Supreme Court to Consider Pledge's 'Under God' Phrase

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Lord_of_the_Dense, Mar 24, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 11 users.
  1. Lord_of_the_Dense

    Lord_of_the_Dense Deicidic Chipmunk Revue Established Member

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) considers on Wednesday whether the words "under God" must be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance during its recitation in public schools, an important case on church-state separation.

    The high court will question what role religion can play in public life during an hour of arguments in a case that already has sparked a political uproar and generated widespread interest.

    The high court will examine whether a public school district policy requiring teachers to lead willing students in reciting the pledge amounts to an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

    The words "under God" were added to the pledge as part of a 1954 law adopted by Congress in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

    Read entire story here.

    wow..8-0!
     
  2. Atheist Icon

    Atheist Icon Member Established Member

    It shouldn't be considered to be removed, it should be removed. It shouldn't have been added to the pledge to begin with. Anyway...
     
  3. Lord_of_the_Dense

    Lord_of_the_Dense Deicidic Chipmunk Revue Established Member

    Agreed. But Dallas will be along shortly...
     
  4. fujow

    fujow Member

    what's next our money ?
     
  5. cjules13

    cjules13 Member Established Member

    It doesn't really belong. By having a pledge to your country's flag should not mean that you have to pledge "under God." What God? It's a person's personal preference whether or not to believe in a God.

    SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE is not being practiced here.
    Remove it, and remember it wasn't in the original pledge from 1892, it was added in 1954. Let's go back to the original then.
     
  6. Omyn

    Omyn Member

    This move was probably sponsored by the RIAA, once this happens satan will make the RIAA his official group of henchmen and take over the earth for the next thousand or so years.

    Were all doomed :]

    I looked up what god was labeled as under webster, it said "3 : a person or thing of supreme value".

    Wouldn't this make Wal-Mart God? It is of supreme values and prices on various types of merchandise from clothing, electronics and food...

    This whole world is going crazy I tell you.

    This calls for a devine intervention :D
     
  7. nasrules

    nasrules PeerWebmaster

    PiRaNeTuS: You forget that many people don't actually believe in God (yes, I'm one of them)...and have you any proof of these 'blessings'? Thought not. Not having church-state seperation is essentially forcing religion upon people. America's loyalty to God...again, can you justify this claim?

    Sorry, not trying to start a war, just stating the obvious.
     
  8. wingnut2600

    wingnut2600 Reaping what I sow... Established Member

    I feel like God is constraining me... it isn't "with God" it is "under God;" the implication is subservience to God's will. I think that by invoking the name of "God" that it is exclusionary to other religions; I think we should just add other deities (eg "One nation, under God, Buddha, Shiva, Jahweh, Ganesh, Satan, [fill in deities here]"). Perhaps we could have all the citizens of the US add their own deity. I know! How about we add the phrase, "one nation, under whatever belief system that you hold as an individual, indivisible..."

    I think the pledge of Alleigance is bullshit anyways. The people that choose to recite their alleigance to an abstract notion (a government that does not actually ask for your alleigance; the founding fathers wouldn't have wanted that) can decide to be subservient to a non-existent entity as well.
     
  9. cjules13

    cjules13 Member Established Member

    I'm loyal to my flag and America but I'm not loyal to any god, so I don't want that testament put on me and my kids (hypothetical kids... I have none:).

    Separation of church and state is not a "maybe" or a "sometimes." When you're pledging allegiance to the flag, or walking into an Alabama courthouse, and gods, religions, and/or 10 commandments are pushed on you, that's not separation and farther from what makes me be proud to be an American, that no one should be discriminated or forced to do anything with any religion unless it's voluntary.

    Now I suppose I could just sit my ass down and protest against the pledge and never say it... and instruct my kids not to say it, but I do believe in patriotism and I believe it fosters good American spirit to pledge to the flag, but not with "under God" in there. I don't want my kids standing out as "special kids" either with them sitting out for the pledge.

    So tkae it out, like it used to be, and you've achieved you're separation, and you're not forcing "God" on anybody, which is how America was designed to be.
     
  10. Muffin_Man

    Muffin_Man Member

    communists cannot be religious? sounds like some nasty mixing of politics and religion to me.
     
  11. Lord_of_the_Dense

    Lord_of_the_Dense Deicidic Chipmunk Revue Established Member

    (LotD quickly adds he is just the messenger in this)
     
  12. cjules13

    cjules13 Member Established Member

    You have a point in the heritage of our nation, but if that was the case slavery would still exist...

    Just because "that's how it was done in the past" doesn't mean something can't be improved upon now.

    And wow, I didn't know you were flat-out AGAINST separation of church and state... what are the benefits of combining church and state?
     
  13. nasrules

    nasrules PeerWebmaster

    Why should seperation of state and church not be practiced? What logical reason for it is there?

    cjules13 has a very valid point - just because it was done like that then doesn't necessarily mean it should be now.

    Fair point about the believer/non-believer thing PiRaNeTuS. Unfortunately for religion, science is able to explain more and more whlie less and less people are taking up religions.
     
  14. Reporter

    Reporter Member

    Hopefully, Yes. It is profane to juxtapose references to God on money.

    It is also profane to ask for God's blessing to legitimize killing people, in wars, for instance.

    It is also profane to ask for God's help to win a sporting even.

    Such things make God seem trivial, partisan, prejudiced, biased and showing favoritism. Removing God from participation in everything from political debates to sporting events is the only way to restore any meaning to the concept.

    It's hard enough to figure out what the concept of God means anyway. Invoking God for everything makes it impossible and renders God meaningless as a concept.

    The rest of the Universe seems to do very well without God. We should try it here, by the way. John Lennon knew what he was talking about. IMAGINE
     
  15. Lord_of_the_Dense

    Lord_of_the_Dense Deicidic Chipmunk Revue Established Member

    Ok, screw the messenger. This is too much to pass up. I respect your opinion PiRaNeTuS. But there is an inconsistency in the above.

    You said the following in the beginning:

    This acknowledges that some were non-believers. In the large quote above, you state that "but you must recognize the facts that the people that founded this nation did believe that." This implies conformity due to a majority winning out at that time period. The facts, as you point out confusingly, is that most of the Founding Fathers believed in it. I don't think we're necessarily talking law here. The minority party didn't have to obey the idea of God b/c the believers outnumbered them. But it seems the "rule" or "idea" of God won out in the end. The atheists had to deal with "God" money. They weren't given a choice.

    Just as no choice will be given now. It will be easy to rid the Pledge of the objectionable phrase. Re-minting our nation's entire currency is nearly impossible, let alone making a special "atheists-only" version. This is accepted. This is understood due to the simplistic lawmaking at the time it was placed on the currency. We are now beyond that and this allows us to question things such as this topic's namesake.
     
  16. Reporter

    Reporter Member

    So, you believe in the Devil, too, then. And the reason evil exists is because the Devil gets control of people. You know, that is utterly medieval.

    Oh, and since you have no clue what the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution are about, let me take you to school on that one.

    ARTICLE 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
     
  17. Lord_of_the_Dense

    Lord_of_the_Dense Deicidic Chipmunk Revue Established Member

    Did you know "devil" is in "medieval??"

    So I guess it's satanic to say "I'm gonna get medieval on your ass!"
     
  18. cjules13

    cjules13 Member Established Member

    Damn Reporter! Came out with guns blazing I see. Been a member for awhile I see but now 1st posting. Happy 1st post.

    I'm careful not to attack anyone's religoius beliefs, as I whole-heartedly support those who believe, I simply choose not to... yes, even Islam.

    There is no way to prove one way or the other, maybe we'll find out after we leave this earth.

    But when you have a nation founded on things like ARTICLE 1, a good point, having "under God" in the pledge to your nation clearly violates this. I'm ticked about the money thing too, but I agree with LoTD in that it's pretty much impractical to remove it and I'll live without creating a giant hassle...
     
  19. Burd

    Burd Member

    First of all, neither religion nor patriotism should be forced. If an individual doesn't arrive at either on his or her own, then neither is worth crap. Second of all, we have conflicting values here: separation of church and state and freedom of speech. I hesitate to have any words removed from anything, because that's just censorship. Adding or substituting words, now that might be different. How about "under creation"? Now, we can all agree that the world was created in some way, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be here. Whether or not it was created by an intelligent being or entity is a matter for religion or philosophy. I don't know why we just can't admit that our kids have the ability to think. Just reciting a "pledge" is not (and should not) determine what a person believes. Ahhh, the joys and curses of a diverse society! But, that's America!
     
  20. cjules13

    cjules13 Member Established Member

    I buy that... But... I don't think being biased is a good thing, especially in this nation which was supposed to be built without one... So lets remove the bias! Makes us better and more what our founding fathers had in mind! Case closed!

    Again, I STRESS, that the phrase was NOT in the original pledge written in 1892. It was ADDED later! Without any founding father input!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page