The Pledge stays as it is...

[SuzQ]

If they were good judges they would have ruled on it instead of bowing/fearing the majority of the country.

First of all, since when are judges supposed to be biased? They are appointed to uphold what the country was based on. Pull out a twenty from your wallet & see what's written on the back. "IN GOD WE TRUST". The Seperation of Church and State, or freedom OF religion, (not freedom from religion), meant that Catholics could not force everyone in the institution to be Catholic. Protestants could not force Methodists to accept Martin Luther's versions, no Christian religion is better than another, nor should Jews be forced by man to become Christian, etc.

If you'd like quotes from our Founding Fathers, just let me know.

To my knowledge, the MAJORITY of the country still believes in God, and therefore has no issue with it being in the Pledge of Allegiance?? This is yet ANOTHER issue of sacrificing the majority's belief for a few "crabby apples" in the minority. Some of you say it "oppresses" them. Well, I would also feel oppressed to give up the word "God" in my vocabulary. It goes both ways. If your child is athiest, they are not FORCED to say those words, period. Besides, it would never have been accepted or adopted with the "changed" version in the first place, if the MAJORITY at the time & still today did not agree.

*Gets off her soapbox*

 

[Ganymede]

i feel that the scotus punked out. they did not have the courage to make the constitutional decision and they didn't have the audacity to make the unconstitutional choice, so they got lucky and were able to duck it by legal means. it will come up again, and constitutionally they will have no choice.
if the mom and dad have joint custody and the dad doesn't have the legal right to speak for the child, who does? does the mother have more rights to the child in a joint custody scenario? based on what logic?
as much as we christians like it when there is any connection at all between our faith and the u.s. government, if we maintain our intellectual integrity we know there is no legal basis for the conjoining of the two. we should celebrate this, because it is the integrity of this truth that ultimately protects our right to worship the way we choose. you must deal with the reality that by supporting the mingling of the two you will become the target of the same mingling somewhere down the line, when the power balance shifts and some group that doesn't like what we believe gets the influence to truly persecute us. the government not professing God is not persecution. it is making religion a passive issue to the state. if the state became active in suppressing our faith, they would be equally out of line. not having a representative of the state leading kids in prayer or the "godly" pledge is not persecution. it is disengagement, and that is the essence of what the first amendment is saying about religion and the state. they should not be engaged.
THIS IS WHAT GIVES US THE FREEDOM TO WORSHIP HOW WE LIKE, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
in my opinion, this is a sad day for american jurisprudence, for the current scotus proved itself to have no courage to face what may be an unpopular truth about our cotus, and that is their job. they must uphold the constitution, even when the rest of the country is ready to abandon it.

Excellent post!

 

[hyperborean]

To my knowledge, the MAJORITY of the country believes in God, and therefore has no issue with it being the the Pledge of Allegiance?? This is yet ANOTHER issue of sacrificing the majority's belief for a few "crabby apples" in the minority. If your child is athiest, they are not FORCED to say those words, period. Besides, it would never have been accepted or adopted with the "changed" version in the first place, if the MAJORITY at the time & still today did not agree. *

Crabby apples. Is this your version of Christian compassion? If 50 million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. Do you even know why those words were added. The author of the pledge who was a baptist minister didn't write them.

 

[Larry]

Let's just forget about the proper role of judiciaries, and let them conduct themselves as political activists.

Yeah. That's it.

 

[SuzQ]

Crabby apples. Is this your version of Christian compassion? If 50 million people say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. Do you even know why those words were added. The author of the pledge who was a baptist minister didn't write them.

I thought "crabby apples" was a more Christian thing to say, compared to what other intolerant people call them. If that STILL offends, sheesh, I apologize then.

The reason I use that phrase is because I know several athiests on here, as well as a Buddhist on CF, a few Universalists I've had the pleasure of getting to know on CF, a Scientologist, etc, who could care less that it's in the the American Pledge of Allegiance. Most think it's a waste of time to use such negative energy fighting & forcing those who believe in a God to be "silenced" from simply saying the word for pete's sake.

Stand up for the REAL oppressed people - those who are still being discriminated against because of something they DON'T choose, or have NO CHOICE with - their sex, the color of their skin, their supposed "handicap", etc. It's about priorities, if you ask me.

Edited to add: P.S. Just curious - you have a Christian-looking avatar, but your icon indicates your an athiest???? Isn't that contradictory?

 

[crystalpc]

REMEMBER FLAG DAY-MONDAY, JUNE 14! INSPIRATIONAL WORDS ON FLAG DAY
​

The things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history.
--Woodrow Wilson

Let those who would die for the flag on the field of battle give a better proof of their patriotism and a higher glory to their country by promoting fraternity and justice. -
--Benjamin Harrison, Inaugural Address, 1889

Image courtesy of the Lehrman Institute of American History.A thoughtful mind, when it sees a Nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the Nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the Government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the Nation which belongs to the Nation that sets it forth.
--Henry Ward Beecher



​

 

[Nasreddin]

comments?

Nngh. Wish I could write up an adequate reply right now, but no time...I'll try to post something more detailed later, though.

In the meantime, could you help me out by clarifying a few things? For one, I'm not sure what exactly you are defending:

1) The Pledge itself, in its entirety and as it stands right now - this seems to be the general approach of the SCOTUS, as well as what you're talking about right now
2) The act of Congress that added the words "under God" to the pledge in 1954 - this is what I was talking about in my earlier posts.


The second point would make for somewhat broader discussion than the Supreme Court would've entertained if it did decide on the merits of Newdow's case; I do object to the national motto being changed to "In God We Trust" and the (IMO) ad hoc excuse of "ceremonial deism", among other things, and a detailed discussion of why I object to "under God" in the pledge would probably stray into that area. I'll understand that's more than you'd care to discuss - but in any case, I'd appreciate a clarification of your position before I start on a response to you.

 

[hyperborean]

The reason I use that phrase is because I know several athiests on here, as well as a Buddhist on CF, a few Universalists I've had the pleasure of getting to know on CF, a Scientologist, etc, who could care less that it's in the the American Pledge of Allegiance. Most think it's a waste of time to use such negative energy fighting & forcing those who believe in a God to be "silenced" from simply saying the word for pete's sake.

I don't think you understand the argument. Is your faith that weak?

 

[SuzQ]

I don't think you understand the argument. Is your faith that weak?

I understand THE argument - I don't understand "yours", sorry. You lost me. All I'm doing is asking why it is considered "oppressing the minority" for those who don't believe in God to be around others who do? I added my 2 cents by simply stating that some of the "minority" I've chatted with do not CARE. That's all.

Also, why attack me or my faith all of a sudden? Because I allow myself to get to know non-Christians on CF, my faith is weak?? I don't see how I contradict or sacrifice my own Christian beliefs simply by getting to know & trying to understand non-Christians, what they believe & why they believe it. It gives me more of an understanding & also compassion to pray for them, whether they think they need it or not. I'm a Christian....um, that's what we do. We care.

 

[Larry]

Is your faith that weak?

Implication by question that her faith is weak.

Now that's weak.

 

[Rae]

How can it be proven the inclusion of the words "Under God," has had the primary effect of advancing religion?

By looking at the legislative and political history surrounding the insertion of those words into the Pledge, including those words of Eisenhower's you keep dismissing. The Court, contrary to your assumptions, frequently DOES look at the legislative history. That's why it has overturned so many "moment of silence" laws in the States, because the Senators who sponsored them said outright that they passed them "so that God would be acknowledged in our schools again," e.g.

 

[crystalpc]

By looking at the legislative and political history surrounding the insertion of those words into the Pledge, including those words of Eisenhower's you keep dismissing. The Court, contrary to your assumptions, frequently DOES look at the legislative history. That's why it has overturned so many "moment of silence" laws in the States, because the Senators who sponsored them said outright that they passed them "so that God would be acknowledged in our schools again," e.g.

Notice the word AGAIN??? That means that God was acknowledged in our schools from the beginning. This was a Christian nation founded on Christian Principles. Until the *#@@#@#@&^%** atheistic aclu took over.

 

[Rae]

All I'm doing is asking why it is considered "oppressing the minority" for those who don't believe in God to be around others who do?

It isn't like that in the public schools, where all children are required to recite the Pledge every day, whether polytheist or monotheist, atheist or true believer. In situations where the Pledge isn't a required recitation (growing fewer and fewer, as I've actually had my life threatened by some people - Pagans and Catholics, to be precise - who said they'd beat me up if I didn't recite the Pledge in a place where it's a VOLUNTARY recitation), your argument MIGHT work ... though it's still a government endorsement of religion and thus is suspect under our Constitution.

My main objection is to its forced recitation by all children in the government funded public schools. My tax dollars should not go to pay for the government to tell my daughter that there is only one God. Nor should they go to pay for the government to tell my daughter that said God endorses its actions (which, by implication, it does ... ). Neither is acceptable.

Of course, I also object to the blind Pledge devotees who would assault me for choosing not to recite it, as is my right as a thinking adult. But the government can't do much about that, other than locking them up for my murder after the fact, sadly.

 

[Paula]

i feel that the scotus punked out. they did not have the courage to make the constitutional decision and they didn't have the audacity to make the unconstitutional choice, so they got lucky and were able to duck it by legal means. . . . .

Hardly. Although this may have been a procedural ruling on its face, the 8-0 decision speaks volumes, given its pronouncement on Flag Day and unanimity of the bench. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

In reviewing the decision, it does appear the merits of the case were discussed quite extensively. I quote some excerpts from the ruling and concurring opinions, which should give us some insight as to the direction in which the high court is leaning:

"There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God. But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress." (Chief Justice Rehnquist)

"I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution." (Justice O'Connor)

"Michael Newdow's challenge to petitioner school district's policy is a well-intentioned one, but his distaste for the reference to "one Nation under God," however sincere, cannot be the yardstick of our Establishment Clause inquiry." (Justice O'Connor)

"To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer. . . .Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution." (Clarence Thomas)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624

 

[Rae]

That means that God was acknowledged in our schools from the beginning.

So? Slavery was acknowledged in our nation from the beginning. Murder of the Native Americans was acknowledged in our nation from the beginning. Virtual enslavement of women was acknowledged in our nation from the beginning. Now that we know these things aren't good for us, we no longer do them. That includes forcing the government's idea of religion on my children with my money in my government funded schools. Capiche?

This was a Christian nation founded on Christian Principles.

1. Look at what I said above. Are those things true? If so, can you truly say this was a Christian nation? Most Christians I know don't want to claim those things as true.

2. If you look at the faiths of the Founders, they were Deists or fairly LIBERAL Christians who didn't want the government getting tangled up with religion, because they felt it diminished BOTH. And it does.

Bottom line: you have no right to take my money to force your religion on me. The Constitution forbids it (as interpreted by the Courts), our history forbids it, and I would hope common decency would forbid it as well.

 

[Paula]

My main objection is to its forced recitation by all children in the government funded public schools. My tax dollars should not go to pay for the government to tell my daughter that there is only one God. Nor should they go to pay for the government to tell my daughter that said God endorses its actions (which, by implication, it does ... ). Neither is acceptable.

Of course, I also object to the blind Pledge devotees who would assault me for choosing not to recite it, as is my right as a thinking adult. But the government can't do much about that, other than locking them up for my murder after the fact, sadly.

Just to clarify, no child or adult is forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in America. Its recitation is entirely voluntary.

 

[Rae]

Yeah. You've never been to most schools I've been to, then. Don't do what the herd does, and you get trashed for it ... remember the threats of physical violence I mentioned, above? They really happened. They happen in schools, too. Trust me.

 

[Paula]

Yeah. You've never been to most schools I've been to, then. Don't do what the herd does, and you get trashed for it ...

Not so. As one who formerly taught in the public school system, students may abstain from reciting the pledge for various reasons, including religious. If there was a disciplinary problem in your school(s), you should have referred them to a principal or administrator.

 

[Larry]

The disappointing thing about this ruling was that it was thrown out on a technicality. This will be brought before the Supreme Court again. Hopefully next time, the same ruling will stand on it's own merits, and we can close this chapter once and for all.

 

[Sonsglow]

x