be sticklers this says that Congress can't make a law that establishes religion. But what about state congresses? I ask this because that is what the signers of the constitution did. many wrote state constitutions that we re full of religous references.

The courts have held that states may not pass laws, at a state level, that contravene or trample federal rights.

So just because some state (Mississippi, for example) passed a law against buddhism, that law would not hold.  Why?  Because to enforce it, you would have to stomp all over a federally guaranteed liberty.

 

[the worthy one]

Originally posted by No gods
If you are going to "recognize" one you need to recognize them all, Worthy.

 

Thats a good point.

 

The fact is this is just going to be another way for someone to make another law restricting religious freedom.

Think about it. Freedom of restricted hearing has become more important then freedom of speech.

So whats stopping them from saying no more bulletin boards advertising Christian events, bookstores, radio stations etc?

 

[supermagdalena]

VOW- Yes, or we could just put "Any or none Supreme being your wish or do not wish to worhsip"

Not Prince Hamlet: okay, then let them say nothign there.  Drop it out.  Why doesn't that work? 

Don't say outlaw it.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by No gods


 

Well, then, is their a problem with recognizing them all?  How about this as the new line:  One nation under god and allah and zues and odin and vishnu and satan and the goddess and no god (ad infinitum).

 

If you are going to "recognize" one you need to recognize them all, Worthy.

 

Exactly. You see "under God" is really insidious. It makes Christianity the default religion.

What's so wrong with being the default, you ask? Aren't people still free to choose any religion they want?

Ask Netscape the same question. When Microsoft made Internet Explorer the default browser that came with its Windows operating systems, what happened to Netscape?

So being the default gives you the inside edge. It really does matter that Christianity is given preferred treatment by the United States governent, and yes, it does extend far beyond the Pledge of Allegiance.

Should it be taken off the currency? Heck yes.

Should Christmas trees be forbidden in government buildings, including schools? You bet. (Although, strictly speaking, Christmas is a secular holiday these days about the exchanging of gifts, and even when it wasn't, it was a pagan holiday absorbed by Christianity in an attempt to muscle out the indigenous religions as it strove to take over the world.)

  Jeff

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by supermagdalena
Do we change everything around that's been in our country for hundreds of years because a few are offended by two words? 

Except that this phrase has only been in the Pledge since 1954. 

We'd have to change our coins...our dollars...nearly all the songs about America.

Hopefully coins will be next.  Also not around for hundreds of years, by the way.

Hm, this is going to take a lot of work. 

That's why it's better not to do it in the first place, than to have to spend all that energy to remove the unconstitutional actions.

Let'm say Allah, or Buddha, or whatever instead of God.  Don't outlaw our pledge.  They're not being forced to say it.

Sure they are.


 

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by supermagdalena
VOW- Yes, or we could just put "Any or none Supreme being your wish or do not wish to worhsip"

Not Prince Hamlet: okay, then let them say nothign there.  Drop it out.  Why doesn't that work? 

Don't say outlaw it.

Check out my last post, since we exchanged posts in the ether.

The nutshell summary is that the Pledge establishes Christianity as the default, which means it's essentially favoring Christianity.

Besides, as another poster pointed out, peer pressure will effectively make it mandatory, even if it's not a written rule.

Sorry, I do support your right to believe what you want, but I do not support your attempts to force others to conform to it.

    Jeff

 

 

[kiwimac]

Look,

Eisenhower added the words in the 1950's in order to make the US as unlike the USSR as it could be. It was the height of the McCarthy-era persecution of left-wingers.

These words had NEVER before been in the oath of allegiance, thousands of US citizens had lived & died without those words being there So why is it a big thing to remove them now?

As for the poster who opined that christians might no longer think America worth dying for, GOOD, the early christians believed that membership in Christ's body and an army was so incompatiblet they
excommunicated anyone who was!

One last comment. This is not specifically a US board, so why was this posted so prominently, talking as a NZ I find this US fascination with itself both offensive and bewildering. The rest of us live on this planet too, often our nations were entities long before the declaration of Independence, we are not just passengers in a US driven car!

Kiwimac

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by marathoner
I wonder how much further they can go before Christians beging to think that this country might not be worth dying for in a war anymore. It is scary. I fly my flag on my porch but I wonder if there will be a day when Christianity is made illegal in the U.S.

Illegal?  No.  That would be a bad thing.

Non-mandatory and non-invasive?  Yes.  That's what the separation of church and state is all about.

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti


"Respecting an establishment of religion."



Read the XIVth Amendment. It applies the U.S. Constitution to state and local governments.

Civics lessons are in order all around on these threads.

 

 

 You ignored my point.  My point was that it is obvious that the signers did not mean what you are saying that they did.  They did not mean that we can't have "In god we trust" On coins or that we can't say "Under God" in the pledge.  This is very obvios when we look at their actions.  Possibly some early American History lessons are in order. 

blackhawk

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by supermagdalena
VOW- Yes, or we could just put "Any or none Supreme being your wish or do not wish to worhsip"

Not Prince Hamlet: okay, then let them say nothign there.  Drop it out.  Why doesn't that work? 

Don't say outlaw it.

I think that dropping it out is exactly what the 9th Circuit Court is talking about here.

The Pledge is not illegal, per se.  It's only illegal if that phrase is included.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Sauron,

 Where have I heard that name before, I wonder? Regardless, it has a nice ring to it.

 Seriously, you're absolutely correct: people are being forced to say the pledge, no matter how much people might argue otherwise.

  And kids are malleable. If you are immersed in religion, you often believe it without questioning it.

  I once attended a summer camp where everybody was forced to say a prayer before meals. I had a councilor who was originally from India. One evening, he wore a tee shirt that read "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, etc."

  I read the shirt out loud, not knowing what it meant, and he said to me, "By reading this shirt, you've just done more good than all of those prayers."

  It's only looking back now that I realized how offensive those prayers must have been to him. To have to sit there while the camp officially endorsed a belief he didn't share must have been oppressive and humiliating to him. Oh sure, he didn't have to say them: he could just listen to everybody else say them. But, somehow I don't think that made him feel any less oppressed.

 Jeff

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


 

 You ignored my point.  My point was that it is obvious that the signers did not mean what you are saying that they did.  They did not mean that we can't have "In god we trust" On coins or that we can't say "Under God" in the pledge.  This is very obvios when we look at their actions. 

Sorry; you've just repeated your first assertion.  Repeating an assertion is not the same as proving it.

Why is it obvious that this isn't what the Founders meant? 

Possibly some early American History lessons are in order. 

blackhawk

Indeed.  I was going to suggest the same thing to you.

 

[Not Prince Hamlet]

Originally posted by Blackhawk


 

 You ignored my point.  My point was that it is obvious that the signers did not mean what you are saying that they did.  They did not mean that we can't have "In god we trust" On coins or that we can't say "Under God" in the pledge.  This is very obvios when we look at their actions.  Possibly some early American History lessons are in order. 

blackhawk

 

Blackhawk,

 By all means, let's have the lesson.

    Jeff

 

 

[A Sheep]

I was wondering something. Because it is so constitutional to have that phrase absent from the pledge of allegiance, then why was it ever put in, and why did it take so long to take it out? 48 years!!!