View Full Version : Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional


Green Plastic
06-26-2002, 03:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Pledge Declared Unconstitutional
Wed Jun 26, 2:36 PM ET
By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Pledge of Allegiance is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and cannot be recited in schools.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) overturned a 1954 act of Congress inserting the phrase "under God" after the words "one nation" in the pledge. The court said the phrase violates the so-called Establishment Clause in the Constitution that requires a separation of church and state.

"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," Judge Alfred T. Goodwin wrote for the three-judge panel.

The court, in the nation's first ruling of its kind, said that when President Eisenhower signed the 1954 legislation, he wrote that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court ( news - web sites) has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge. But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, a student who objects is confronted with an "unacceptable choice between participating and protesting," the appeals court said.

"Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the pledge," the court said.</font>

Andrew_Pakula
06-26-2002, 03:11 PM
References to God in anything to do with the Government shouldn't be there in the first place. It's a little sad to see it took almost 50 years to at least strike that down.

Ghetto_Squirrel
06-26-2002, 03:13 PM
Thumbs up to freedom of religion or lack of religion.

------------------
http://www.toolcity.net/~burt/images/pimp3a.jpg
My anti-drug is non-consensual sex with minors.
AIM: Mista Saki

TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld
06-26-2002, 03:14 PM
Well, we've almost certainly got a Supreme Court decision coming up--let's hope they have the same outlook.

Next target: our money.

BlueStar
06-26-2002, 03:19 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld:

Next target: our money.</font>

<font color=#ADD8E6>Indeed. There's been some interesting commentary about it on MSNBC.



------------------
~*~Samantha~*~

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~sag249/sigankle.jpg

The Omega Concern
06-26-2002, 03:21 PM
based in San Francisco, the 9th circuit court of appeals is the biggest front for the communist party this country has. this ruling and their opinion proves it.

prime candidates for the Religious Left these freaks. yup.

scouse_dave
06-26-2002, 03:23 PM
thumbs down to the constitution in general

Nate the Grate
06-26-2002, 03:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
thumbs down to the constitution in general</font>

http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/icons/icon5.gif
care to enlighten us on your reasoning?


[This message has been edited by Nate the Grate (edited 06-26-2002).]

sickbadthing
06-26-2002, 03:35 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
America was founded on the ideal of people being free to hold their own beliefs, whatever they were. It was not founded under any god.</font>

Shut up you vegan godless communist.

The Omega Concern
06-26-2002, 03:36 PM
originally bumbled by the brown-shirt Judge Alfred T. Goodwin:

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">"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,"</font>

This educated idiot can't properly decipher the word identical. God is not Jesus, Vishnu, Zeus, etc. For him to stretch the definition of 'identical' under an Establishment Clause premise is further proof he's a frustrated Marxist.

scouse_dave
06-26-2002, 03:44 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Nate the Grate:
care to enlighten us on your reasoning?
</font>

no problem, kind sir

it's used as the counter-argument to so many proposals that would potentially improve your country. "no - because it says in the constitution blah blah blah...". people aren't interested about whether it's a good idea or not, they'd rather adhere to a flawed and outdated 200-odd-year old document

each idea should be taken on its individual merits, that's my argument<font color=black>

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-26-2002).]

DeviousJ
06-26-2002, 03:48 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sickbadthing:
Shut up you vegan godless communist.</font>

My inner child says fuck you!

Delta
06-26-2002, 03:49 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by **********:
That's crap... our nation was founded under God, and there is freedom of religion in the U.S. but one should still recognize the people who founded the nation. More than anything it should be a respect to our nation's past.</font>

it had nothing to do with the founding of the country. eisenhower added that line in the 50's because of his own beliefs, not to pay homage to history

bittertrance
06-26-2002, 03:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no problem, kind sir

im still bitter about the revolutionary war

[This message has been edited by scouse_dave (edited 06-26-2002).]</font>


i would have to agree that religion shouldn't be enforced...but isn't "God" a pretty broad term? It doesn't say anywhere about a specific religion

and if you are Atheist....why does using the word god even matter if there is no higher power? can't you just laugh it off?

DeviousJ
06-26-2002, 04:00 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
and if you are Atheist....why does using the word god even matter if there is no higher power? can't you just laugh it off?</font>

Well, to make an extreme example, if you don't believe in an Aryan master race does that mean you can laugh off the ideology of Nazi Germany? If people are using personal beliefs to control aspects of people's lives, it should be cause for questioning.

sickbadthing
06-26-2002, 04:02 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no problem, kind sir

it's used as the counter-argument to so many proposals that would potentially improve your country. "no - because it says in the constitution blah blah blah...". people aren't interested about whether it's a good idea or not, they'd rather adhere to a flawed and outdated 200-odd-year old document

each idea should be taken on its individual merits, that's my argument.</font>

But we have that... they're called amendments? I don't think there's anything wrong with the constitution. It's the blatant disregard for it. If nobody cares, the government tries to get away with whatever they can. There are many laws that are anti-constitutional but because of general consensus of a wide majority of morons who live in this country, politicians get away with passing laws that are oppressive.

If this gets the pledge of allegiance out of schools, then I hope they take the "In God We Trust" off of the fucking coins as well.

Salena Child
06-26-2002, 04:08 PM
i wonder why they just can't make the kids recite the original form of pledge of allegiance that francis bellamy wrote.

------------------
"i've heard of unisex, but i've never had it."-monty python.

bonsor
06-26-2002, 04:08 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
i would have to agree that religion shouldn't be enforced...but isn't "God" a pretty broad term? It doesn't say anywhere about a specific religion</font><font color="0084ff">By putting 'under god' in the Pledge, you are alienating people with polytheistic belief system, atheists and agnostics, and they make up a pretty big piece of the american pie.

The pledge was written by a priest sometime in the 1800s, a priest who knew it would be against the spirit of the constitution to make any mention of god in the pledge.

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 04:16 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sickbadthing:
But we have that... they're called amendments? I don't think there's anything wrong with the constitution. It's the blatant disregard for it. If nobody cares, the government tries to get away with whatever they can. There are many laws that are anti-constitutional but because of general consensus of a wide majority of morons who live in this country, politicians get away with passing laws that are oppressive.</font>

Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.

The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned. Why can't you get over the fact that it was written by old men, most of whom had black slaves, and treated women AS slaves. Who gives a fuck if no Constitution allows more legislation? This country runs better under more government. Ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Society? This is when our nation was most prosperous. Read a history book.

17 Seconds
06-26-2002, 04:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sickbadthing:
Ha ha. What revisionist history book have you been reading?</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Delta:
it had nothing to do with the founding of the country. eisenhower added that line in the 50's because of his own beliefs, not to pay homage to history</font>

From the Declaration of Independence:
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.</font>

Junebug
06-26-2002, 04:19 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by DeviousJ:
If people are using personal beliefs to control aspects of people's lives, it should be cause for questioning.</font>

pardon my confustion...are you specifically referring to the constitution here? I personally don't see how the words "under God" are used to control aspects of personal lives...but maybe I misunderstood you.

bonsor
06-26-2002, 04:22 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.</font><font color="0084ff">The constitution was last amended about 10 years ago.

Do you even know why there is a constitution? It's the document by which everything in the government operates. Everything. If the constitution was really easy to modify, it wouldn't be stable. It's supposed to be an adamantly stable document. Only drastic changes that are highly demanded are made to it.

Have you ever read the constitution? It's quite obvious that you haven't. Take a glance over it and see how very wrong you are.

sickbadthing
06-26-2002, 04:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Do you have any fucking clue what it takes to amend the Constitution? It's almost impossible, and that's why there hasn't been one for about 30 years.

The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned. Why can't you get over the fact that it was written by old men, most of whom had black slaves, and treated women AS slaves. Who gives a fuck if no Constitution allows more legislation? This country runs better under more government. Ever heard of the New Deal or the Great Society? This is when our nation was most prosperous. Read a history book.

</font>


Liberal pantywaist. Go get a handjob from Mao's corpse.

scouse_dave
06-26-2002, 04:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
im still bitter about the revolutionary war
</font>

haha, whatever...

DeviousJ
06-26-2002, 04:30 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Junebug:
pardon my confustion...are you specifically referring to the constitution here? I personally don't see how the words "under God" are used to control aspects of personal lives...but maybe I misunderstood you.</font>

Because the phrase is symbolic of how the separation of church and state (which is an important concept) is not maintained. People in positions of power are able to pursue their own religious agendas, which impacts on the lives of the population. Witness the diversions of public funds into programs such as the promotion of christianity, and lobbying against established abortion rights. You get the idea

scouse_dave
06-26-2002, 04:32 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
The Constitution is shit and needs to be burned. </font>

new sig?

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 04:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ******:
The constitution was last amended about 10 years ago.

Do you even know why there is a constitution? It's the document by which everything in the government operates. Everything. If the constitution was really easy to modify, it wouldn't be stable. It's supposed to be an adamantly stable document. Only drastic changes that are highly demanded are made to it.

Have you ever read the constitution? It's quite obvious that you haven't. Take a glance over it and see how very wrong you are.</font>

The amendment that was ratified ten years ago was originally passed in 1789 moron. It's been 30 years since an amendement passed that was started in the last 50 years. If it takes 200 years just to ratify an amendment, then as I said, it's almost impossible to do.

The reason why the Constitution is so worthless is because it is such a GENERAL document. Each article can be interpreted in so many ways. Why even have a document like that when Congress and the Supreme Court are going to make their own rules and interpretations anyway?

If anything, the Constitution creates instability because you have all these groups protesting each other about what the Old White Men actually meant when they wrote that shit.

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 04:43 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sickbadthing:

Liberal pantywaist. Go get a handjob from Mao's corpse.</font>

I consider myself to be a centrist. Even a centrist can see that more government, when accepted by the masses, creates prosperity. Just take a look at FDR's administration. You'll figure it out.

bonsor
06-26-2002, 04:44 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Even a centrist can see that more government, when accepted by the masses, creates prosperity. Just take a look at FDR's administration. You'll figure it out.</font><font color="0084ff">Sounds pretty liberal to me, dickweed.

Delta
06-26-2002, 04:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by 17 Seconds:
post quoting the constitution</font>

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">(from the CNN article, verbatim)
The phrase was added in 1954 through legislation signed by President Eisenhower. The appeals court noted that Eisenhower wrote then that "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."</font>

it doesnt matter if the word 'God' showed up in some political document before 1954, the appearence of 'God' in the pledge of allegiance actually was based on eisenhower's personal beliefs, and not on the beliefs of jefferson or any of the other founding fathers

bonsor
06-26-2002, 04:48 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
The reason why the Constitution is so worthless is because it is such a GENERAL document. Each article can be interpreted in so many ways. Why even have a document like that when Congress and the Supreme Court are going to make their own rules and interpretations anyway?</font>

Are you oblivious to the fact that you elect the people that serve in congress, you fuckwit?

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 04:52 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ******:
Are you oblivious to the fact that you elect the people that serve in congress, you fuckwit?</font>

Are you oblivious to the fact that once politicians are elected to office by the people, they become influenced solely by money/big business and special interests, cunt cheese?

Green Plastic
06-26-2002, 04:55 PM
Congress and the White House have already blasted the ruling, and when gets to the Supreme Court, it will be D.O.A.

17 Seconds
06-26-2002, 04:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Delta:
it doesnt matter if the word 'God' showed up in some political document before 1954, the appearence of 'God' in the pledge of allegiance actually was based on eisenhower's personal beliefs, and not on the beliefs of jefferson or any of the other founding fathers</font>

If Eisenhower signed legislation, it first would have been passed by Congress. There fore it could not have been solely Eisenhower's belief.

And since God was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, how can you assume that it was merely Eisenhower's personal belief? Couldn't he be reiterating the beliefs of the Founding Fathers--including in the Pledge of Allegiance the same thoughts/beliefs documented in the D of I?

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 05:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Green Plastic:
Congress and the White House have already blasted the ruling, and when gets to the Supreme Court, it will be D.O.A.</font>

That's obvious after reading this:

"In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 27 of 29 9th Circuit decisions so that tells you that the 9th Circuit is out of step with the rest of the federal judiciary," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.


This just shows that what happens when a judicial body continually attempts to bring the U.S. into the 21st century. The Supreme Court puts us back into the 18th century. And not only is it impossible to change the Constitution, it's just as hard to change the Supreme Court, especially when they choose our President.

Smiley33
06-26-2002, 05:09 PM
hahaha. I wrote an article on exactly that, and the vice principal refused to let us print it because it was "too controversial." There's some values to teach high school journalists - stay away from controversial topics! Write about scrapbooking and wholesome movies!

ajklfhkjJKAS,DFHKJASH KASJDHFLKAJ LKASJHDFLK LIASUFGHLKASHFLUYAWE[;YRWK;;' 'ASDFJK; UHGFLA WIUYER;.



[This message has been edited by Smiley33 (edited 06-26-2002).]

Green Plastic
06-26-2002, 05:10 PM
The Supreme Court is considered to be one of the most conservative courts in the country as well...

It's interesting to note though, that at the beginning of each day the court is in session, God is mentioned at the beginning of the day... I forget the exact phrase, something along the lines of "May God watch over this court..." This means that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals hear that every day...

sawdust restaurants
06-26-2002, 05:13 PM
The first words of the First Amendment are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "

If you can tell me how the placing of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, a document which is required to be recited by millions of schoolchildren across this country each day and that is meant to lay out some of the most basic tenets of American society, does not favor the establishment of a monotheistic Judeo-Christian heritage in this country, by all means, let me know.

And I loved this part of the Bush administration's response: "The Supreme Court starts off its sessions by [evoking God]." Despite the fact that's fundamentally different than reciting a pledge to a bunch of impressionable schoolchildren--a pledge that was put into law by the Congress, which is not the same thing as a traditional greeting of a high court. That's not in the law--and, frankly, if it is, that's unconstitutional, too.

And by the way--don't give me that Founding Fathers crap. Many of them were deists. The Second Great Awakening was a direct response to the trend towards deism started in America by some of its biggest celebrities at the time--the Founding Fathers. Just because a document says something (e.g. the references to God in the D of I) doesn't make it golden.

Thank God for the court's sanity and levelheadedness among this post-9/11 religious fervor. (Another interesting point: there are lots of parallels between America now and America in 1954, when Eisenhower's administration put "under God" in the pledge. Any time America undergoes crisis, its people run towards their God--which is fine, that's their right, but it's ridiculous to purge the rights of others in doing so.)

twice
06-26-2002, 05:15 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Smiley33:

ajklfhkjJKAS,DFHKJASH KASJDHFLKAJ LKASJHDFLK LIASUFGHLKASHFLUYAWE[;YRWK;;' 'ASDFJK; UHGFLA WIUYER;.

</font>

werd.

Smiley33
06-26-2002, 05:16 PM
Isn't there some mention of God in the courts too? Do they still use that to swear you in? I'm fucking slow

bonsor
06-26-2002, 05:18 PM
<font color="0084ff">Once again, Chris manages to phrases thing about 50 times better than I ever could.

sawdust restaurants
06-26-2002, 05:21 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
i would have to agree that religion shouldn't be enforced...but isn't "God" a pretty broad term? It doesn't say anywhere about a specific religion</font>

If I say "God," can you really tell me you'll think of a religion that isn't based in either a Jewish or a Christian tradition?

Plus, even if it is a broad term, it completely ignores any polytheistic tradition. The Pledge is explicit: a nation under God, capital G. In other words, one god.

And finally, even if I thought you were 100% correct (and I do see your point, although I don't agree with it) I don't think that's the issue. It doesn't have to say anything about a specific religion. It shouldn't say anything about religion at all. Religion can be a wonderful thing for many people, but it has no place in a pledge of allegiance to a country that purports religious freedom, especially a pledge passed by and advocated by the government.

By the way: I feel I should mention that I'm not some anti-religious, leftist freak. Although there is a great deal of Christianity I don't agree with, I'm in church every Sunday. I find it fascinating, and I definitely believe in a higher power. But if somebody doesn't want to--if they genuinely just don't believe--I will damn well make sure that they don't meet any opposition in me.

Can You Hear Me Now?Good!
06-26-2002, 05:47 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
By the way: I feel I should mention that I'm not some anti-religious, leftist freak. Although there is a great deal of Christianity I don't agree with, I'm in church every Sunday. I find it fascinating, and I definitely believe in a higher power. But if somebody doesn't want to--if they genuinely just don't believe--I will damn well make sure that they don't meet any opposition in me.</font>

And I think that this is exactly the viewpoint held by the judges on the 9th Circuit. This ruling does not mean that they don't believe in a god, it just means that they don't feel students should be forced to recite something they don't believe in. Schools around here do the pledge between 2nd and 3rd periods. That is absolutely absurd and it takes away class time. The Pledge is something that should be optional, and should be taken care of before school starts, off school grounds. If you just HAVE to have a dose of patriotism in the morning, just recite it at the bus stop while you're waiting for the bus. It really wouldn't change anything.

And God is only half the issue here. The court is also protecting those who don't feel the need or want to be patriotic to this country.

This country has been VERY bad to ALOT of people for a VERY long time, and continues to be that way. People in this country are always just thinking of themselves. Wake up, not everyone thinks of this country as the land of opportunity. Don't trick them into thinking that it is by forcing them to recite this bullshit.

Irrelevant
06-26-2002, 05:55 PM
i love this decision and i hate anyone who disagrees with it.

fuck the selfish christian majority and fuck the government which seeks to please them. it's so sad that the people in this country who are supposed to know the most about civil liberties and the constitution are the ones who are most blind to the fact that it specifically outlines the illegality of government endorsement of religion.

Mayfuck
06-26-2002, 05:57 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Are you oblivious to the fact that once politicians are elected to office by the people, they become influenced solely by money/big business and special interests, cunt cheese?

</font>

What's wrong with special interest? You yourself are a special interest. Congresspeople who want to be re-elected care very much about giving their constituents what they want.

Mayfuck
06-26-2002, 06:02 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by scouse_dave:
no problem, kind sir

it's used as the counter-argument to so many proposals that would potentially improve your country. "no - because it says in the constitution blah blah blah...". people aren't interested about whether it's a good idea or not, they'd rather adhere to a flawed and outdated 200-odd-year old document

each idea should be taken on its individual merits, that's my argument<font color=black>

</font>

There are different thoughts of jurisprudence on the Constitution. The one you presented is that of a strict constructionist. An activist though would look at to the Constitution as a basis or spirit of the law. And to the idiot who said the Constitution is outdated and no longer pragmatic and therefore should be burned, being that the Constitution is open to such interpretation makes it a flexible document yet consistent in its philosophy. The fact that it can still be applied to today's society, Founding Father's intentions notwithstanding, makes it one of the best documents ever written.

bittertrance
06-26-2002, 06:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
If I say "God," can you really tell me you'll think of a religion that isn't based in either a Jewish or a Christian tradition?

Plus, even if it is a broad term, it completely ignores any polytheistic tradition. The Pledge is explicit: a nation under God, capital G. In other words, one god.

And finally, even if I thought you were 100% correct (and I do see your point, although I don't agree with it) I don't think that's the issue. It doesn't have to say anything about a specific religion. It shouldn't say anything about religion at all. Religion can be a wonderful thing for many people, but it has no place in a pledge of allegiance to a country that purports religious freedom, especially a pledge passed by and advocated by the government.

By the way: I feel I should mention that I'm not some anti-religious, leftist freak. Although there is a great deal of Christianity I don't agree with, I'm in church every Sunday. I find it fascinating, and I definitely believe in a higher power. But if somebody doesn't want to--if they genuinely just don't believe--I will damn well make sure that they don't meet any opposition in me.</font>

God is an English word, right? God is used in more than one way right? It doesnt say "one nation under Jesus's father" its a vague term....it is not partial to any one God

CHRIST ALMIGHTY

liberals have waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands

in the past and even still today people are beaten, killed, tortured, executed by governments for beleiving a certain way and in this country so many people bitch and moan about ONE FUCKING WORD said around them

LIGHTEN UP!!!!

Dead Frequency
06-26-2002, 06:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Can You Hear Me Now?Good!:
Schools around here do the pledge between 2nd and 3rd periods. That is absolutely absurd... </font>

Between 2nd and 3rd period?! That is absurd.

The Omega Concern
06-26-2002, 06:21 PM
originally posted by sawdust restaurant:

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">The first words of the First Amendment are as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ... "
If you can tell me how the placing of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, a document which is required to be recited by millions of schoolchildren across this country each day and that is meant to lay out some of the most basic tenets of American society, does not favor the establishment of a monotheistic Judeo-Christian heritage in this country, by all means, let me know. </font>

Here is the crux of the issue, and I would say it is very well stated. But where is it stated anywhere that "God" has to be tied to religion? It doesnt, and I am free to think as such, so the term in the pledge can be innocuous. The opinion by the court here assumes it is directly tied to religion, to me, this is an arguable point.

And its a point that I will argue against this particular court because they are living proof of ol' Senator Joe McCarthy's postulations.

And that's really the crux of the issue, IMO. This court uses the consitution to undermine America the way Al-Queda and the Taliban use Allah to justify killing Americans.

Welcome to the culture war. Pick a side or get the fuck out of the way so the fight can continue.

Green Plastic
06-26-2002, 06:21 PM
I can't remember the last time we said the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

pastor
06-26-2002, 06:59 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:
God is an English word, right? God is used in more than one way right? It doesnt say "one nation under Jesus's father" its a vague term....it is not partial to any one God

CHRIST ALMIGHTY

liberals have waaaaaaaay too much time on their hands

in the past and even still today people are beaten, killed, tortured, executed by governments for beleiving a certain way and in this country so many people bitch and moan about ONE FUCKING WORD said around them

LIGHTEN UP!!!!</font>

my eyes glaze over whenever i see people ignoring the basic truth that words have power. what may seem like a petty squabble to you is actually an important discourse on the ideologies that underlie the everyday actions of every american citizen. words are the expression of thought; thought is the source of all actions. the government-enforced beatings, killings, torturings, and executions that you decry are all the result of infirmities in thought, namely of the fear and the lack of empathy for those who don't share the religious, political, and cultural ideologies of those in power. and while the u.s. government is a galaxy and a couple of dark ages away from committing the mass extermination of all atheists, agnostics, and polytheists, the inclusion of two important words in the pledge is a reflection of that same spirit of exclusion of "others." the old "slippery slope" argument that still rings true despite its status as a cliche.

deviousj made an important point in one of his earlier posts: "the phrase is symbolic of how the separation of church and state is not maintained." you're right, in a pragmatic sense. uttering three innocuous syllables won't kill me. but symbols are just our collective unconscious bubbling to the surface. they indicate ways of thought that bleed into our everyday actions and interactions. they are important.

the reason people meticulously agonize over such minute details in documents like the constitution and the pledge is that they want to get it right. why deal with intolerant actions and policies in a reacitionary manner when they can be dealt with proactively at their root, at the symbolic level? i see those words as two small fragments being chipped away from a core american ideological tenet.

...and i have the nagging suspicion you aren't going to read all that.

sawdust restaurants
06-26-2002, 06:59 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by The Omega Concern:
But where is it stated anywhere that "God" has to be tied to religion? It doesnt, and I am free to think as such, so the term in the pledge can be innocuous.</font>

This is basically the same thing that Jared said, and neither one of you understands the situation at all. Did you guys read the quote from Eisenhower upon addition of the words to the Pledge in '54? About how millions of schoolchildren would proclaim, happily and loudly, how they love "the Almighty"? I don't give a flying fuck what you perceive God to be, and frankly, it's not important to your arguments. A monotheistic, Judeo-Christian God is implied in the Pledge. Period. (And for Christ's sake, if you're evoking the ideology of Senator McCarthy, no wonder you think the way you do. Paranoia such as yours merely fuels the things you're rallying against.)

And yes, there are lots of totalitarian governments that run disgusting, despotic, murderous regimes. Many of them impose religion on their people.

I really couldn't care less whether or not some kids heard "under God" every day in the Pledge of Allegiance. But Jared, look at what you're saying, man. "People are beaten, killed, tortured, executed by governments for believing a certain way." That's exactly what this is about. It isn't about some kids having to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. This is about principles--the principle that this is America, a country which, in its most important document of law, explicitly states that people will not have their freedom of religion pounced upon by the government. If you tell kids day in and day out that they should be reciting something with the words "under God" in it--a recitation, I should point out, led by teachers, who are government workers--then God damnit, in principle, we are no fucking better than the Chinese or the Saudis or the Iranians or basically the entire African continent. That's what pisses me off. You tell me to lighten up, but if everybody lightened up as much as you, we would be getting shit on even more than we already are by Ashcroft and his cronies, who will gladly collect more and more power under the guise of fighting terrorism.

Can I do jack shit to stop it? Of course not. But that doesn't stop me from thinking it's wrong.

[This message has been edited by sawdust restaurants (edited 06-26-2002).]

sawdust restaurants
06-26-2002, 07:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by pastor:
(omitted here for the sake of keeping the thread tidy)</font>

That's what I was trying to say.

sawdust restaurants
06-26-2002, 07:08 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by **********:
Ahhh... you are now one of my favorite netphorians. if people don't like it, leave. try living in Saudi Arabia or China, then you'll think differently and you may actually appreciate everything you've been given.</font>

Hurray for America, where we can pump money into something as asinine as the WWF while those people who attempt to do anything in Saudi are negated by oil interests!

You are truly, extraordinarily wrong. Read pastor's post.

useful idiot
06-26-2002, 07:23 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by sawdust restaurants:
Hurray for America, where we can pump money into something as asinine as the WWF while those people who attempt to do anything in Saudi are negated by oil interests!

You are truly, extraordinarily wrong. Read pastor's post.</font>

dont bring the world wildlife fund into this.

bittertrance
06-26-2002, 07:55 PM
look, i am indifferent about the whole thing

take it out...leave it...dont say the pledge...say it....

it wont change my life at all<---that is my point

it IS a pesky trivial squabble and i think you underestimate other peoples' ability to think for themselves

bittertrance
06-26-2002, 07:59 PM
and pastor..i did read all of it

i respect your guys' opinion, i just think youre reading too far into something that in the long run (and even today) doesnt really have a big effect on our society

wangcomputers
06-26-2002, 08:05 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
There are different thoughts of jurisprudence on the Constitution. The one you presented is that of a strict constructionist. An activist though would look at to the Constitution as a basis or spirit of the law. And to the idiot who said the Constitution is outdated and no longer pragmatic and therefore should be burned, being that the Constitution is open to such interpretation makes it a flexible document yet consistent in its philosophy. The fact that it can still be applied to today's society, Founding Father's intentions notwithstanding, makes it one of the best documents ever written.</font>

Considering that the American constitution is written, I can see how it could be seen as inadequate. It can be ratified and amended but it isn't that flexible.

The English constitution is largely unwritten and based on principles such as the rule of law, and the doctrine of the separation of powers. They are considered sacrosanct, and they are principles that cannot be altered. I think this gives better protection from an abuse of powers.
They are rigid principles, yet their application is flexible.
The UK constitution, by comparison with the constitutions of the US and Australia, represents the height of flexibility.
Any interference from outside bodies are considered inherently unlawful.<font color=black><font size=1>
<bgsound src="http://www.flyinghellfish.com/sounds/amendment.wav">

[This message has been edited by wangcomputers (edited 06-27-2002).]

bittertrance
06-26-2002, 08:10 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by wangcomputers:

The English constitution is largely unwritten and based on principles such as the rule of law, and the doctrine of the separation of powers. .</font>

God save the queen?

wangcomputers
06-26-2002, 08:22 PM
erm, when you're talking about the inadequacies of a constitution, is it not useful to compare it with other types of constitution?
i had to compare the two systems for my studies, so I do (kinda) know what I'm talking about.<font color=black>

[This message has been edited by wangcomputers (edited 06-26-2002).]

mpp
06-26-2002, 08:29 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by ******:
[QUOTE]By putting 'under god' in the Pledge, you are alienating people with polytheistic belief system, atheists and agnostics, and they make up a pretty big piece of the american pie.

</font>


false.

about one million people in the US identify as atheist

polytheistic?? probably about 11 or 12 people or so

agnostic? admittedly more but not much more; i'll give you 5 million to be extremely generous

that's less than 3% of the US population

if somebody gave me 3% of a pie, i'd be starving

mpp
06-26-2002, 08:37 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i love this decision and i hate anyone who disagrees with it.

</font>

better love it all you can while it lasts; it won't even last long enough to get implemented; the 9th Circuit will sit en banc and overrule this decision 9-2 (i think there are 11 judges in the 9th circuit, maybe more)

<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">
fuck the selfish christian majority and fuck the government which seeks to please them. </font>

democracy?

mpp
06-26-2002, 08:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
There are different thoughts of jurisprudence on the Constitution. The one you presented is that of a strict constructionist. An activist though would look at to the Constitution as a basis or spirit of the law. And to the idiot who said the Constitution is outdated and no longer pragmatic and therefore should be burned, being that the Constitution is open to such interpretation makes it a flexible document yet consistent in its philosophy. The fact that it can still be applied to today's society, Founding Father's intentions notwithstanding, makes it one of the best documents ever written.</font>


wow, this might be the most relevant thing you've added to Netphoria in a while

i totally agree; good analysis

Graveflower
06-26-2002, 08:45 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:

false.

about one million people in the US identify as atheist

polytheistic?? probably about 11 or 12 people or so

agnostic? admittedly more but not much more; i'll give you 5 million to be extremely generous

that's less than 3% of the US population

if somebody gave me 3% of a pie, i'd be starving</font>

They're still American people, and count. How about other religions who don't refer to their higher power as 'God'?

The Omega Concern
06-26-2002, 08:49 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">A monotheistic, Judeo-Christian God is implied in the Pledge. Period. (And for Christ's sake, if you're evoking the ideology of Senator McCarthy, no wonder you think the way you do. Paranoia such as yours merely fuels the things you're rallying against.)</font>

How does Eisenhower's sentiment in the pledge make the pledge unconstitutional? There is nothing there that establishes a State run religion...ergo, its not unconstitutional.

McCarthy's 'ideology' was merely dredging up facts about the communist party and their intentions. Facts of which were proven to be largely true in the mid-90's. To this day "McCarthyism" is regarded as claiming somewhat a Communist when they are not.

The facts show that McCarthy's claims were accurate. But when a LARGE majority of educators through a couple or 3 generations rail against the man because they have centralized government views that mirror those ideals of Karl Marx and the communist party of the Cold War, then I understand their contempt and the reasons why the history revisionism goes on about McCarthy to this day, and why history books about that era reflect their view of those proceedings and not the intricacies of incremental Marxism.

bonsor
06-26-2002, 09:06 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:

false.

about one million people in the US identify as atheist

polytheistic?? probably about 11 or 12 people or so

agnostic? admittedly more but not much more; i'll give you 5 million to be extremely generous

that's less than 3% of the US population

if somebody gave me 3% of a pie, i'd be starving</font>
<font color="0084ff">They make up a piece of the pie. That is all that matters.

The minority should be protected with as much consideration as the majority.

Irrelevant
06-26-2002, 09:13 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
democracy?</font>

i hate democracy because people are too stupid to know what's right.

Eulogy
06-26-2002, 10:04 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i hate democracy because people are too stupid to know what's right.</font>

Injektilo
06-26-2002, 10:18 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
democracy?

</font>

A key element of democracy is protecting the rights of minorities.
and to weigh in on the number of athiests debate, I just read a state that said anywhere from 4-13% of americans consider themselves athiest.
personally, I think they should just change it to "under a god, who may or may not exist..... etc etc.

Mayfuck
06-26-2002, 10:20 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by mpp:
polytheistic?? probably about 11 or 12 people or so
</font>

Like Hindus? I guarantee you there are more than 11 or 12 Hindus in this country.

Mayfuck
06-26-2002, 11:10 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i hate democracy because people are too stupid to know what's right.</font>

Like u?

kypper
06-26-2002, 11:11 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
Like u?

</font>

My problem is with people who think only THEY could ever be right. Like you.

Mayfuck
06-26-2002, 11:16 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by kypper:
My problem is with people who think only THEY could ever be right. Like you.</font>

lol, wow are you ever serious.

kypper
06-26-2002, 11:17 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
lol, wow are you ever serious.</font>

Ditto. Let's be frieeeeeeeeeeends http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/tongue.gif

[This message has been edited by kypper (edited 06-27-2002).]

TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld
06-26-2002, 11:38 PM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by The Omega Concern:
And its a point that I will argue against this particular court because they are living proof of ol' Senator Joe McCarthy's postulations.</font>

News flash! Here's an excerpt from the All-Inclusive List of Threats to America:

4,377: West Nile Virus
4,378: Rivaldo, Brazilian futbol superstar
4,379: Communism
4,380: Kinko's
4,381: Loud music

undivinemartyr
06-27-2002, 12:05 AM
DAMMIT.

I was sooo about to start off on this topic. Nevermind. So I wonder when they're going to move on about the money being unconstitutional... : )

bittertrance
06-27-2002, 12:18 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by undivinemartyr:
DAMMIT.

I was sooo about to start off on this topic. Nevermind. So I wonder when they're going to move on about the money being unconstitutional... : )</font>


wait until Christmas is illegal

undivinemartyr
06-27-2002, 12:28 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by bittertrance:

wait until Christmas is illegal</font>

But Christmas is just about Santa, and getting presents, and those annoying-to-get-in-the-house-and-decorate pine trees that get pine needle all over your floor, and reindeer games.

Why would that be illegal? http://www.netphoria.org/wwwboard/confused.gif

:-D

MisterSquishyHalo
06-27-2002, 01:48 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Green Plastic:
Congress and the White House have already blasted the ruling, and when gets to the Supreme Court, it will be D.O.A.</font>

It might true, but the appellete court was smart, they tied in many other rulings to help their case, rulings that were handed down by the supreme court. To reverse this case, the supreme court would have other similar cases that they might have to reverse, all-in-all very stick situation.

wangcomputers
06-27-2002, 02:07 AM
Boy: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress?
Amendment: I'm not garbage.
I'm an amendment to be
Yes, an amendment to be
And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me
There's a lot of flag burners
Who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal
For policemen
To beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
'Least I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.
Boy: But why can't we just make a law against flag burning?
Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution...
Boy: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws!
Amendment: Now you're catching on!
Bart: What the hell is this?
Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers.
Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little.
Boy: But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?
Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me
And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay
If he fights back
I'll say that he's gay
Big Fat Guy: Good news, Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution!
Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!

<marquee direction=left>
Boy: Hey, who left all this garbage on the steps of Congress? Amendment: I'm not garbage. I'm an amendment to be Yes, an amendment to be And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me There's a lot of flag burners Who have got too much freedom I wanna make it legal For policemen To beat 'em 'Cause there's limits to our liberties 'Least I hope and pray that there are 'Cause those liberal freaks go too far. Boy: But why can't we just make a law against flag burning? Amendment: Because that law would be unconstitutional. But if we changed the Constitution... Boy: Then we could make all sorts of crazy laws! Amendment: Now you're catching on! Bart: What the hell is this? Lisa: It's one of those campy '70s throwbacks that appeals to Generation Xers. Bart: We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a little. Boy: But what if they say you're not good enough to be in the Constitution?Amendment: Then I'll destroy all opposition to me And I'll make Ted Kennedy pay If he fights back I'll say that he's gay Big Fat Guy: Good news,Amendment! They ratified 'ya. You're in the U.S. Constitution! Amendment: Oh, yeah! Door's open, boys!</marquee>
<bgsound src="http://www.flyinghellfish.com/sounds/amendment.wav"><font color=black>

[This message has been edited by wangcomputers (edited 06-27-2002).]

Thermo
06-27-2002, 02:09 AM
Can this decision have possibly come at a worse time? Our basic civil liberties are in jeopardy, but we're going to be spending our time as a society arguing about whether or not schoolchildren should be forced to pay tribute to imaginary invisible beings who live in magical kingdoms in outer space somewhere. - Tom Tomorrow

Thermo
06-27-2002, 02:23 AM
This has nothing to do with what the Founding Fathers' beliefs were. The words "under God" where added after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus. They probably had the same vision that many have now: "This is what the Founding Fathers would have said."

I believe this isn't true. The Founding Fathers added the words 'Nature's God' to the Constitution. This seems to imply simply a higher power, the 'Reason we are here' so to speak. This doesn't seem to be a reference to the Judeo-Christian god.

Irrelevant
06-27-2002, 02:31 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
Like u?</font>

how many people really vote for what they think is right, after carefully weighing sides of the issue and thinking logistically about it?

how many vote according to what best fits their lifestyle?

this is the problem with democracy.

how many senators vote for what's right, and how many vote according to what the people of america like better? why is homosexual marriage still illegal?

mpp
06-27-2002, 04:01 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Graveflower:
They're still American people, and count. How about other religions who don't refer to their higher power as 'God'?

</font>

obviously.

i was referring to the adjective "big," not the assertion as a whole

mpp
06-27-2002, 04:02 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
i hate democracy because people are too stupid to know what's right.</font>

finally, a comrade in the fight against ignornace!

that's why i'm a democrat! people need to be told what to do with their lives for the country to be effective! hehe

mpp
06-27-2002, 04:04 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Mayfuck:
Like Hindus? I guarantee you there are more than 11 or 12 Hindus in this country.</font>

yeah you're right; maybe 15 or 20

TheHappiestBoyInTheWorld
06-27-2002, 04:52 AM
<font face="Arial, Verdana" size="2">Originally posted by Irrelevant:
how many people really vote for what they think is right, after carefully weighing sides of the issue and thinking logistically about it?

how many vote according to what best fits their lifestyle?

this is the problem with democracy.

how many senators vote for what's right, and how many vote according to what the people of america like better? why is homosexual marriage still illegal?</font>

While I agree that a democratic system is inherently flawed due to the selfish nature of the people, I don't think that fascism is much of a solution. Why is one person's morality better than another's?

I don't like the idea of someone else's idea of "right" being forced onto me, but that's an inevitability in any sort of democratic state.