It Finally Happened - The Pledge Of Allegiance Is Unconstitutional

insein said:
This avoids the one key thing. Students are not FORCED to say the pledge. They simply say it. Most dont even understand the words they recite. Some mumble through it. Some dont say it.

Its fucking simple if you dont want your kid saying the pledge then have her not say it. Im positive that any teacher without a thorn up her ass will allow this. Especially in this touchy feely politically correct world we have degenerated into. There is no need to make a federal case out of it and cost the tax payers thousands of dollars trying to prove how big an asshole you are.

Once again society is trying to apply skewed equality. If one child shouldn't be "forced" to say it, then all should be forced to NOT say it.

Pretty soon if a blind child comes to school and can't read the books and can only read braille, then all children will be forced to study under the braille system so that the rights of the blind child are enforced. God helps us if the civil rights people decide that all should be made blind.

I am so tired of the rights of the individual taking priority over the rights of the majority. :puke3:
 
Abbey Normal said:
I don't see what difference it makes that the words "under God" were added later. So were all the Amendments to the Constitution. That doesn't make them any less important or less credible. Sometimes we make improvements to our national symbols. ;)

I see a difference in that I think it provides a better argument for those who want it taken out.

Yes, we added amendments to the Constitution, but we have also repealed several of those amendments, showing that sometimes a change isn't necessarily a change for the better. For example, Amendment 18 (prohibition) was repealed by Amendment 21.

But I totally see your argument (no matter how dumb it is ;) ). :)
 
ProudDem said:
ACLUdem, I totally agree with what you have said. Is no one acknowledging that "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954? Thus, when it was initially drafted, those words were not there.

I am an atheist, although I don't really have a problem with saying "under God" when I say the pledge, as it doesn't affect my lack of belief in God. For argument's sake, however, I just don't see how pledging my allegiance to this country requires me to acknowledge God, particularly when I don't believe in God.

The Supreme Court just ruled that we cannot have the Ten Commandments in a courthouse because it violates the Establishmen Clause. Having to acknowledge "God" in a public school, to me, is the same kine of violation. Sure I don't have to say "under God" while saying the pledge, but then saying the pledge should be optional and should be silent. Kids can stand up, look at the flag, put their hand on their heart, and silently say the pledge, and then no one is offended.

Who cares who is offended. This is the pledge. Deal with it. No one is forced to acknowledge god. No one is forced to say the pledge. Other things we are forced to do by our government i find offensive but hell we deal with it unless we have enough people to change the LAW other wise. We don't sue and have a judge make up law. We goto our congressmen and women and let them know our feelings and if enough of their constituents agree, then the congressman/woman will push forward a new law. Sueing to get your way is the equivalent of a child throwing a temper tantrum in a classroom till the teacher gives him a certain toy and none of the other children get that toy.

This whole "im offended", PC bullshit is the problem with the country today. You can't speak whats on your mind for fear of offending someone. The people who are offended arent even the ones that comments are directed at. People DO NOT have the right to not be offended. Otherwise, i'd be in court everyday sueing the media for their offensive news coverage. If people minded their business and let those who the comments are directed at defend themselves if they so choose, then this country would be a far better place.
 
insein said:
Who cares who is offended. This is the pledge. Deal with it.

Maybe my use of the word offended is misplaced. The words "under God" were added to the pledge. So I think both arguments about taking it out and keeping it in are valid and neither view is superior to the other. It wasn't there in the first place, and the basis for adding it is really no longer applicable.

I'm not saying that the words need to be removed. I am merely pointing out that the argument that they should be removed isn't ridiculous (since those words were ADDED) and not in the original pledge of allegiance.
 
Acknowlegement of god is a actually a check on government power. That's why libs hate it.

The premise of our country's founding is that rights come from god initially and only be taken away by the government but by the consent of the governed. Libs prefer a different paradigm, one in which government is all powerful and decides what rights, priveliges and property trickle down to their slaves, the governed.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Acknowlegement of god is a actually a check on government power. That's why libs hate it.

The premise of our country's founding is that rights come from god initially and only be taken away by the government but by the consent of the governed. Libs prefer a different paradigm, one in which government is all powerful and decides what rights, priveliges and property trickle down to their slaves, the governed.

How does acknowledging God provide a check on gov't power?

There are people (such as myself) who don't believe in God, so I don't believe he gave our country its rights. I know I am in the minority, but I think we can stand as one nation without all having to acknowledge God.
 
ProudDem said:
How does acknowledging God provide a check on gov't power?

There are people (such as myself) who don't believe in God, so I don't believe he gave our country its rights. I know I am in the minority, but I think we can stand as one nation without all having to acknowledge God.

That is what the founders intended. They were afraid of another all powerful government like the one in England that answered to NO ONE. So by recognizing that the people's power came not from the government but from God himself, the people had power over the government.

You do not have to acknowledge god, but the founders did when they created this country. As long as you understand that they believe in God and based this country around the belief that he gave us these inalienable rights of Life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, then we can all get along.
 
insein said:
That is what the founders intended. They were afraid of another all powerful government like the one in England that answered to NO ONE. So by recognizing that the people's power came not from the government but from God himself, the people had power over the government.

You do not have to acknowledge god, but the founders did when they created this country. As long as you understand that they believe in God and based this country around the belief that he gave us these inalienable rights of Life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness, then we can all get along.

That makes perfect sense to me. :)
 
Bonnie said:
I think we all knew that was coming...Doesn't Newdow have a life other than trying to foster his atheism on the rest of us. Maybe he needs a woman to keep him occupied?

You think a woman would really help? I doubt any woman other than one who already agrees with what he is doing would be interested. And if she already agrees, then having one might be worse because he would be encouraging her.
 
ProudDem said:
How does acknowledging God provide a check on gov't power?

There are people (such as myself) who don't believe in God, so I don't believe he gave our country its rights. I know I am in the minority, but I think we can stand as one nation without all having to acknowledge God.

If government gave us the rights, then government can take them away. If God gave us the rights, doesn't matter what government does, we cant lose our God given rights.

If you make government your god then you will see how truly ruthless and uncaring your god can be.
 
ProudDem said:
I see a difference in that I think it provides a better argument for those who want it taken out.

Yes, we added amendments to the Constitution, but we have also repealed several of those amendments, showing that sometimes a change isn't necessarily a change for the better. For example, Amendment 18 (prohibition) was repealed by Amendment 21.

But I totally see your argument (no matter how dumb it is ;) ). :)

We have repealed several Amendments? Give us a list, would you? You have pointed out one single Amendment that was repealed, out of Amendments 11-27. In fact, the 21st Amendment, while repealing the 18th, specifically retained each state's right to continue to prohibit the manufacturing, importing, and exporting of alcohol if they so choose. Not a great example for you.

More importantly, maybe you can share with us exactly why it makes a better argument for you that "under God" was added later. Other than the fact that you kind of think it does. The abolishment of slavery was an Amendment to the Constitution. Does that fact, as you put it, "provide a better argument for those who want (the abolition of slavery) taken out."?

I'd like to say, as you did, that I "totally see your argument (no matter how dumb it is)", but I'm afraid it just doesn't hold enough water to even say that. Except maybe the dumb part. :poke: :cool: ;)
 
Abbey Normal said:
We have repealed several? Give us a list, would you? You have pointed out one single Amendment that was repealed, out of Amendments 11-27. In fact, the 21st Amendment, while repealing the 18th, specifically retained each state's right to continue to prohibit the manufacturing, importing, and exporting alcohol if they so choose. Not a great example for you.

More importantly, maybe you can share with us exactly why it makes a better argument for you that "under God" was added later. Other than the fact that you kind of think it does. The abolishment of slavery was an Amendment to the Constitution. Does that fact, as you put it, "provide a better argument for those who want (the abolition of slavery) taken out."?

I'd like to say, as you did, that I "totally see your argument (no matter how dumb it is)", but I'm afraid it just doesn't hold enough water to even say that. Except maybe the dumb part. :poke: :cool: ;)

BRAVO ABBEY!!!!

rep, rep, rep, rep, rep, rep.........very well said!!! :thewave:
 

Forum List

Back
Top